Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science

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

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

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

Survey (Fox News news website)

• Downgrade (proposer) (I would accept deprecate as well, but I think downgrade is a more accurate view added Andrevan@ 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)), due to several recent instances of failed fact checking, as well as doubting the fact checkers, pushing COVID misinformation, promoting other conspiracy theories, and blurring of fact and opinion in coverage marked as news coverage, news portion should be downgraded to questionable and generally unreliable. Like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp), both are sensationalist and right-leaning at the expense of factual accuracy. It's beyond a bias and goes into the realm of "alternative facts." See discussion and sources for my reasoning in separate delineated sections below. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  note to closer, I changed my signature, but not my username. Andre🚐 18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Downgrade to generally unreliable for any reportingPolitics or Science. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. Edit: I would accept Option 4 (Deprecate) as a close second. (edited 10:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Personally I see Fox News on par with The Daily Mail and I think this is supported by the source bundle provided below by Andrevan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate (expanding beyond politics and science) - While what they are reporting on is true, it often ends up over sensationalized to the point that it is designed to sway a reader to the right. The new NewsGuard rating also partly plays a role. According to them they do a terrible job at gathering information responsibly (so as not to mislead readers), correcting errors regularly, or handling the difference between news and opinion. This expands beyond politics, as some of the stories that are being published are almost as sensational as Daily Mail. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo - I don’t see a significant change in Fox’s actual news coverage since the last time we had an RFC on it. Most of the fact checking that are outlined below is about inaccuracies in their headlines, and while those have gone downhill (less accurate and more clickbaity/sensationalized) - we already say that headlines are unreliable. Fox is much more careful about how they phrase things in the body of their articles. Are they perfect? No, but none of the major news outlets is. More importantly, they do issue corrections when they get something wrong (a mark in their favor). Indeed, the only reason why I am not !voting to promote Fox to “generally reliable” is that I don’t think any of the major news outlets deserve that status. We should use them all with caution. Finally, this RFC attempts to distinguish between the on-air reporting and the on-line reporting. I don’t think that is realistic. Are we saying that a news item that appears on (say) Special Report with Bret Baier is reliable, but the same news item appearing on the website isn’t? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Status quo Every example falls into the existing language that tells editors to be cautious of using Fox News for political or science topics on contentious claims, which these all are. No evidence has been presented of them being wrong all the time and particularly on more straight-forward news reporting in this area. I still would think editors can do better than Fox if there are alternate sources for the same story but there's no reason to downgrade to "generally unreliable" due to that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade I don't like that I have landed here, and I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of factual reporting still happening at Fox. It does seem to me, however, that as the opinion arm of the operation has accrued more power, the standards seem to have slipped. It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, and so I think a downgrade is called for at this time. All that said, reasonable minds may differ, of course. Happy Saturday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. At the least. The evidence below shows that any objectivity is pretty much lost and the website has gone full yellow journalism. Honestly, I could even say option 4, but I don't think it would carry. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo, I guess, or downgrade as to science in particular. I am confused by the combination of "politics and science", both here and in RSP. I cannot envision any circumstances under which Fox News would be a cromulent source for any scientific or medical claim. If Fox News is the best support for a scientific statement, it is not supportable. But their coverage of political events and processes can be quite decent. The existing RSP entry seems to express the need for reasonable editorial judgment pretty well. If there is a pressing problem of Wikipedians adding Fox News to science articles (and not being swiftly reverted), we should probably discuss that more specifically. If not, it doesn't seem like there's a problem requiring a solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  100% agree, except when Fox is used for the "scientific" views of politicians and talking heads. I almost made the suggestion myself that politics and science be separated, since I've found Fox more reliable for politics than science. Still, selection remains the major bias in their actual news, not opinion, science articles. YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, downgrading it will not embiggen Wikipedia overall. I think the issue on science is not when they talk about say the James Webb Telescope [1] but when they talk about something that is the intersection of science and politics. Historically that has been climate change and more recently COVID. Springee (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade as the full yellow journalism description is apt. I share the regret expressed above but concur that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, or to put it differently, the work of doing so would require in each instance finding better sources, at which point we should just use those instead. Likewise, debating over what counts as a "contentious claim" is a drain upon the scarce resource that is volunteer time, and resolving any such dispute means finding sources that, again, we should just use instead. Doubtless people will be upset about a downgrade, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that giving in to whining is poor parenting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree: the core problem is that FoxNews.com admixes factual reporting with false claims and argumentation; sometimes within existing stories. It's most clear when there's a FoxNews version of a wire story. But I agree that the key issue is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to be expected to be able to discern the reliable content from the misleading / false content. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or deprecate. It's true that on occasion Fox reports a citeable fact reliably, but in general it's rife with selective reporting and spin. When I see it cited, I generally look to corroborate whatever was said in a different, less partisan source; this is a sign that we should cite other sources in the first place. FalconK (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Fox News isnt a reliable source overall, especially for science and politics. It constantly blurs the line between news and entertainment, and is always pushing a POV. Softlemonades (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade but do not deprecate I think deprecating goes too far, as there can be some legitimate uses for Fox as a source, but I do agree with a lot of the above, in particular the sensationalism aspect, especially with regards to science and politics. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - as it's on par with MSNBC news, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

  JPxG, please see failed fact checks in section below. Info on the editorial changes in the online operation: Dec 2020 - "Hannity’s Crony Has Taken Over Fox News Digital—and It’s a Disaster, Staffers Say" "Over the past several years, the conservative tenor of Fox News’ opinion coverage has seeped more and more into the company’s popular digital brands." "Close observers of Fox News’ digital properties note that the main site has skewed even further to the right under Berry’s leadership. Under its previous leader, former Today show producer and Daily Mail editor-in-chief Noah Kotch, the site more closely resembled a right-leaning tabloid, mixing breaking news with politics, salacious crime stories, and celebrity news. But in recent months, the website—ostensibly part of the network’s “straight news” division—has leaned more into aggregation of conservative culture-war stories and straight write-ups of commentary delivered on opinion shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity. At the same time, the site has been called out for burying or wildly spinning news that is unflattering or negative for Trump" "One recently departed Fox staffer described Berry’s leadership style as wanting to “toe the company line regardless of the fact gathering or editorial importance of a story.”[2] Also this NYT piece [3] "Soon after the Capitol riot, Fox replaced its 7 p.m. host — Martha MacCallum, a news anchor and part of the political reporting team — with another hour of right-wing opinion programming. Mr. Stirewalt, the political editor, who had vanished from the air after defending the Arizona call, was fired; his boss, Fox’s Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, retired. More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Publicly, Fox portrayed these changes as a restructuring, but as with the Moneyball initiative, their impact was felt chiefly in the news ranks, now an expensive and increasingly distracting legacy of the Ailes era." Andrevan@ 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Status Quo (first option, but reword) or Downgrade (second POV from me, especially for science-related articles). The below evidence show excellently Fox News's worsening in bias. Even in 2010, it's biased and probably contributed to the Tea Party Movement, but in 2020, after COVID-19, increased polarisation... it's becoming worse. Yes, IMO its opinion pieces and cable shows (mainly Carlson, Hannity... whose show is appalling conservative propaganda-like). The headlines of Fox News are disturbingly distorted, though WP RS guidelines doesn't judge headlines. At least its main reporting typically is a bit more careful to avoid downright false or misleading info, but over these years, it's pushing the boundaries. Though its controversies are far too many, see the refs provided on our WP page [4], it participates in weak, occasional climate change denial (it isn't Daily Mail or Daily Wire in unambiguous climate change doubting, but is, in some cases, fairly close). And then there's the occasional misleading (not entirely false, at least in news articles) coverage of COVID-19, so I don't understand why this should be science (I might support downgrading generally unreliable for science-related issues, firstly, scholarly peer-reviewed papers should be confirmed, even if citing mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, while not the best, are still far better. Similarly for politics- Fox News's failed fact checks are very clear, though it doesn't rountinely publish false info, but it does somewhat distort and mislead the reader occasionally to its own advantage, considering there're far better media refs, why should this be cited (if there's no other good refs, it could be cited as a last resort)? Further, for contentious claims only present in Fox News, I would think these are generally unreiable. Still, IMO deprecation is... too much? It still has occasionally some usable content for politics and science, and probably is marginally reliable (quite biased to the extent it's more than WP:BIASED, but isn't extremely misleading) more than when it's generally unreliable, so I don't support deprecation. And the downward trend of Fox News is fairly clear; I had a look at the 2020 RfC, with additional consideration being the middle ground; right now, generally unreliable seems to be the consensus. But if the closure is status quo, the current wording is far too weak: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). IMO the bias of Fox is way worse to just say [editors] perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics. PS: I know this isn't relevant, but I support full deprecation for talk shows. Many thanks, please see the fact-checks and the more concise comments by other editors! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to generally unreliable or even depreciated. Over the last year, coverage of Fox has only gotten worse. See eg. The second is that Fox News disseminates misinformation. This is the case for some proconservative misperceptions (Feldman et al., 2012; Harmon & Muenchen, 2009; Nyhan, 2010). Fox News ran stories with themes similar to..., or Discrediting the elite creates a niche in the media market filled by non-elite outlets (e.g., Fox news) which, because they are only demanded due to beliefs in the alternative reality, spread misinformation to reinforce those beliefs., or [Fox News] produces almost exclusively misinformation and disinformation on a daily basis. or - a lot of these touch on COVID misinformation in particular, but they show that the problem goes beyond that. In past discussions people have theorized that a line of separation can be drawn between Fox's talk programs and its news coverage; but that isn't actually something most coverage focuses on, and what coverage there is actually says that on Fox, there is little distinction between news and commentary. COVID in particular shows that Fox's ideological mission-statement means that it will produce misinformation across the entire spectrum of its output when doing so is necessary to advance its political agenda. Being biased, of course, is not itself a reason for a source to be unreliable; but systematic, institutional bias that leads a source to regularly produce deliberate misinformation in the service of its biases absolutely is, because it means that these problems are not one-offs but are inherent to Fox's structure and purpose. EDIT: One other thing I want to emphasize is that, debates over its reliability aside, at the bare minimum there is little doubt among RSes that it is a starkly WP:BIASED source; it should never be used as a source for statements of fact about politics in the article voice, only with in-line attribution that makes its bias clear. ie. it should be cited only using in-text statements like "According to the website of conservative news channel Fox News..." or the like per the guidance in WP:BIASED, since based on coverage it is among the most starkly biased sources that we cite with any regularity. Additional sources: --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  "deliberate misinformation" doesn't exist. See misinformation and disinformation. GreenC 23:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

  I'd be happy to consider supporting such an RFC for MSNBC if any editors can provide similar evidence towards its unreliability. Please provide it if you have it available. In the meantime, whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem like an argument to upgrade Fox News. Andrevan@ 00:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, "getting it wrong" is very different than consistently providing misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Status Quo for a number of reasons. First, where are any examples of status quo causing issues? For politics and science we already caution people when using Fox as a source. Is there any evidence this caution isn't being followed? If not then we aren't solving a problem, instead we are creating a problem, one that Wikipedia is already suffering from, by violating the idea that RS should be judged on a case by case basis rather than using lazy/strategic bucketing of sources based on popularity. Second, what has changed since the last, stillborn discussion from just a few months back [5]? Some of the cited sources against fox predate the previous RfCs so nothing has changed there. They were considered but couldn't get consensus. That seems like people are just hoping if they ask the question enough times they will finally get the answer they want. As for evidence, Fox has a big target on it so it's not surprising that a lot of sources will try to score points with readers by attacking it (while ignoring the same out of sources that are on their own political side). One of the editors who open this considers it to be evidence that Fox has criticized Politifact as biased. That criticism from Fox is well founded. There are a number of examples of Politifact taking a set of facts and arguing to a conclusion rather than answering if that set of facts could reasonably draw the conclusion they are claiming to be false (I've considered opening up a RSN discussion related to this exact problem as I've been collecting examples). Some have cited News Guard's recent downgrade. If we are accepting NG then we need to upgrade source like the Post Millennial (green per NG) and downgrade MSNBC as well as the Daily Beast (a source that is already yellow). Really, this illustrates the problem with the RSP list. Rather than considering sources on a case by case basis it becomes a strategic effort to throw out sources wholesale. This is dangerous if Wikipedia's mission is to truly provide a range of views rather than become an echo chamber of just the sources editors like. Given the lack of evidence of an issue the status quo rating is clearly working thus no change is needed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) edit to fix per Firefangledfeathers's catch below! Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The 2022 discussion does not appear to have been a proper RFC. So to clarify, you do not consider Politifact reliable for fact-checks. As to a current problem with this being followed, ere are two recent diffs [6] [7] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Warnock quote in the first diff appears to be real. The second thing with the Israeli company seemed odd, but it also appears to not be supported directly by the Fox News source anyway. The source is talking about the system being hacked through a backdoor, rather than Comverse Infosys providing information to Al-Qaeda. So yes, the second was inappropriate, but it was inappropriate because the content wasn't supported by the Fox News piece. Only the text of the CounterPunch piece directly supported that statement, and WP:COUNTERPUNCH is a thing in part because of the magazine's tendency to publish 9/11-related and other conspiracy theories. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the Warnock quote is fake or fabricated, but the Fox News source is accusing Warnock of lying or flip-flopping, it matches exactly a right-wing GOP talking point, and the reality is more complicated. The Warnock statements were taken out of context, the larger statements/sermons were generally about voter suppression, and most of them date to a time before Warnock was in politics so it lacks the precision ascribed to it by Fox. Warnock stated he never opposed voter ID, which is true to the extent of the specific bill that he ended up supporting, or any bill in his political career. So the Fox News piece is misleading at best, and a smear that directly copies right-wing talking points. It goes to their general blurring of opinions and facts, not marking opinion as opinion, and it's being offered here as evidence that Fox News could simply be downgraded to make it clearer to editors it shouldn't be used in these ways. Andrevan@ 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here we are inadvertently wrapped-up in what appears to be WP:POV creep, and what I see as a cancel culture style approach to eliminate a RS that doesn't align with the partisan POV demonstrated by some on the left, which is understandable to this pragmatic editor in the center. Clickbait media is the epitome of partisan politics that purposely gathers and publishes material that appeals to their demographics; it's something experienced editors already know. They also know that our job is to leave our biases at login, and to present all substantial views from a NPOV, whether we like what was said or not. Granted, Warnock denied that his statement meant what that Fox journalist reported, but he did say it and the job of journalists is to interpret what politicians say and get it published - that is not our job. Ironically, Trump also claimed that a lot of things he said were misinterpreted by fake news, and some RS agreed with his POV and others did not. The material Andrevan removed per his comment above is similar in that Warnock denied that what he said actually meant what that journalist published, but he did say it, and some interpreted it to mean one thing whereas others interpreted quite the opposite. That is the heart of politics. Editors are expected to leave the interpretations to the journalists and use intext attribution if it's controversial, or we risk an OR vio, especially when the material is politically subjective. We present all substantial views based on what's published in reliable secondary sources, and avoid our own interpretations. We can include Warnock's denial but we should not eliminate the published material simply because our POV doesn't agree politically with what's published. We certainly should not even consider downgrading or canceling sources just because they don't agree with us politically. I align very closely with [[User talk:Atsme#Politics|Jimbo's POV] in how we should approach politics, presidents and NPOV, and I expect the same from all editors. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, it's a BLPvio to smear politicians with inaccurate and misleading talking points. Andrevan@ 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Not to badger you, I agree narrowly that really we should be considering Status Quo vs Downgrade and I did think this would be clearer with fewer options but per the talk page, editors clarified that it is standard and more neutral to have 4 options so I relented on that point. I copied the language "Generally Prohibited" as well as the text in the status quo section from the current page, so that is not my invention. I will copy the closing from the last RFC into the status quo section to help clarify. As far as your point about current impetus, here are two recent diffs [8] [9] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade This partisanship on Wikipedia is so shameful. Imagine claiming to create an encyclopedia but then declare facts you don't like to be off limits? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Well the point is that they dabble in disinformation and misinformation, not facts [we] don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Disinformation, no; misinformation, somewhat (in talk shows, not in mainstream news); misleading claims, yes. Daily Mail is no different. Being reliable does not just mean reporting on facts, it means reporting on facts in a responsible manner, separating news from opinion, avoiding switch-and-bait headlines, and correcting errors when they arise routinely. These are the five of nine criteria that NewsGuard assess on in "credibility"; Fox News according to NewsGuard fails on three of these criteria. I think Fox News can probably be used as a source of attributed conservative opinion even if it is deprecated completely, but I don't think it should be used to establish notability or for verifying facts about anything ever. Unless if other, more credible news sources like New York Times or Reuters or BBC News report on that same fact (and in those cases it might be better to cite that source), I don't think Fox News should be used. Also Fox News is not to be confused with local Fox-affiliates like KTVU or WNYW. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I do think it does have misinformation and disinformation in news coverage. Andrevan@ 04:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What are some examples of facts provided by Fox News that we should be including in the encyclopedia and/or which would no longer be included if this were downgraded? (FWIW I'm about to also ask elsewhere for examples justifying a downgrade.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Chris troutman, what are these "facts you don't like to be off limits"? Please provide some examples. Why don't you realize that exactly describes the modus operandi of Fox News? Are you in their bubble? They not only spread mis- and real disinformation about the election results, but they also keep their viewers in the dark about many of the "facts they don't like", thus keeping Fox News viewers/Trump supporters in their extreme right-wing bubble of mis- and disinformation. Why do those viewers feel that Fox News supports their belief in a stolen election? Because it does.

  That is not a "bug" in their coverage, it is a deliberate "feature" of their coverage, therefore deprecation is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging Chris troutman. You don't get to make statements like that and not respond. Please clear this up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Valjean: You don't have to agree with my sentiments. I don't answer to you and your effort to provoke me into an argument speaks to the harm your partisanship does to this effort to write an encyclopedia. Do not ping me again. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Chris, it's very simple. This is Logic101. You made a full frontal attack on fellow editors by assuming bad faith in them. You also seem to be confused about how we create content. We do not "declare facts you don't like to be off limits". We are dealing with disinformation, not "facts" we don't like. You made an accusation without evidence, so the burden of proof is on you. You should either explain yourself or strike your comment. It's a nasty personal attack. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the problem that is being discussed is whether Fox News published reliable news or not. Whether one did "selective bias" in reporting is not the problem of the matter, as "not publishing news" is different with "publishing news with lies". For instance, only few left-leaning news organizations cover how Ukraine wars deplete American ammunition stores or how UC Berkeley bans white people from common areas, and only few right-leaning news cover how Senate GOP blocked insulin price caps. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Status quo. Having reviewed the first two four examples I do see bias, a bit of selective reporting but no misinformation and one minor factual error (see details in the discussion subsection). Some of the evidence closer to the end of the list doesn't stand to any scrutiny, e.g., since when is doubting the credibility of various fact checkers fake news? Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per the discussion below, I'm still not sure why, if Fox claimed, citing the indictment: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House", and they never did that - White House servers weren't even mentioned at all in the indictment. How isn't that misinformation? Andrevan@ 18:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post (WP:GUNREL) for a public figure or a celebrity's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and The Telegraph gave credence to Wakefield's wild allegations of 170 particular autism-vaccine links in 2001, but I don't think that bad medical reporting is really something we should be holding against news organizations.) Many of the sources provided here largely analyze Fox News's commentary television shows, which is generally unreliable for facts and often flargrantly not BLP-worthy, but we have to analyze that separately from its digital news reporting (which is the typical thing cited when a Fox News source used on Wikipedia). The previous RfC actually did find a consensus that there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts, though its headlines are misleading (WP:HEADLINE) and it's used edited photos (I can't imagine that photographs contained within news articles are ever cited anyway?). I really don't see substantial research presented that Fox News makes an such an extraordinary number of errors in the political area that it's less than marginally reliable for ordinary claims of fact. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Mhawk! You put it better than I did. YoPienso (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Only one point I'd like to specifically respond to to correct, all of the sources I cited in my section of evidence below, are about the news reporting and not about TV shows. Andrevan@ 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • There's a lot of jostling between Fox News and PolitiFact. Much of the flak that PolitiFact gets from pundits, etc. is undue, but the sources you're citing in which Fox News denigrates it doesn't exactly fall into the "clearly baseless" category.
    • There's a longstanding gripe in conservative circles that alleges methodological bias in which sorts of statements get selected for fact checking. Politifact doesn't so much as claim to check random samples of facts, and they specifically denied that their data is good for telling which party lies more than the other, which CJR discusses more in-depth that I will here, but I think you might find the read interesting as it applies to this sort of analysis. That a right-leaning source characterizes this as a pro-liberal bias is not quite the mark of general unreliability. More recently, libertarian magazine Reason (WP:GREL on WP:RSP) has criticized the fact-checker similarly by alleging partisan bias, and others have criticized them for labeling subjective analyses as fact checking, though this criticism is lodged against fact-checks more broadly as well, with Politico noting that, at PolitiFact, statements that are literally true get ratings other than “true.”
    • After the Rittenhouse trial, Politifact was panned (largely in right-leaning circles) for a fact-check that most people initially read as implying that Rittenhouse acted illegally in carrying a rifle at age 17 in Wisconsin. Journalists generally aren't lawyers and, as it turns it turns out that related charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed. But Politifact defended their ratings and said that they were talking only about the phrase "perfectly legal". Say what you will, but it looks like the judge ruled that Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was not illegal, and a lot of people saw Politifact as being stubborn or retroactively engaging in spin on that topic. Other related fact-checks were similarly panned after the acquittal on the basis of self-defense. It ain't just Fox News saying this about the Rittenhouse fact-checks, though this feels more like like analysis-land rather than news reporting-land.
    • PolitiFact, on the other hand, maintains that it is completely unbiased. But I don't think this is enough to imply that any criticism of PolitiFact is inherently indicative of poor editorial standards at the criticizing publication. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Without getting into the reliability of PolitiFact, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, that only applies to my sources 10-17, there are other blatant false failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 19:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Andrevan: I suppose that I might have to agree with Mhawk10 a bit on this one. I slightly prefer status quo (but with stronger wording and caution) but also IMO is open to a downgrade. Politifact is considered reliable, no doubt, and won a Pulitzer, see for the RfC, but our WP article does suggest some controversies. Still, IMO its failed fact checks for Fox News are reasonable. Though, Anachronist's evidences are all opinion/TV cables, which we're already considering unreliable. Another evidence provided is a opinion video from MSNBC. I think MSNBC is generally reliable for straight news, but its opinion videos are not the best thing to quote. Besides, the fact checks for ref 10 and 17 show Fox News's misleading and distorted headlines, though its body text isn't to the point of being extremely misleading, but IMO it's very, very biased. IMO its challenging of Politifact shows its right bias, but a lot of conservative media (see previous link) challenged Politifact, so that alone is very opinionated and biased, and slightly (but not very) misleading, and mainly drives its right-wing agenda, instead of being downward untrue, unlike the The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Daily Wire and so on. Many thanks for your launching of this much-needed RfC, it's much more neutral and brief now! VickKiang (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Thanks for that! As far as the question of why is it a sign of unreliability to question the fact checkers - it gets at the "alternative facts," conspiracy theories, alternate-reality tunnel nature of Fox News today. It is no longer a mainstream source with some right bias. It believes it has an in on the straight dope and the real dirt of a different reality where Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton are guilty of huge crimes and Donald Trump is unfairly besmirched. Andrevan@ 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
        • With response to is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, yes, but WP:BIASED sources can be reliable sources. The quality press in the United Kingdom is probably the best example of this. But also when we say a source is WP:GREL, we don't mean that it's the Gospel Truth, we mean that it's generally reliable for facts. Even WP:NEWSORG notes that most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, so criticizing particular stories from GREL sources isn't per se evidence of unreliability. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Politifact isn't gospel, but it is reliable enough to be used for fact checks. Andrevan@ 00:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
            • In general, yes. But when there are other RS that are criticizing particular fact checks (such as Reason and CJR), we have to use our common sense and see if the generally reliable sources are erroneous in a particular instance. This is much in the same way that WP:GREL news sources can contain errors, be challenged by other RS, turn out to be bogus, and yet still remain on the internet years later with no correction or editor's note amended onto the page where it's hosted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
              • As pertaining to whether the information should be used in an article, I agree. If there's some dispute, we need to balance the POVs per NPOV and attribute the positions as appropriate. But when it comes to evaluating whether Fox News is reliable, continuously casting doubt on the fact checkers does go to its unreliability and its tendency to push conspiracy theories and alternative realities. And when it has fact-checked false statements that remain uncorrected, for political propaganda spin, well, that makes it even worse. So you may dispute that Fox News doubting Politifact goes to its unreliability, but that doesn't address the fact that Politifact fact checked Fox and those errors remain uncorrected, that is a black mark against Fox's operation. Also, its Editor's Notes when they do correct, are frequently partial, themselves misleading or disingenuous. Andrevan@ 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
          • I can concur with this. Neither is NewsGuard gospel, but it details very well its methodology for rating these various news organizations. And while it has gotten criticism among conservatives, its nine criteria system seems to be a fair way to assess the reliability of a news site. Their detailed reports have a lot of citations as well in the footer to refer how a site fails a specific criteria. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • As a note to closer, my username (and thus my signature) changed significantly mid-discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo per reliable sources, listed below. Fox News has multiple iterations; I'm referring to their basic news homepage, most definitely not to Fox Nation, Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson, etc. In years of personally checking CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and the Guardian every day, I find the bias at Fox is one of selection, not inaccuracy. That is, what Fox ignores and what it headlines stems from a clear right-wing bias, although their news stories, in my experience, have been as accurate as those from the other media, who also have systemic bias in selection, and do make an occasional error. Please note that the NYT has recently seen a new turn away from Trump at Fox. (Other Murdoch outlets have turned against Trump, not away from him. This indicates to me Fox may become more mainstream, although it might as likely simply support another extremist.)

• WaPo (Apr 4, 2022): "The unique, damaging role Fox News plays in American media"
• NBC (Apr 9, 2022): "Fox News isn't news"
• CNN (Jan 11, 2021), referring to the broadcast, not website: "Fox News removes one of its only nighttime hours of news coverage"
• CNN (Jun 8, 2021), referring to the broadcast, not website, and based on this book: "We turned so far right we went crazy:' How Fox News was radicalized by its own viewers"
• The Guardian (Oct. 25, 2019), referring to Fox & Friends: "I watched Fox News every day for 44 months – here's what I learned" This has a subtitle, "At Fox News, opinion is king – not news"
• Pew Research (Apr 3, 2020), basically says what I've observed--older white people rely on Fox, which skews right, but not extreme right: "5 facts about Fox News"
• NYT (Jul 27, 2022): "Fox News snubbed Trump’s speech, in what’s becoming a pattern."
• NYT (Jul 29, 2022): "Fox News, Once Home to Trump, Now Often Ignores Him"

I believe we should assess articles from the Fox website on a case-by-case basis. I would hate to see a consensus that totally excludes Fox as a RS.

Fox Nation and Fox & Friends and the commentators featured at the top of the WaPo article--Watters, Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, and Gutfeld--should be used only to source their own opinions. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Gutfeld!, being a comedy show, reliable for Greg Gutfeld's actual opinion? I'm generally not inclined to take statements by people doing comedy to literally represent their opinions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the WaPo is referring to Gutfeld's contributions on The Five (talk show). YoPienso (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate or Downgrade: I voted in the previous RfC, and this has been my position consistently since then. I have two reasons for this. Number one, graphs on Fox are consistently misleading to the point of malpractice. More importantly, during the George Floyd protests they posted several clearly and intentionally doctored photos. That's past "unreliable" and into "lying", and therefore I support deprecating them. Loki (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Point taken on graphs. But Fox corrected the photo collage and apologized. The NYT has had to correct and clarify many articles, so that can't disqualify Fox unless they do it willfully and way more than other outlets. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The charts are far worse than I felt it would be, using distorted graphs and (deliberate or not?) mathematical errors. Sometimes it's probably a mistake, other instances when it clearly drives its right wing agenda. But of course, while there's a RfC launched for Insider, the current RSP statement say it's marginally reliable. IMO, a better, more credible ref provided for the misleading graphs could be better, and might be possible to be added to the latter failed fact checks section. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The pie graph on the 2012 election was broadcast in 2009 by only the local Chicago Fox affiliate, as reported by the local NBC station. Note that while it was a Fox affiliate that humiliated itself, the chart is attributed to Opinions Dynamic. I don't have time to research the other charts. YoPienso (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So, for mistakes I'd accept a correction, and even think that issuing such corrections tends to be evidence of the reliability of a newsorg unless they're making egregious numbers of mistakes. However, in this case, there's no other explanation for the doctored photo other than intentional doctoring. That's not a mistake, that's lying to their readers. An apology doesn't suffice to correct for that. Loki (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

agreed Andrevan@ 05:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but we must realize it wasn't Fox News' website that displayed the inaccurate graph; it was Channel 32 in Chicago. And it was just a local newscast, not vetted by FoxNews.com. The photo collage, on the other hand, was published online by FoxNews.com and duly corrected with apologies. YoPienso (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The doctored photo that Loki is talking about here, part of this collage, appeared on FoxNews.com and there is an editor's note for it: 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." The Seattle Times article says: "Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations. As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront. Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times. In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed." So that's the website doctoring photos, and I agree the editor's note doesn't really adequately address the fact that the photos were misleading and digitally altered. Andrevan@ 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Events in the UK have led me to evaluate all arms of the Murdoch Press as prone to dodgy journalism and misleading their viewers. It's not clear to me why we think Fox News is any better.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, but would you mind clarifying which option you're supporting? Thanks! Andrevan@ 00:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm here to comment, not to select from a menu, but if you're unlucky enough to get one of the closers who counts words in bold, then I suppose mine is best read as "downgrade". I'm British with fairly mainstream views for a Brit, so to me, even CNN looks like a far right wing news channel. I would say that Fox News is of questionable reliability on any subject with even a tenuous connection to the politics of any country, any kind of climate science, anything related to gender, anything related to abortion, business news, economics, tax, foreign affairs and journalistic ethics.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! I thought it was supporting a "downgrade" but I just wanted to make sure in case the closer needs a little extra help. I agree it should be a discussion and not a vote or a menu selection, just want to throw a bone to closers since this will undoubtedly be a difficult one. Andrevan@ 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade Fox and downgrade CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES - they're all pretty much equal in reliability - it's the bias that is different. Better yet, downgrade them all if you're going to downgrade one. If we are truly aiming for NPOV, then we should more closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Of course, citing RS is just a guideline - CONTEXT MATTERS - and so do our 3 core content policies. Political articles aren't medical articles because if they were, none of the news sources would be acceptable under a MEDRS type guideline. WP should not be mirroring either right or left wing media; rather, our articles should be NEUTRAL, and they're not. We've been criticized heavily for the latter. Let's take a quick look at the unreliability of the other news sources we have to choose from in comparison: CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes (see the op piece by Hamid Dabashi in Al Jazeera, and others that are just as bad). Our readers expect encyclopedic information from a NPOV, not from a left or right leaning news journalist's POV, and that's what political pundits in general are bringing to the table. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a few more sources:

1. Forbes headline: CNN, MSNBC Drop In ‘Trust’ Ratings As Fox News Channel Rises.
2. Jacobin: Where Biden’s been not much different from Trump — as on immigration, where he’s continued some of the policies that got Trump labeled a fascist and introduced some outrageous ones of his own — the press has simply played down or ignored it, when they weren’t actively laying the groundwork for Trumpian policy at the border.
3. Reason headline: The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy – a year and a half after the New York Post broke the story, the Times says it has "authenticated" the messages it previously deemed suspect.
4. Fox News – New York Times scolded for handling of Hunter Biden laptop story Wasn't it the New York Post that covered it properly?
5. WSJ editorial board – Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print – The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real. Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

   Trust ratings have nothing to do with accuracy, fact-checking or editorial controls. Also, not covering a story does not equal inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Atsme: MSNBC and CNN prob should get their own RfCs. MSNBC is obviously a left-leaning outlet, what they report on clearly is favored on by Democrats and garnishes a lot of eyeballs. CNN, on the other hand, aims at turning every single program into a screaming match (or at least aimed, I am not sure how much this stands today). The amount of opinion these American cable news channels pump out compared to the amount of actual news they deliver is abhorrent. Cable news in the US is basically the tabloids of the UK. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  CNN and MSNBC both have digital news divisions that are generally regarded as reliable with high standards for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The NYT is maybe not what it once was, but the Grey Lady is the paper of record for many. I have an open mind that standards may have fallen at these outlets, but we need evidence, not just baseless aspersions and false equivalences. Several editors have commented that MSNBC is just as bad - if so, where's the evidence? Andrevan@ 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan: @Atsme: Totally agree Andrevan with your point. NYT is still Pulitzer Prize-winning (see List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times, 2022 Pulitzer Prizes). Is it biased? Yes, it's quite left-centre. But I strongly disagree with that it should be considered on-par with Fox News- all the criticisms are on its op-eds, are there RS seriously criticising it? Compare that to Fox, which is rightly biased and drives its agenda often (you'll see I voted between status quo and downgrade, and I don't favour outright deprecation). For CNN and MSNBC news, they're biased, but not enough for me personally to doubt whether it's an RS. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's honestly very little use in picking apart these bad arguments. Only 4 users have called for an "upgrade", the usual suspects, it is never going to happen. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Did you mean "or" downgrading CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES? That would be in line with what I've seen you say before along the lines of "all mainstream media is equally reliable and equally biased", etc. but putting Fox above the others in terms of reliability seems pretty shark-jumpy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, Rhodo, it really doesn't matter. If we'd simply follow our PAGs as I stated above – CONTEXT MATTERS as does RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If it's opinion, we use intext attribution. Editors don't have to like the opinion, but we should not censor it. Our job is to present ALL significant views, and not allow our own biases to make those determinations for our readers. Everybody knows opinions are not facts, so they can't be factually wrong - they're opinions. Hannity screwed up with the Seth Rich theory, but he's not the only talking head with egg on his face. The talking heads on the left (and there are more of them) have equally as much egg on their faces (including repos of Pulitzers, Cuomo, etc). The partisan left spread the unverified rumors that were in the Steele dossier along with conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion that didn't pan out. We need to give our readers more credit for being able to distinguish biased opinion from actual facts. When talking heads discuss theories on their respective shows, that is not the same thing as falsely reporting the news. Fox makes retractions the same as the other RS do. I've already provided the sources that support my position. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times are outside the scope of this RFC. If you want to downgrade them, open seperate RFCs for each one. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo All US news sources have their issues. We already use this one with caution and there are no convincing arguments for change (be it upgrade, or downgrade). Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said! YoPienso (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade to generally unreliable, but let articles be considered on a case-by-case basis. Since 2020, the credibility of Fox News has taken multiple hits when reporting politics and science. The most important issues have been the covid crisis, 2020 U.S. presidential elections results hesitancy and denialism, and climate crisis denialism. Other news organizations have not taken similar hits. Research published in Cambridge University's Canadian Journal of Political Science states that "right-leaning broadcast and cable media (for example, Fox News, Breitbart) regularly discussed misinformation about COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic." Fox News has published false articles that have not been corrected to date. For example, there is an article alleging that Anthony Fauci dismissed a Mayo Clinic study on delta efficacy between vaccines. In reality, Fauci never dismissed the results. Fox News also has a history of sloppy journalism. In 2021, for example, multiple conservative news sites, including Fox News, rushed to declare that Kamala Harris was handing out copies of a book to migrant children. In reality, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any more than one book photographed by Reuters. Fox News also casts doubt on evidence-based science on the climate crisis by citing fringe environmental journalists the likes of Michael Shellenberger. This doesn't mean that Fox News doesn't produce good reporting from time to time. That's why I think its articles can be accepted on a case-by-case basis. But with the heavy bias plaguing the news organization, coupled with a beleagured reputation following the Seth Rich settlement and the settlement with Smartmatic, and ongoing litigation with Dominion, it's questionable to use Fox News when there are other solid sites. So, overall, use something other than Fox News, but if you have to, make sure the individual articles comply with Wikipedia's rules. FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  The trouble with downgrading a source it that some editors will interpret a "generally unreliable, but consider on case-to-case basis" tag as license to keep ALL info from that source out of WP articles. I've seen "use with care" leveraged as a shield against using at all. Please see "status quo" support from Nhawk and Pavlor and myself. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  And here we have it: Just two hours after I warned that deprecation would enable biased editors to completely shut out Fox News, User:Only in death pushed exactly that idea, seeing it as a triumph over "right-wing editors." Their comment is directly below, published at 08:12, 1 August 2022, and alleges Fox is "a regular source of misinformation," which has not been demonstrated. For what I consider a more reasonable approach, see User:Alanscottwalker's comment, published 14:53, 1 August 2022.) YoPienso (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fox News is a regular source of misinformation and should be downgraded. There are other sources for editors to use that don't push false facts and conspiracy theories. Andrevan@ 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, you open it up for exceptions, EVERY story will be the "exception". I'm tired of arguing in AfD over why xyz source is bad; if we can at least point them to a list of good sources, that's one less hassle. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate or Downgrade. Anything that takes a regular source of misinformation away from right-wing editors who want to fill (what is supposed to be) a factual resource with junk should be supported. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade Seems to be source of disinformation generally to drive a political point that is at the extreme end of the political spectrum. Its not balanced or neutral news with a particular political bent, it is by design extreme and that makes the sources NPOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or status quo as 2nd choice. This disinfo during covid was pretty much the nail in the coffin, they've gone almost fully into the QAnon camp. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Maintain Status Quo per Mhawk10, Yopienso, and Atsme. The current "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" accurately affects the current situation. GretLomborg (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo. The world - at least the United States - is become more and more split into "liberal" and "conservative" bubbles. We shouldn't be encouraging that. We should not be "on team Red" or "on team Blue". We should be the sum of the world's knowledge. And that includes the knowledge that we disagree with. Fox News is one of the most prominent conservative news sources. If we rule that we can't, in almost all cases, use it for politics, then there would be far too many stories that we simply can not tell one side of, and many that we can not tell at all. Deprecating it would be actively harmful to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  That reads a bit like " mom and apple pie." I think that the difficult question is whether Fox News frequently misrepresents fiction as fact. If so -- given that a substantial minority of our editors might not always understand the difference -- does it harm the encyclopedia or the editing process to discuss each instance of such misrepresentation in countless talk threads on hundreds of pages when there are better alternative news sources readily available. How does this issue fit in your analysis? SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  We shouldn't write assuming our readers are idiots, or we would need to delete all our articles about subatomic particles, ancient Etruscan, and Godel's incompleteness theorem, for fear that readers would not understand them. Modern US politics is polarized, and if we present only the liberal side we are actively misrepresenting it, just as if we tried to say that muons and gluons fit together like tinker toys. There aren't better alternative news sources readily available to present the US right wing view, they've all been banned already. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply. I don't think that the comparison is apt. In fact, it feels like rather a straw man. We are discussing reports of fact. There's lots of coverage of right wing views because they are widespread in the mainstream. But Fox often presents fiction as fact. This RfC is about how to deal with that.. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo, as with most television or cable media in the United States, it needs careful handling and does little, or is of no use, in many areas, but the present system, and proper application of recentism, and NPOV, is more than adequate to deal with it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't about the TV version of Fox, though. Curbon7 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. It's website is an extension of that just like most U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now. Even so, much of the website is things like [10], in which Wikipedia would look idiotic or worse deprecating such cite, no matter how many politicians happen to be written-up in that cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• As a point of information, Fox News Digital, like other news websites that have an associated cable news channel, does publish original content and has its own staff, and this RFC is about the website, and not the talk shows, though there is occasional overlap or content that gets posted on one from the other. There is long-form and sometimes even investigative journalism that happens at outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other major news media that started out as broadcast TV channels. There is not a major difference, in terms of the ways and means of executing, publishing, and posting news, in 2022 between the online operation of a CNN and a major newspaper like the NYT, WSJ, etc, or a more specialized online outlet like HuffPost or Vox etc., in terms of what they are doing with their web presence. They have journalists, fact checkers, researchers, editorial boards, editors, and all the usual trappings of journalism. My concern with Fox is that the lines have blurred and the standards have fallen. Andrevan@ 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nothing I have said is about the talk shows. The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked, the restraint is a combination of ethics and reporter and corporate avoidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• That is not a myth, both CNN and Fox News, just like the AP or the NYT, had/have fact checkers, ombudsmen, editorial staff, production staff, research departments, etc. CNN has groups called Facts First, The K File[11], and fact-checking researchers like Daniel Dale. Fox News did have this as well, though according to various sources, "The outlet’s so-called “Brain Room,” which the late Fox News founder Roger Ailes established as the 24-year-old channel’s fact-checking and research unit, has been especially hard-hit, losing around one-fourth of its 30-person staff along with two supervisors—a virtual frontal lobotomy, according to sources familiar with the cutbacks."[12] Andrevan@ 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• If not a myth, it is a musunderstanding of the realities. Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review) of a single news article. (See, [13] [14] In today's news, the news reporter is the one who verifies (checks) their own article, answers editor's questions, and sometimes if the editor thinks it necessary passes it to legal for a review. There have been rigourous actual pre-publication checkers (seperate from the reporter) at magazines in which publication deadlines are more relaxed but not with daily news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• That's not accurate from my knowledge. Researchers and fact-checkers do review content from the major outlets like CNN, AP, NYT, prior to publication. There are editorial teams that have several different functions. Everything is getting reviewed and workshopped and signed-off-on and approved at multiple levels, from chyrons to captions to article headlines and text. The production staff at an operation like a major TV news org will have a show level which might have a slightly longer turnaround for an investigative piece (like a 60 Minutes), and general day-to-day units like politics, or business, etc., and they are constantly communicating through chat, email, phone, conference calls, in-person meetings, I skimmed the two links you gave in your response, and I didn't see any support for the claim that TV news or daily news in general aren't fact-checked. Could you quote something specific? Andrevan@ 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• E-mails flying and workshopping is not pre-publication fact-checking this piece of news. With all that supposed flying going on, the news is already breaking. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

*You still haven't cited a source or a quote for this claim that work isn't checked for accuracy prior to publication. I believe it is. Here's a source from the LA Times[15] “I don’t think you’ll find an investigative reporter who hasn’t had his bosses say a story is going to get a further review because the subject is high-profile,” said one veteran network producer who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "senior producer of investigations at ABC News, also believed the rigorous review process stories go through has been a constant". Here's NPR: "This is why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting public."[16] NYT: "deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing[17] AP: [18] "fact-checking is deeply integrated into our whole global operation and we rely on the expertise of our journalists on a wide variety of topics to inform our fact-checking work. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see two bylines, or contributor lines, on a fact check. In addition, any staffer may choose to do a fact check in text or visuals with reporting help and guidance from the Fact Check team." Andrevan@ 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• You still are confused or attempting to be deliberately confusing. With respect to LAT, investigative reporting is not day to day news. For the NYT, that's not a separate fact checker, that is the reporter or photographer and their editor (I said several comments up, that is how it works). For the AP, they are not talking about pre-publication review, they are talking about their fact checking unit which checks others outside the AP, eg [19] [20], [21]. I have given you sources that divide pre-publication fact checking/review/verification (basically, on the by-lined reporter(s)) from external fact checking (done by a team and not internal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• You are not AGF if you think I am being deliberately confusing, I believe we are at odds on a factual disagremeent. You stated, "U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now" "The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked," " Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review)" I see no evidence provided to support these assertions. My evidence shows that in fact, fact checking, on a team, does occur. Investigative reporting is also included in your original blanket statement about U.S. sites of TV/cable operations. There is a lot of complex long-form journalism that is posted on such sites and aired on such TV channels, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I also believe there is evidence that they are reviewed and checked for accuracy, let's not have a semantic dispute as to whether that can be called "fact-checking" versus the comparison to the "fact-checking industry" that you posted. I agree they are not the same thing, but work is still fact-checked and reviewed by others besides the main writer/reporter, including (maybe not all on every story) specialized fact-checkers, board, a research department, or a legal department. Andrevan@ 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Come on, "such news" is in reference to that TV and their websites daily news. "Not on every story", you say. So, you agree it is not happening, we just disagree on the degree, it is not happening. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that some simple stories probably get a basic spot check before they are approved. However I do think anything that is likely to be contentious, gets a pretty thorough review, and not simply on an honor system by the reporter(s). I also believe that there is a great deal of good journalism with thorough fact-checking as well that appears on these sites. You are the one making blanket generalizations about all daily news sites that are affiliated with all TV news orgs. It varies considerably. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, these are all reliable outlets and can be trusted to do some accuracy verification for contentious claims. You still haven't quoted any source saying otherwise. Andrevan@ 19:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don't be ridiculous, your beliefs are your beliefs. They are not a matter for sources, and now you are limiting your beliefs to "contentious claims", you have provided no sources that most TV daily news site stories deal in your nebulous, "contentious claims". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that we are at an impasse, at this point I think we had best, as they say, leave it there. I believe it is just Journalism 101. I can't find an exact source that says the stuff I just believed at you, but I'll look for it. Those are my beliefs based on my experience and facts. You also haven't provided a source for the exact stuff you believe. I believe the general sources I showed gave evidence that you were overgeneralizing in your statement that US network news doesn't do pre-publication verification, especially for, as the LA Times put, "high-profile" stories. (Which I am interpreting to be contentious, but not always). I don't believe my position is so nebulous nor is yours. If one of us can find more conclusive evidence perhaps we will know, until then, I leave it there. Andrevan@ 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, leaving it there would require you not to keep commenting under my !vote, but for some reason you keep commenting not only here but all over this RfC. I will note in final, if you are true to "leave it there", someone below, has looked at Fox science stories and generally sees nothing partcularly contentious, I practically began with a cite to a Fox story, which included covering polticians, and I see nothing contentious. Of course, the LAT, is not a cable TV website, but "high profile" would mean that most stories, even at the LAT, are not high profile. There is a ton more content on news websites other than "high profile" or "contentious".Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade or Status Quo per BlueBoar, Atsme, and others above. There is concern about any news outlet today, especially in North America. Fox News is no worse than any of the others. It makes no sense in downgrading the most watched news channel and web news service in America because they bring up stories the other news companies don't want to talk about. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade for politics and science only. Yes, Fox can be reliable at times. A stopped clock also tells the time reliably twice a day, so what? I have observed a reduction in objectivity recently, particularly with Fox's decision to withold coverage of the recent big news about the January 6 hearings. The bias isn't a problem; many sources considered reliable are also clearly biased (Mother Jones and Wall Street Journal for example). The problem is that Fox isn't just accidentally getting facts wrong, they are deliberately doing it, with greater frequency. If anything from Fox needs to be corroborated with an alternate reliable source before we can use it, then Fox isn't useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is well said @Anachronist. If what they are reporting on is true, yet they are reporting with the same level of sensationalism as Daily Mail or The Sun (in this case to appeal to a conservative audience), in no ways should it be considered "reliable" and thus Fox News should be deprecated. Also important to note that a lot of propaganda news sources like RT mix in articles that report on facts with their propaganda. No fake news, propaganda, or misleading news source only reports fiction. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, Fox News deliberately gets it wrong again and again, far too much to be a coincidence. Andrevan@ 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo Far too much of the evidence presented below is flimsy at best and has extreme over-reliance on PolitFact being accurate. Fox News plays fast and loose with headlines, so does every other mainsteam media. Fox News cherry-picks quotes from Fauci briefings, so does every other mainstram media. Until the community develops actual standards and metrics to evaluate ALL MSM (or better yet, bans any news article being used in the first year of publication), Fox News is marginally worse than some of its contemporaries but not significant enough to create a blanket rule, rather than allowing source by source evaluation as occurs now. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade (3) for politics and science (although not for opinion, and no need to completely deprecate). There has been so much deliberate misrepresentation by Fox, to the point of creating an alternative counterfactual universe, that it is becoming embarrassing that we even have to debate it. It's not like they are the only source we can use and it would be a loss to stop having them. There are plenty of reliable sources for politics and science, including sources that are not part of the left-right media controversy. (And, unlike deprecation, this option would not, in fact, prohibit ever citing them.) I also want to say that the issue is not the other news outlets; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reliability of this source should stand or fall on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, the amount of WP:OTHERSTUFF is quite high. There's plenty of other fish in the sea. We should judge it on its merits and make any reasonable comparisons, but there's no shortage of time and energy to start other RFCs if we have other evidence. Andrevan@ 04:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo Fox News spins like a merry-go-round. Worthless for analysis and interpretation, but it is a verifiable source for simple statements. Sennalen (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade I would not object to deprecation but I think (especially without a specified time period) it may be more of a hassle than it's worth. I don't quite understand how anyone is voting for "status quo", i.e. for there to be no consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the people who think the status quo is appropriate find it to affirmatively be marginally reliable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo I do not think enough has changed since the last RfC. In fact, I think it has become apparent that Fox is one of the actually marginally reliable right-wing sources these days, especially when compared to the absolute garbage like Breitbart, One America News, and so on. I think this RfC is POV creep and am not fond of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given that it's been several years since the last RFC, and several other users also attempted to open an RFC recently, and that the RFC has already attracted a good diversity of perspectives, it was certainly needed, and a lot has happened since the last one. Maybe not enough in your estimation, but let's AGF on the motives of the many editors who have voiced support for the downgrade option. It is not POV pushing, but a sober read of the present failed fact checks of Fox News. I would not say the same for the National Review. Andrevan@ 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that Fox News is much more reliable than something like Breitbart, but that doesn't mean that it is anything close to reliable. In fact, it's been found to deliberately fabricate information in at least some instances, which is IMO the definition of a source that should be deprecated. Loki (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo: I've provided feedback below. And if like me you've engaged in this topic for a little while now and you're sick of all these examples of worst-case journalism from awful cable news outlets, then I'd like to share a little hope for the future of journalism from RSN last month: Pakistan's new outlet is a breath of old-school fresh air. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Fox News is a propaganda outlet masquerading as a news source. It's goal is to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even its factual coverage is non-neutral as its selection of coverage is designed to shift public opinion through choice of coverage (and non-coverage). That in itself is almost unavoidable for a news source but where Fox News differs is that it's obvious that they do this without the public good in mind but the benefit of the GOP and its leaders and donators. Fox' "coverage" often is poorly disguised attempts to soil of the image of people they dislike. Plus, The distinction between Fox News "the website" and its array of contemptible, shameful, sleazy television programs is not sharp: even as I write this there are clips of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on the website's main page. This is part of the design of the Foxs News propaganda machine. They have a news website with an ounce milligram of credability that they use people to funnel into their more biased and propagandized material. It's how they've learned to radicalize Americans. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Split? "Science" is an extremely broad topic. A quick perusal of their current science category has reports about zoology, engineering, astronomy, etc. These seem to be reporting similar findings as other sources do, so I'm not seeing a need to downgrade the entire realm of "science"; perhaps certain sub-categories of sciences that are currently ingrained in US politicis (such as climate science) should stay with 'use with caution' though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think the branch of science matters. We don't use news media sources for any sort of scientific facts anyway (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). And for breaking science news, there are plenty of far more reliable sources that can be used instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    If no news media should ever be used for things related to "science", we don't really need a special rule for this one; however your second statement seems to contradict that and go back to the point of this RFC, but the question isn't really "is something else more reliable" but is this "unreliable". — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

    I should clarify two things. Those science source guideline apply to facts about science, not necessarily to breaking news that something has happened in science. (The difference between pictures from the Webb telescope, and what those pictures tell us.) And what I meant is that Fox News is not reliable as a source for breaking news in science (hydroxychloroquine, anyone?), and there are other news sources readily available that can easily fill that need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate or Downgrade. e.g. Fox Settled a Lawsuit Over Its Lies. But It Insisted on One Unusual Condition. (NYT, Jan. 17, 2021, "On Oct. 12, 2020, Fox News agreed to pay millions of dollars to the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member"); Fox News parent must face defamation lawsuit over election coverage (Reuters, June 21, 2022), Fox and friends confront billion-dollar US lawsuits over election fraud claims (July 4, 2022, Guardian, "Fox Corp had attempted to have the suit dismissed, but a Delaware judge said Dominion had shown adequate evidence for the suit to proceed. Dominion is already suing Fox News, as well as OAN and Newsmax."); Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? Should It? (Just Security, April 10, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade Could be used as a simple statement of facts, but I wouldn't trust it, as explained ALL above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo: ultimately, I do not see a convincing argument that things have changed since our last major RfC in 2020, nor do most volunteers seem to be arguing on this basis. I support the same option I did then. I had another look at FoxNews.com, to see if it had degraded into nothing but a series of conspiracy theories about vegetables and diatribes about the dangers of children saying that they have a favourite color, or whatever the latest far-right trends are. Spot checks of a few articles at random revealed, well, mundanity and nothing I wouldn't expect from CNN, or perhaps even a left-wing outlet. Fox News manage not to cackle with glee or go off on how singular they was found to cause cancer when discussing Lovato's changed pronouns. And I found a pretty strong source that I should really use when I get around to updating the relevant articles. — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  As a side note, those articles appear to be under entertainment, and business/tech, not politics or science, so they would not be downgraded in any event, and look like great finds! Andrevan@ 06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, true, I did spot check a couple of politics ones though. Science, well, it's very rare (and usually accidental) that any mainstream media reports any accurate scientific content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade: I'm not going to paste in links where dozens of editors have already done so, but I do want to comment on an otherwise unrebutted editor who feels that the (putative) recent shift of Fox and other Murdoch properties to distance themselves from Trump indicates that Fox News is not so unreliable as all of that. I come to quite a different conclusion: that if such a shift was indeed taking place, it's further proof of Fox News' unreliability. A reputable news outfit should not be trimming its sails to the political winds, defending or attacking people depending on whether it scores them brownie points in the ratings or not. Ravenswing 04:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade Politics and science are two areas where the reliability of the Fox News website is very questionable. Misinformation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic in particular suggests that the difference in quality between the Fox website and the opinion television programming is shrinking. This discussion is, to my knowledge, limited to the website and does not comment on the political commentary shows (i.e. Hannity, Tucker, etc), but for what it's worth, the shows ought to be blacklisted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "Establishment hack" status. Called Arizona for Biden way before it made sense to (and way before any other network) not because it made sense newswise but because of orders from on high to cripple Trump's reelection claim. Funny enough, now both Dems and Trump think they are hacks. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly they call Arizona "too quickly" for Biden on their "infographics" and not on a news article. True, the "infographics" are on the site, but it is not a news article, and the "infographics" is supposed to move constantly anyways. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a nicety, isn't that distinction. they didn’t put a pin in it, they called it. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I trust the closing admin will disregard comments based on conspiracy theories around Trump's result in the 2020 U.S. election. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe @Hyperbolick wants to do a little thinking and reading and elaborate on their comment with an eye toward the reliability of Fox's web news operation in 2022, since the "Arizona close" argument is a bit stale. Andrevan@ 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade for politics and science, there is more than enough evidence provided below to justify a downgrade. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade - Option 1. The allegations of the sort "oh, called a race in Arizona two years ago too early" make no sense. Wikipedia WP:NOTNEWS and certainly if a WP:RS makes an early call, it is just that; an early call. Have CNN, ABC, or CBS never made wrongful early calls? XavierItzm (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade: definitely for politics and science: these are areas where Fox is almost famed for its factual inaccuracy, as testified to by the graph evidence above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo: The Fox News website is awful when it comes to slanted, clickbaity headlines and ridiculous in terms of which stories it selects to run at the top. But when you actually read the stories themselves, they are usually on saner ground. And, as always, stories can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo as no evidence has been presented that shows unreliable information cited to Fox News has been added to articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. Also per GRuban's analysis of Fox's supposed unreliability. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  That is Begging the question. The problem is not that UNDUE or VERIFICATION failures end up with bad content remaining in the article. The problem is the incessant and repetitive talk page threads that are needed to rebuff attempts to add such content. Those threads drain the project of editor time and attention. The whole point of RSNP is to provide a batch reference to forestall such local skirmishes on thousands of articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then the RFC should have led with why it's a problem. Instead it proposes a solution without identifying why it's an issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  After hundreds of these RSN RfC's, I think all participants understand their reason and purpose. Anyway, opinions as to the formatting of RfC's such as this is deep deep meta-, and is best discussed outside of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate or Downgrade to be honest, my personal view - and this extends to all topics - is that peer reviewed academic publications are the only sources we should use - imagine how much BS content we could bin! However, that's never going to happen, so in the meantime, let's avoid wingnut partisan sources owned by billionaire tax-dodging asswipes. Acousmana 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. (1) While me and many others might not share their social or political perspective, it's still a valid perspective that's made Fox News an important source of information for quite a large audience. (2) Their editorial quality varies, but in general I don't see it as too different from, say, that of the CNN (and that's a jab at the CNN). In any case, Fox's coverage of current events is fairly reliable, even if partisan while they are unreliable for deeper analysis or opinion. This hasn't changed since the last assessment. Hence, status quo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo - Per what I wrote in #What's the exigency?. It's a pragmatic thing. I'm not convinced that a formal downgrade will change much of anything in day-to-day editing practice such that it's worth the conflict, drama, and amount of time it takes (and will continue to take) here in the RfC, in the media that follows, in subsequent discussions, etc. The initiator isn't wrong on the merits, but I think the RfC is a bad idea. It also kind of speaks to the way WP:RSP has [long ago] mutated into its own classification system that doesn't always have a constructive relationship with what happens in articles. We shouldn't be messing with designations at RSP just because a source deserves it, apart from any usage in articles. WP:RSP should be a tool to help reduce conflict, not create it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or deprecate - absolutely not a reliable source for Wikipedia, should not be used - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo for politics with a caveat that controversial subjects need additional verification and downgrade science. Selfstudier (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate per the plentiful examples and sources (including peer reviewed articles) provided by Andrevan, Aasim, VickKiang, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Loki, FlantasyFlan, Beccaynr, and others. I've read all the status quo comments to date and I don't see any attempt to rebut the sources and examples provided by these editors, they are mostly a combination of "I don't see the problem" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  As a status quo supporter myself, I don't feel the need to rebut the examples provided. They exist, and they're exactly why we don't consider Fox to be generally reliable. I agree that there are all kinds of issues with Fox's reporting—I'd easily say that the world would be a better place without Fox in it—but I think the current classification as WP:MREL accounts for its actual reporting as a very mixed bag. Retswerb (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  And if we start using the same logic presented in the examples (which has been questioned below) to evaluate other RSes on the left, we'll find several of the same problems. Its the symptom of how bias reporting has become over the last several years, and would be a problem to tag Fox News without tagging other sources in the same manner. Masem (t) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  OTHERSTUFFEXUSTS applied to content, not to how we measure reliability of our sources. We should be using the same yardstick to evaluate source reliability and not create exemptions, which is unfortunately what is being done with Fox here. Too much "its associated with right-wing leanings therefore any flaws make it bad" rather than "and these flaw comparable to similar flaws from other RSes?" Remember that we didn't blacklist Daily Mail due to their bias, but that due to being so biased they took to falsification and other misdeeds in journalism. Fox may be

  On the wrong side of public opinion but we've yet to see false info published by their news side that wasn't subsequently fixed. Masem (t) 20:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  From my list, #1, #2, #7, and #8 are still there with no response or correction, and I haven't heard any discussion on the latter two. Andre🚐 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The rebuttals are all at the very end of this thread. Several editors have posted rebuttals of the first 2-4 sources and tend to get sick of it after Andrevan makes a political debate out of each one. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Did you think someone commented without seeing the rest of the thread, deigned not to read it, or had they reviewed them, and determined based on that information as presented? Andre🚐 04:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Based on "I don't see any attempt to rebut" it's fair to infer that the rebuttals had not been seen. Retswerb (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's reasonable to read that Gamaliel saw everything and still sees a lot that was presented which was not rebutted, insufficiently, or ineffectively rebutted. The question is whether Fox News has issues with fact-checking and correcting errors, presenting conspiracies as fact, omitting facts, etc. Like the Daily Mail. The status quo is closer to "use caution" than "watch out!" I don't want to just repeat myself, but no less than 3 "status quo" supporters have piled on to Gamaliel's read of the RFC thus far. Andre🚐 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo per Mhawk10. Ultimately Fox is marginally reliable when it comes to politics, and it's usable for many things, especially uncontroversial claims. No harm in determining reliability on a case-by-case basis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo. Like various above I see a real problem with Fox's bias in terms of what they choose to report and what they choose to omit—but find that their content quality deserves the kind of individual attention already described as Additional Considerations Apply. Downgrading is overkill here and will only encourage those who already tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to shining a light on Wikipedia's own biases. Retswerb (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. As much as I dislike Fox, after reading over nearly every argument, counterargument, and piece of evidence set forth here, I am thoroughly unconvinced by the proponents of downgrading it. I came in here expecting to see a mountain of cases where Fox has pushed demonstrably false claims, allowing me to quickly vote for option 3; instead, most of the evidence is irrelevant. To be specific, the long list set forth by the nominator below has a handful of examples that actually concern me. However, most of it falls under WP:HEADLINES (I am surprised that the nominator bothered to include the headlines at all, considering they have zero weight as evidence here per policy) or are opinion pieces, which aren't reliable regardless. Eight entries are examples where Fox has bashed PolitiFact, instances where Fox has expressed opinions but not made any claims of facts that can be disputed. It is not false or unreliable to say that Twitter is upset with a rival news outlet, or to quote from tweets and radical pundits; those are just other peoples' opinions. At risk of sounding like a far-right radical or political POV-pusher, it's very hard to ignore the views of others here that this RfC is as about personal politics as it is about reliability. On a more practical note, the status quo already urges caution with regard to Fox, and that seems sufficient to me. Toadspike (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or deprecate, per dozens of sources presented in previous RfCs. No scholar or expert that I'm familiar with considers FN a reliable news source, so neither should we. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to generally unreliable. Fox has published a few false statements as fact. AKK700 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Depreciate Fox News pushes a point of view in a way that is beyond the normal bias of other news articles. Let's take Islam as an example, I quote Numerous scholars have shown how Fox News has shaped attitudes toward Muslims, especially among Republicans (Iyengar and Recker [17]; Zuniga et al. [50]). Indeed in some prior analyses, researchers find that Islamophobia among both Christians and Republicans operates through Fox News viewership (Calfano et al. [ 6]; Stroud and Lee [45]). from source: WINNICK, T. A. Islamophobia: Social Distance, Avoidance, and Threat. Sociological Spectrum, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 6, p. 359–374, 2019. DOI 10.1080/02732173.2019.1704668. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=141192409&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 4 ago. 2022. So it's a "news" site that is islamophobic? No thanks. Others have already shown how Fox News misinformation about COVID and natural immunity occurred and that is fatally misleading. CT55555 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Are those sources referring to the news or the commentary/talking heads? It seems most of the time when looking at comments about Fox one finds they are talking about Tucker Carlson et al rather than the basic reporting which a subset is at question here is what is at question in this RfC. Springee (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I read content via the Wikipedia Library resource a bit before posting, and I found that academic sources tend not to make this distinction between parts of Fox News. I also observed that WP:RSP doesn't seem to either. So I find the concept in which people seem to think a source can have reliable elements and unreliable elements to be unconvincing. I contend that to be a credible news network, a corporation can't have a crazy racist uncle section that we all just accept as not really the network. CT55555 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• That sounds a little like SYNTH with a splash of OR. Islamophobia has nothing to do with reporting factual news; rather, such labels reflect bias on both sides, and we don't downgrade a source because it's biased. If we did, we wouldn't have any news sources from which to choose. I see big holes in the arguments favoring the deprecating/downgrading of Fox in light of the unquestioned acceptance of CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, WaPo, and NYTimes as RS despite similar or worse reporting. Cuomo was a long way from providing ethical journalism and so was NBC's Brian Williams. There are just too many to name them all. Atsme 💬 📧 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think I'm allowed to synthesise and opine here, I think this is a process of seeking opinion, we're not writing an article here. I did acknowledge that all news has bias, and I stated that Fox, in my opinion, operates outside normal parameters. I stand by my perspective that pushing an islamophobic agenda is not behaviour consistent with a reliable news source and that is just one example that I've cherry picked to build upon unscientific health information pushed by Fox mentioned in more detail by others. I think it's OK for you to share anecdotes in links, but let's take a step back and consider the bigger picture and my perception is that Fox is an outlier in terms of journalistic integrity, and if someone opens a conversation about the other sources above, I'll critique them there. CT55555 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. I still cringe from their story years ago that elderly people were standard killed in hospitals in The Netherlands. The truth was that unbearably suffering people (not even alone the elderly, as Fox claimed then) could file a paper request to help with euthanasia, in discussion with family and physicians. Active killing, as Fox claimed would happen in The Netherlands, is still illegal. The Banner talk 23:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo, if not upgrade, mostly per WP:NOTBURO but also per the characteristics of modern US mass media. A strong proscription of Fox News—at least as stated here ("generally unreliable")—will very likely be taken as license to remove all existing Fox citations. (Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I have seen enough unpleasantries at AP2 that I can make no other conclusion.) Fox still contains legitimate, although opinionated, political coverage, and I don't think most experienced editors will claim that, say, pre-2008 Fox is "generally unreliable." These subtleties are not captured in "generally unreliable." I caveat this !vote by noting that I did not thoroughly assess the sources presented by Andrevan below. Based on Andrevan's comments alone, however, Fox News has made a fair number of questionable assertions, usually the result of mixing fact with opinion, and a handful of blatant factual errors. The evidence that calling Fox News a "no consensus" source has caused serious disruption is weak. Editors always have the discretion to replace suboptimal sources with better ones. In a pinch, RSP is a helpful guideline; it's not some sort of oracle, although it's often treated that way. The Sagan standard is policy: caution is required whenever any source claims something extreme or contentious, even newspaper of record–type sources. Hence we have WP:MEDRS and (to some extent) WP:APLRS. As an aside, given its importance and broad appeal, I suggest that this RfC be extended longer than the usual 30 days. On a positive note, I am glad to see that this discussion has not devolved into pure vitriol and that several cogent arguments have been put forth. Ovinus (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo I see no reason to change the current status. Yes it may have a right wing stance on the news, but every news outlet holds a political view theirs is just more pronounced/infamous like CNN or the Guardian are for their left leaning views. Plus as above, we don't want this to cause another puritanical purge of Fox sources like happened with the Daily Mail if passed which will result in a lot of WP:POINT discussions (plus could drag others like Fox Sports (Australia) into the sweeping removals). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo until evidence is presented that there has been editoral changes to the newsroom portion of FoxNews in the last few months. People, above, seem to be conflating the TV content and the newsroom content that goes on the website. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RSP does seem to treat news companies as a whole. What I see is that it does not tend to have different ratings per medium. If people are generally taking Fox News to include television content and internet content in a time in human history when "television" news is often delivered via internet, perhaps it is logical to treat all an outlet's content collectively? CT55555 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  While it's atypical, there are cases that specifically draw a dividing line w.r.t. reliability for certain sections/topics. Aside from how we currently treat Fox News, these include Sixth Tone, the Huffington Post , Rolling Stone, Anadolu Agency, and Business Insider. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  And, we also don't tend to rate based on corporate ownership per se; The Times and WSJ are owned by the same company that owns the New York Post and The Sun, while the owners of Politico and Die Welt also owns Bild and Business Insider. Big companies often own various different quality news outlets that have different target audiences. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade Most if not all of the criticism is about talk shows on Fox News Channel, such as "Fox and Friends," rather than Fox News news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable no matter who broadcasts them and if that were the standard for reliability of news reporting, we would have to deprecate all cable news. I note that long time Fox News anchor Shep Smith moved to CNBC, while long time Fox News Channel host Megan Kelly moved to NBC. And both CNN hosts Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs moved to Fox. The only difference between Fox and the other cable news networks is that its editorial policy is more right-wing. TFD (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo My own sense is that it's reliability is dependent on the topic of coverage. It needs to be evaluated in a given context. I also suspect that many reactions here are colored by Fox's talk shows, rather than its news reporting. JArthur1984 (talk)JArthur1984
• Status Quo To evaluate a media source that publishes thousands of articles annually (and in the near-future, with AI, we’ll have millions if not billions), a statistical analysis of the content is going to be increasingly important. Something like the Media Bias Chart (with a methodology that is trustworthy and open-source) ought to be Wikipedia’s approach to assess bias and reliability, rather than the seeking and finding of a few individual examples (or counterexamples) of bias and unreliability. BBQboffin (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo There are some instances in which Fox is unreliable, but at the same time, there are also some instances in which it is fine as a source. It really depends on the individual articles you’re looking at. Doing a full on depracation or removal of many Fox citations without looking at the individual articles will do far more harm than good. If better sources can be found, they should be used instead, but this isn’t always the case. X-Editor (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or Deprecate. A few years ago I was willing to bend over backwards to keep Fox as a source. Aside from it being big, I actively wanted it for diversity given how many sources on the right had tanked themselves with complete and utter unreliability. However Fox has rotted since then. In addition to the case made by so many others, I'll try to add a new angle. Amid the endless drumbeat of propaganda, Fox did have some high quality elements in the lineup. In particular their Election Desk was widely acknowledged as among the best in the business. The staff were of course Republican, but they were noted for objective and analytical and expert elections calls. It was particularly noted when they called Arizona for Biden before anyone else, and they nailed it. They ended up fired for it - fired for doing some of the best work in the business. And then there's Chris Wallace - another top tier respected professional. He quit Fox, explaining "I’m fine with opinion: conservative opinion, liberal opinion. But when people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable." Given everying cited on this page, given that Fox's quality staff are either being fired or fleeing, it's just not worth it trying to work around all of the malicious or incompentent or sloppy crap. If something is newsworthy, cite it from somewhere else. Alsee (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo The evidence does not convince me. Though fox is clearly not generally reliable (and the evidence supports this), spot checking the politics section on the website reveals, for me, that fox isn't generally useless as a source. Editors should be able to use Fox News (in politics/science) with a dose of caution, especially for uncontroversial claims. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • After checking fox news out of curiosity after the Biden affadavit, I guess [22] and [23] are good examples of what I generally consider Fox's coverage to be like in the [controversial] politics area (I'm not trying to cherrypick as one article was the front story in the politics section and the other was the coverage I was curious about, but I might've anyway). Neither contain what appear to be false facts (things spoken in Fox voice) and anything that I might consider to be dubious was quoted from somebody else in the format "X said Y" (which can be considered someone else's opinion, but the presentation of it as fact is not great). In addition, other persepectives to what they've said are given one line, if any. That's not ideal journalism and it should defintitely be used cautiously, but I don't think it's evidence that it shouldn't be used in most cases. Editors that want to use it (perhaps to support a point of view or uncontroversial campaign fundraising statistics) would not be able to use it [appropriately] or have a harder time using it [appropriately] since generally unreliable will probably be seen as license to remove/keep out most of fox news references. In addition, I don't see the downgrade of one of the few marginally reliable (or better) large right-wing media outlets in the US as good and I think it'll hamper being closer to a NPOV. Finally, there isn't convincing evidence that fox news citing is causing disruption, see Rhohodendrites's What's the exigency, and considering the above I see no reason why it should change (except perhaps a stronger rewording should happen). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. If there is anything reliable and useful, it will nearly always be found on better and more reliable sources, and some of its best newspeople have left Fox for other news bureaus because the news division is unreliable. The whole site can still be used for WP:ABOUTSELF, but not about others, especially politics and science. Because most of the site is a misinformation and propaganda source, and there isn't always a clear separation between its news and opinion content, there is too much danger associated with allowing use of the news division. Use other RS for news, politics, and science. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or Status Quo: I'm leaning toward downgrading, but would not be opposed to the SQ. I think Fox is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and a downgrade would be appropriate. However, I think the SQ also offers editors leighway to use Fox for non-controversial claims (somewhere in the comments or survey another editor mentions birthdays as an example). Fox is probably reliable for only the most basic factual political reporting (where candidate lives, age, maybe party membership), but anything past that they tend to be opinionated in their coverage and, most concerning to me, very late and hesitant to issue corrections.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo – Per others here. It is generally reliable for non-controversial claims and actual news. If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well, but I’m not making the argument for any. United States Man (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment about errors that are "bugs" or "features": I frequently see this argument about Fox News, as made above: "If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well." No, that argument makes no sense, because Fox does it on purpose. The others just make human errors. We do not downgrade or deprecate sources because they occasionally "get it wrong". Journalists make mistakes, and it happens to the best. That's a "status quo" situation. As long as the source has a habit of correcting such errors, then things are "as they should be". These errors are seen by the source as a regrettable "bug" in the system. It's the price of using human journalists.

We deprecate sources when the errors are a "feature", not a "bug", and so it is with Fox News. Those are not "errors". They are deliberate. It is a "feature" of all Murdoch media enterprises, including Fox News. It is only the degree that determines whether we downgrade or deprecate such sources. Too much carelessness and sloppiness get "downgraded". Egregious and systematic "feature" errors (mis- and disinformation) get deprecated. That's why Fox News, as a propaganda source, should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk)

• Do you have any specific evendence to prove both parts of ...Fox does it on purpose. The others just make human errors, where "Fox" means the Fox News website being discussed here (and not something like Tucker Carlson's opinion show)? You're making very strong allegations of intent, which are easy to feel are true but are really hard to prove are actually true, and any such evidence that was unambigious and convincing would be pretty signficant in the context of this RFC. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)(PING me) 02:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• "staff say has helped mold the websites more in the image of the network’s right-wing opinion programming."[24] Andre🚐 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Daily Beast is a yellow source at RSN - "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Similar material in the NYT: [25] More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Andre🚐 20:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• GretLomborg, are you seriously that unfamiliar with this topic? The better news anchors will correct glaring errors when confronted, unlike Carlson, Hannity, Gutfeld, Bongino, Perrino, Piro, Doocy, et al. The problem with the news side is that they consistently refuse to cover certain very important events that are contrary to the GOP and Murdoch party lines, and when they do cover such events, they do it in a very one-sided manner that seeks to undermine the facts. The news anchors who won't do that get openly ridiculed and persecuted and have left Fox News. Even Chris Wallace has left.

For example, Fox News refused to cover the Jan. 6 hearings. They were the ONLY network which did that. Fox News has also pushed fake election "fraud" stories for a long time, causing Chris Wallace to leave. Those are serious breaches of journalistic ethics. When the facts are very well-known, and a major news source like Fox News consistently contradicts the facts and/or refuses to cover or discuss them, that reveals political, agenda-driven, coverage and consciousness of guilt. They are flying under the radar, and one can only do that when one knows what is true and seeks to avoid it. They are a propaganda source.

In the end, if there is any form of news worth reporting here, all other RS will cover it, so we should ensure that only those sources are used. Deprecate Fox News. We literally lose NOTHING by doing so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So, in other words, you don't really have evidence, just speculation. Also why do you even bring up Carlson, Hannity, Gutfeld, Bongino, Perrino, Piro, Doocy? They're not anchors, they're opinion talk show hosts, and they're already listed as generally unreliable, and like I said before, they're not under discussion in this RFC. My understanding is Wallace left because he didn't like what those talking heads were doing on thier opinon shows, not with what the news operation was doing, and your source doesn't contadict that. Also, if not covering some story at a particular volume is grounds for deprication, then we would need to depricate the NY Times, because they do that too; which just shows that criteria isn't a good one. Frankly, I'm only seeing things here that reinforce the already pretty negative status quo (see WP:FOXNEWS). I understand Fox News is a hate-object for many (primarily because of their opinion talk shows), so I think it's really important to be careful about what we're actually talking about (foxnews.com) and not gesture at other parts that are out of scope and already correctly (negatively) labeled. GretLomborg (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking the view that any Fox News story is likely duplicated by another from other is fine, but that shouldn't be used to justify the depreciation of Fox for two main reasons.

First, it will make RSP clear that we discriminate against right-leaning sources. Fox isn't the only right leaning source out there but it is likely the most appatent right-leaning one, and eliminating it will make WP become more open to criticism and attack from those already dissatisfied with how we do typically mirror left-leaning sources, which can make every editor's life difficult.

Second, nearly everything being discussed about why Fox is a bad source are things that every other major paper does, just far more diluted and far less obvious. Distorting news to give one side morepredominance, for example. As yet no one has shown a case where Fox has done 100% fake news as the case of Daily Mail or RT, which should be held as metrics when sources should be deprecated. Instead, we are trying to downgrade Fox for doing what all other major news sources also do, just not with the same frequency. So if you deprecated Fox for that, then we need to start reviewing other sources for the same reason.

I am absolutely fine with the advice of seeking other sources to replace Fox ones with if possible, but we can state this without creating future problems by downgrading or depreciating Fox. Masem (t) 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox has fabricated information: for example that Clinton paid to infiltrate White House servers.[26][27] or that the Biden admin redefined 'recession'[28][29] and they remain uncorrected. If other sources do it, downgrade them too. Andre🚐 17:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That first case I would consider exaggeration of what the report actually said (picking up on isolated phrases to support how they'd like to see it reported), while the second does properly explain the mess on the definition of recession (which other sources have also reporyed) and then points fingers at staunch Biden policy supporters to paint them as hypocritical. Thats again taking a specific POV as how they report but not a complete false information presented as if it were the truth. Masem (t) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The first case, the phrase does not appear anywhere "White House servers" that they claim is in Durham's document. It's a fabrication. The 2nd case, the Biden administration did not redefine recession at any time: it was always defined by NBER in the U.S. Both are blatantly false, not exaggerations. Andre🚐 19:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In the first case reading both the Fix article and the article debunking it, it is clear Fox was writing in the full article about the DNS servers that were handling requests from the white house, but In that first para said these "white house servers". That is not miles from the truth and a purposely vague statement to make one want to read more, but as the debunking article goes, it is all part jf cluckbait mentality that all media sources use, to get something to intice the reader above the fold or in short search results listing. So no Fox did not make up anything, just used sloppy tech reporting to entice readers. The second they aren't forcing on Biden but on his media supporters that stood by the definition of recession Biden had used and now, in Fo's view, were eating crow by saying oops when Biden backed off that. Its obvious why Fox is focusing on this part of the story, but again they correctly state what happened with Biden and the definition if recession. (That second debunking article is about s social media post and not Fox's coverage). This selective focus is common among all media as well and thus not a reason to target Fox for it. Masem (t) 20:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The DNS servers were between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank, nothing was "infiltrated," and nothing in Durham mentions the White House or its servers, despite Fox's reporting. Fox's reporting also does indeed say that Biden redefined "recession" in the article body in the link I posted on FoxNews.com. The fact check I posted from PolitiFact wasn't one of Fox, but of the same sentence posted elsewhere. Andre🚐 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Fox uses "infiltrated" as their own word, but that's nothing different from, say, how most major news sources called the FBI's search on Mar-o-lago as a "raid". As I said, I can read Fox's report, knowing that Durham's report is talking about DNS servers that are not located at the WH, and see how Fox is stretching the language but not being flatly untruthful when they say that there was activity around "WH servers" which could be read as "servers used by the WH" (which would include the DNS servers). So again, that's understanding where Fox has used specific language to serve their needs but not have created flat out lies. And on the recession definition, Fox points out that it is the Biden admin that has given separate definitions of what a recession is. Yes, the language Fox chooses is tailored to fit their negative impression of Biden and his admin, but that's no different from how Trump is treated by the left-leaning media, just not as "concentrated". Doesn't mean Fox is bad, but the current advice at RSP (that Fox's reliability for political and science news is questionable) would allow us to avoid those specific article knowing the bigger picture when we add in stories from other major outlets. Masem (t) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The servers were Trump Tower servers, this was before the election, so it's a flat out lie. If they were "spying" on White House servers, they'd be Obama's servers at the time. There were no White House servers or servers used by the White House anywhere in the whole Durham thing. Even if you think "infiltrate" is a reasonable description of what they did (it's not), the White House part is a fabrication. Fox just invented it out of whole cloth. As far as the recession thing, despite Fox's statement, "Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession..." NBER has for many years defined what a recession is. If you don't believe me, look at the old version of the recession article from 2021. Andre🚐 03:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate Fox News is, without a doubt, a propaganda apparatus, first and foremost. They were acceptable for a time due to the relative neutrality of their general news reporting, but this is being eroded steadily, and it's time we stopped pretending like that's not a major red flag for unreliability. Happy (Slap me) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Almost all of this "downgrade" garbage is based on political motivation. NYT and others that are "reliable" consistently push a political viewpoint. FoxNews is no worse/better. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, this downgrade has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how it communicates misleading information (like Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL). This Vox video shows how Fox News's mixed messaging from opinion programming to factual reporting has actually created internal conflict among viewers of the Fox network, specifically in the area of the COVID vaccine. And even though Fox News does report some truths (just as RT reports some facts as well), it has become clear that News Corp wanted Fox News to appeal to a conservative audience. This is, in fact, the same problem with MSNBC; its attempts to appeal to partisan audiences has resulted in both MSNBC and Fox News losing its ability to present information in a non-misleading way. CNN is slightly left leaning and yet it at times can be quite reliable (its online articles, not the screaming matches on TV). On the other side, Wall Street Journal is slightly right leaning yet it too also does not knowingly publish misinformation. This is about the marketing to political appeal affecting the credibility of Fox News, not "political motivation". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given that rather deranged diatribe on your talk page --screeching about "leftist cesspools", "Marxists", and every other favourite Tucker Carlson buzzword-- I can't imagine you being taken seriously. Dricoust (talk) Dricoust (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  What someone had said on their talk page have no effect on their argument here. You didn't engage in the discussion with WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the political opinion of the other editor. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade or deprecate Supporters of the status quo or upgrading make the argument that this RFC exists for political reasons, but it's well-documented that Fox News deliberately spreads disinformation to further their own agenda, as articulated by Andrevan, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Loki, and others. My own political leanings aside, I agree that right-wing sources can and should be used, as long as they don't deliberately distort facts. Now, every source messes up and publishes something false every once in a while, but when it comes to Fox News it happens far too often to be an accident, and it's happening even more often now. It would be irresponsible to keep considering Fox News a usable source when it is getting further and further divorced from reality. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade - Fox News has systematically wrong reporting and disinformation that goes beyond the general biases that do exist. Leaving it as "no consensus" would be inconsistent, as other sources with similar tendencies were considered unreliable as well. I fully concur in the analysis of Anachronist and after reviewing the "Evidence added by Andrevan" section conclude that we can certainly agree that Fox News is an unreliable source for politics. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo - Needs to be a case by case basis. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade They've been able to go too long promulgating misinformation, coasting off the presence of a few nominally reputable journalists. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, editors arguing that we should upgrade Fox News are telling on themselves. We should be suspicious of what they bring to a collegial editing environment, especially those who have been here many years. Protonk (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The argument to upgrade relies on a willful misunderstanding of the purpose of the RFC. Andrevan and others have reiterated many times that the RFC is about the reliability of Fox News, not its political slant (although its political slant does allegedly affect its reliability). I have not seen a single argument to upgrade that addresses the evidence provided by various editors; they all equivocate between Fox News and liberal news sources, paying no attention to the stated purpose of the RFC and the ample evidence given that would suggest that downgrading or deprecating are the only responsible options. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the “upgrade” !voters could compile a list of times Fox was accurate in its political and/or science reporting (or at least a sample of such). That would give us something to compare. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What thread are you reading? Editors have been arguing for tens of thousands of words over just whether the first four of the dozen or so articles posted are actually genuinely cases of Fox being demonstrably inaccurate. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, your notion that these same editors should now provide their own "accurate" articles is simply bizarre (since obviously the presumption would be that if the best evidence of "inaccurate" articles are considered technically accurate, then all other articles can be presumed accurate until reviewed.) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Uhm, contributors that have what you consider to be a 'wrong' opinion with fox news are definitely able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. Atsme, for example, has (rigorously) trained 11 (11!) patrollers at Wikipedia:NPPSCHOOL which is an area with a substantial backlog. Chris troutman has served as publication manager of the WP:Signpost and has written a few articles for them. Both have, of course, bring other things to the Wikipedia environment. I don't think its wise to say to be suspicious of what a group of editors brings to the editing environment without providing evidence or examining several of the editors' contributions first. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If they're willing to support propagandists (perhaps for some good reason like misguided duty to equanimity) then they are asking us to give in to misinformation. That being the case, it is rather more of a shame that they are long term contributors with positions of responsibility, friends in high places, and deep experience with the platform. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith of all the contributors. Andre🚐 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone who, in good faith, supports the upgrading of our general view toward Fox News has roughly the same impact for our readers and the world at large as someone who does so for any other reason. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Good faith is only half of the puzzle. A lot of the arguments for "upgrade" seem to be arguments without arguments, such as something along the lines of "CNN and MSNBC are about the same reliability as Fox News", or "We are becoming more liberal". No, this is not about partisanship, nor is this about CNN or MSNBC. This is specifically about Fox News. The fact that these arguments were made in good faith does not mean they were not misguided. Even some of the downgrade or deprecate arguments are arguments without arguments (something along the lines of "Fox News is propaganda", which again, is opinion). I have put my views about Fox News aside and while yes, it is a conservative site, what prompted me to rethink the reliability of Fox News is the recent downgrade by NewsGuard (a somewhat good starting place for assessing the reliability of a news website). In the recent years, many of the credible reporters have left Fox News. Shepherd Smith left Fox News only to join MSNBC and host his own program there. Chris Wallace left Fox News to partake in the now-defunct CNN+. These changes in anchors and whatnot leave the future of Fox News reliability in limbo. Also note, a full deprecation is not the same as a ban; deprecated sources are just sources that are believed to be extremely unreliable and thus should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Fox News is still a good source for attributed opinion, but I do not think it has the level of credibility as BBC to verify facts. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also remember that a lot of the "arguments without arguments" will get ignored when assessing consensus. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, would you look at that. Last night Fox News decided to share a doctored photograph of the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the Mar a Lago warrant, implying he was on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein's confidant. Naturally this was in Fox's "opinion" time slot (which not coincidentally is during prime time), but any organization willing to do this is not even remotely reliable as a source. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• It is also worth noting that the idea of "CNN, NYT, NPR, MSNBC, etc." as being "the same as fox but on the left" or representing a monolithic "left wing" view in anything resembling the way FOX represents a right wing view is a political fiction created by a rapidly radicalizing right wing bloc in the United States. The idea that essentially ALL MEDIA is somehow on the "left" with FOX (and more recently, Newsmax and OAN) on the right should be self-evidently false, given that it would 1. require a massive conspiratorial alignment of many different media organizations, 2. assumes facts not in evidence given the conservative ownership of most of the supposedly left-wing organizations and 3. presents a cartoonish idea of what "left-wing" means--to paraphrase Charlie Brooker, including anything to the left of Mussolini. To succumb to this argument (as it looks like we might) is to allow the American right wing to set the terms of debate. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"promulgating misinformation" is disinformation. Misinformation is accidental, disinformation is intentional. There is a world of difference between mis- and dis- GreenC 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo, leaning towards downgrade — The reliability of Fox News is clearly geared towards a more conservative audience, including its more climate-related articles, but its articles related to unrelated topics may not have the same level of bias. My assessment of Fox News (see the below section ElijahPepe's assessment) offers a much more thorough breakdown of Fox News. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. I see no reason to change one way or the other. I cite Fox News on occasion for propositions for which I find that the citation is uncontroversial. BD2412 T 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or Deprecate - I find the Fox News website to be on par with its sister publication, the New York Post. Similar tabloid-style headlines, I've seen Fox News even republish NYP and vice versa. Its topics of coverage even when fact-checked are not things to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate science coverage, downgrade politics and everything else – outright promotion of misinformation has only intensified since the pandemic and the 2020 election, to the point where we'd be kidding ourselves if we pretended accuracy was a goal, let alone a priority, in their editorial process. Per Aquillion, finding reliable and academic sources documenting this has long been trivial, and it's silly to keep perenially having this debate as more stack up. Any other source with this record would have been rated unreliable or deprecated long ago. As others have said, by this point we have to accept the misinformation is a feature, not a bug. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to expand on this a little. Reliability on Wikipedia is dependent on two criteria:

1. Is there an editorial process in which accuracy is treated as the highest priority?
2. Are the products of that process reliably accurate?

We use sources where the answer to both these questions is "yes". (For example, there are tens of thousands of blogs that have never published a false word but which we classify as unreliable because we don't have evidence of a process geared towards ensuring that.) In this RfC, things like testimony on the inner workings of Fox have been dismissed as lacking specificity while, simultaneously, specific examples of misinformation, such as the long list presented by Andrevan, have been dismissed as anecdotal. The first kind of evidence shows that accuracy isn't a priority in the process, while the second kind shows us that this leads to inaccurate information being published. Academic analyses, such as those presented by Aquillion, show both. Where ideally we would have active evidence of both criteria, here we have active evidence against both of them. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade The website presents too much misinformation, fhalf-truth, and fabrication, that mislead readers and video clip viewers. It's been rather glaring this week, when we've seen even the more trusted Fox contributors such as Brett Baier misrepresenting the sequence of events (non-compliance with a subpoena) that led the US to seek a search warrant for documents in Trump's possession. It would be deprecate, except that the website contains lots of local news from Fox affiliates, some of which is in-depth and well covered local community and political information. I oppose options 1 and 2. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Brett Baier does not contribute to the written newsroom content being discussed here. He is one of the talking heads already covered by past RfCs. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Brett Baier is not a "talking head." He is the anchor of FoxNews' evening hard-news TV broadcast and, with the depature of Chris Wallace, is the most senior reporter and analyst of fact on the FoxNews TV and web sites. What is your evidence to back that he does not have editorial input and/or control over the content he reports. I think that is incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think one of the reasons this RFC exists is the organization has a reckless and tactical disregard for the truth, regardless of whatever external divisions we may imagine apply. Baier might already be covered under a past RFC but the people who write his show and pay his salary also pay the salaries of folks who produce website content and direct what they write. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo but leaning towards downgrade. I definitely regret supporting Fox's reliability in the 2020 RfC and I think ElijahPepe's analysis is sound, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to making it clearer that their political/science-related reporting is something we should be avoiding. (As an aside, I generally think Wikipedia should rely more on newspapers like WSJ and NYT when it comes to politics and discourage cable news sources like Fox and NBC but that's not what this RfC is about.) JOEBRO64 16:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade: Fox News has a long history of reporting extremist opinion as fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade or Status Quo: Piggybacking on GRuban's review of the given "evidence", #4 listed below as evidence claims "According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated" but the source he gives from cnn states "CNN has not confirmed whether any [of the corroborated] content relates to then-candidate Trump," which of course, was the whole point of the dossier. He goes on to include that "body [Fox] says: The dossier has now been largely discredited." which was patently true, as this source from NPR shows how mainstream sources had to revisit their own coverage. This is not the last time recently that they've "gotten it wrong", and I don't see evidence of Fox doing consistently shabby reporting, nor are any other points listed below convincing. Subuey (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• While it may be inching towards it I don't believe the evidence shows a clear categorical change at this time. There's a wider argument that could be made to discourage high-immediacy, tabloid-like sources in general but I don't think this is a good place to make it. Wording could be revised to be stronger per VickKiang. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo Fox News is known for some degree of bias, but it isn’t as terrible as others and requires context. As far as science goes, WP:WEATHER uses Fox News quite a bit in news reports, and they’re usually accurate. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo per Springee and my reasoning in the previous RfC, it is a standard NEWSORG and its current status is not causing issues for our sourcing purposes.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. I try to avoid commenting about political topics, but the principal problem here is not actionable on the axis of left-right political bias. The essential issue is one of reliability, the purpose of this forum. We frequently discuss a well-documented pattern of lack of reliability on Fox News. Much has changed since the last measurement of this source, as evidence shows. Is this pattern of unreliability due to gross incompetence? Malicious intent? Of a demonstrated business model which appears to coordinate diverse outlets in order to affect political ends by repeatedly presenting deliberate falsehoods, in order to discredit positions which oppose the current political objectives of the business? Acting on the axis of reliability, most wikipedians seem okay with political side-taking, but reject the repeated pattern of deliberate falsehood issues, as documented in already presented evidence. BusterD (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo as news content is generally reliable. Commentary and opinion content is, of course, non-objective. thorpewilliam (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

*Upgrade or Downgrade CNN and MSNBC - FoxNews not reliable but neither is CNN nor MSNBC. John Stossel pointed this out in his video on wikipedia bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA.

The confidence in the Media is plummeting. If wikipedia wants to stay relevant, it needs to fairly recognize that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are all biased.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/ RaySmall88 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• CNN and MSNBC are outside the scope of this RFC. If you want to downgrade CNN and MSNBC, open separate RFCs for each of them. Besides, as many editors have reiterated many times before, this RFC is not about the political leanings of Fox News, but about its problems with reliability. CNN and MSNBC may be biased, but they are generally reliable as far as reporting is concerned, and they do not distort facts to fit their beliefs. The same cannot be said for Fox News, as the evidence below shows. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• RaySmall88, we do not deprecate sources because of bias. All sources have some sort of bias, and that's okay. When the bias is so extreme that they consistently make errors, not as a "bug" in the system, but as "feature" of their editorial policy, we deprecate them. That is the case with Fox News and all Murdoch media, but is not the case with CNN or MSNBC. Too much carelessness and sloppiness get a source "downgraded", whereas egregious and systematic "feature" errors (mis- and disinformation) get it deprecated. That's why Fox News, as a propaganda source, should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

::*:User:valjean, I believe that is WP:Cherrypicking. CNN's journalistic standards were nonexistent in its progapanda coverage of Andrew Cuomo by his brother Chris Cuomo. MSNBC's conduct of the Rittenhouse trial was tantamount to jury tampering. Again, the lens through which we look will dictate which source is reliable. All 3 are unreliable. RaySmall88 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC) _{RaySmall88 is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)}

• Status quo. Due to the primacy of this source for American Politics, downgrading it would be detrimental to Wikipedia's neutrality, making it difficult to cover what is being said on both sides of the aisle. Like with most other sources, the reliability of this source should be determined on a case-by-case basis. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo, at least for politics. The documentation of relatively frequent errors (even if some were later corrected) clearly precludes an upgrade. On the other hand, Iazyges' analysis shows that Fox News provides a useful counterweight when more reliable sources do make mistakes. Given the scarcity of (semi-)reliable sources on the right side of American politics, downgrading Fox News would make it more difficult to achieve a WP:NPOV. I've read throught about 10 Fox stories on climate. Those dealing with the political news around climate legislation are of decent quality, some articles not even biased. With politised science topics, the reliability drops a bit further (probably due to a mix of complexity + bias + non-optimal editorial standards). While I wouldn't be against a downgrade there, our policies and standards on scientific sourcing already prevent this from being an issue. I don't remember seeing Fox News cited for anything to do with climate (whereas I do remove Guardian articles often, which as a biased lay source also makes frequent errors). The climate denial I found was all in quotes, rather than in "Fox Voice", which makes it less likely that it finds it way into Wikipedia. Femke (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade to no politics - Front and center on the Fox News site at this moment, three stories claiming Biden was involved in the Mar-a-Lago search – despite no evidence. The respected journalists have left. Most of Fox News is now masks don’t work, vaccines are bad, Democrats are Socialists (and pedophiles), Ukraine belongs to Russia, Democrats want the country to be non-White, and still stories about Hillary. I know some shows are commentary and some news. But looking at their schedule, there is very little in the way of news. Comparing this to the NYTimes, which Atsme says should be downgraded, we see a newspaper where the A section has only two pages of editorials and op-eds, which include Conservative viewpoints. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I commented on the current contents of the Fox News site; I should also mention CNN, which Atsme said was the same, but on the left. Their major stories are at the upper-left of the site. They have several at the moment about how bad it is in Afghanistan after Biden’s withdrawal, including an article titled: “Opinion: Biden's Afghanistan exit decision looks even worse a year later”. I guess CNN is an anti-Biden network. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you link to those articles? I looked at the home page and didn't see articles that appear to fit that description (who knows how quickly they refresh the page). Anyway, it would be helpful to look at the specific claims. Springee (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Gone now. Now they're ranting about clean energy. One of the articles contains a claim that the baby formula shortage is Biden's fault -- not the unsanitary conditions in a major formula plant that caused a shutdown. On the right, it says "Average Gas Prices per State" and appears to say that most people in the US are, as of this day, paying $6.311 per gallon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

A search for articles on the site shows this one under "Lifestyle"[1] which does not mention Biden but mentions supply chain issues and the pandemic. Another here with no mention of Biden[2]. There's a clearly-marked opinion piece here[3] where the author urges the Biden Administration (as FDA is under the executive branch) to invoke the Defense Production Act, but no specific criticism of Biden himself. This article[4] is about media coverage of the baby formula shortages and how often major news networks mentioned Biden and his administration in their reporting. But it also contains the sentence: "Supply chain issues from the COVID-19 pandemic created limited availability of many products, including baby formula. The problem became worse when Abbott Laboratories, a top baby formula provider, recalled some products and closed a plant following an FDA probe." Could you provide a link to the news (not opinion) article that has the specific claim you cited? One where Biden is blamed and the plant shutdown is not? BBQboffin (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a search of the site or lifestyles. I'm talking about the main articles which they put at the top center. They are supposedly about clean energy; but veer off in other directions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether of not we can use the articles on the foxnews.com website as an RS or not. What articles the website promotes at a given time "top center" is not relevant, neither is a gas price widget which is at best a headline, which can't be used anyway per WP:HEADLINES. And again, if you can please provide a link to your claim that "One of the articles contains a claim that the baby formula shortage is Biden's fault -- not the unsanitary conditions in a major formula plant that caused a shutdown", we then could verify that claim of yours. Or if you were mistaken about that claim, consider striking out your text above. BBQboffin (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wonder if this is a regional thing. On their home page I see no references to baby formula. A search in their search bar for "baby formula" shows the most recent article was from a month back. I'm not sure if that is based on relevance or latest. Anyway, this seems like the sort of thing where the basic facts could be correct but the relative weight etc could be biased. Absent seeing the article and claims I'm not sure we can decide it means something is sound or not. Springee (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone explain this if I'm missing something. The Fox News site now indicates that gas is averaging $6.309 in most places in the US. The reference is AAA, without a link, but there is nothing like that on the AAA site. In fact, I can't find any high near that level anywhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Down to 3.90 for a regular [30] - can you link the $6 link on the Fox site, I cannot find it?Andre🚐 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something; it's on the main page every day on the right. [31] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes you're right. My ad blocker was blocking it at first, but it's not an ad. Here's a screenshot of it: [32] Andre🚐 00:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also seeing 6.309 on foxnews.com. The possibilities are that there is a technical glitch in the feed from gasprices.aaa.com or a mistaking in coding the graphic on foxnews.com or a manual (intentional?) intervention on foxnews.com. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

“Technical glitch.” Perhaps that’s also the reason this morning Fox News top center stories included: Dr. Fauci was a coward, liar, destroying our country, should face criminal charges, funded the experiments behind the Wuhan lab leak (that didn’t happen), serially “misfeasent”, serially “perjurious”, politicized a health crisis and people died because of him, and Country music star John Rich said he guessed Fauci stepped down so that he has "time to prepare" for the "2023 Nuremberg Code trials." I was going to give the links this morning; but they were replaced with another story before I could. This is one [cite]. Dr. Fauci is now receiving death threats. The current top center story is even more disgusting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

can you post links to these articles? I'm not seeing them but that could be a regional thing. Springee (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's on the right bar, under the weather widget. [33] Andre🚐 00:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that is saying the gas in the dark red areas is in the $6 range, not the average. Not sure why the full range isn't showing but that price does line up with California u prices. Springee (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The average price in California is about $1 less[34] - that price is pretty close to the all-time California high 2 months ago - I have no idea where the $6.30 price is coming from and it's clearly a misleading glitch at best, that would not pass muster at a normal reputable news org. Andre🚐 01:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but can we drop this glitch excuse. It is updated every day. Here is the page exactly one month ago claiming it was $6.543 for most people. [35] That wasn’t the average in any state. Has it ever been? And I see nowhere on the cited site that provides a number close to that for any kind of fuel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I see the issue I was having before. I was checking on a tablet, not a computer. Even in desktop mode the website was deciding my display wasn't wide enough to show the fuel prices. Anyway, first, the map does not claim the $6 price is an average. It does appear the color scale is not generating correctly, That's sloppy but noting more since the colors on the map itself appear to correspond to the prices in the states. The map title clearly says see the average prices per state and when you hover over the a state it appears to show accurate information (presumably linked to some database). This is basically non-evidence. The heat map works but the code that auto updates the scale is bad. That certainly does not justify downgrading Fox or claiming they are trying to mislead. Springee (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not this graphic is in scope - and I'd say it is, because the RFC was the FoxNews.com news website, and it's an infographic, not a headline - the number is incorrect, sourced to AAA, and it doesn't appear to match. $6.309 appears to be completely novel, doesn't match any state. And as O3000 points out, they've continued to update this inaccurate map for a while. There's no requirement to AGF of news outlets, and it happens to fit in with their stories of Biden's high gas price crisis despite gas having been dropping for a while. Andre🚐 02:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

What number is incorrect? That number is an indicator on a heat scale. It could be $10 and the map would still be correct. That number is not the average price across the US. Also, there is no evidence that the map is incorrect, that when one hovers over any state that the average reported price for that state is in error. This isn't a question of AGF. An error in the code that generates a heat map scale is not a lie or misinformation. Springee (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? The chart is about averages. The number is in the middle of the red area. But, the number is higher than any state. If the reader realizes that the map has hot spots, they can see the real, hidden numbers. But this grossly, exaggerated number is prominently displayed and has been updated every day. Here it is three months ago claiming the price was $6.49. [36] The new center top articles this morning are about a man with a blade attacking a Republican candidate and being released. But reported by RS, it was a drunk, Iraq veteran who didn’t know who the candidate was and the “blade” was a keychain shaped like a cat with plastic ears intended for self-defense, not an assassination attempt with a knife or blade as depicted here. Assassin or assassination attempt is in this one article five times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. This is the scale on a heat plot. That it's got an error in how it's generated is clear but to claim this is Fox trying to mislead is quite a stretch. To claim the number is meant to be an average of anything is again quite a stretch. I'm not seeing anything in that article that suggests gross errors that would justify a downgrade. Perhaps you can post it in the discussion section to get more eyes on it. Springee (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The title says average. The number is in the middle of the red bar. The number is higher than every state. The number is updated daily and has been for over three months. That’s over 90 errors. How can you claim outright that this is a clear error in how it's generated? (Somehow uncaught for months) And do you really believe a judge released an attempted assassin on his own recognizance? How many excuses are you going to make for repeated exaggerations in what you believe to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia? Look at the site now. It is purely an attack site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The title says, "See Here: Average US had prices per state". No where does it claim the number you are referring to is an average. The other article should be discussed separately. Springee (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

What? The states in the map and the bar are color coded. Anyone familiar with charts knows this means the bar refers to the chart, which is about averages. What else could it possibly be? This is what you call RS? It goes back at least five months changed every day (the Internet Archive is very slow). And go ahead and discuss the other article decrying NY law because it supposedly allows an assassin attempting to murder a candidate released OR. People actually believe this rot. Or disuss the articles that have just replaced that with another set attacking Democratic cities. Or the ones below that going after BLM and John Kerry. Or below that calling Democratic mayors laughable. Or the ten on the left side, every one atacking Democrats. (Well, the one calling Fauci a criminal may be an exception as I don't know his politics.) This is a political attack site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever used software that creates heat maps (Matlab, ANSIS etc). Often the values applied to the heat map scale are auto generated. A common gotcha when using such plots is to verify that the auto generated ranges make sense for the data you are trying to display (ie don't make a failing strain load show as green). For what ever reason, the company that is actually hosting that plot for Fox has an error in their script, or Flourish Studios, the company that is actually hosting and generating the content has the error [37]. I'm not an expert, or even a amateur in web coding but it looks like the ends of the scale have been hard coded with $8 as the upper bound and $3.822 as the minimum. That would explain why the scale is so messed up. Not great but that is hardly an excuse to downgrade the company. Springee (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing any verification this was an error or that Foxnews didn't knowingly publish the misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a misrepresentation. It would be like a map of the US with a scale that was inappropriate to the size of the country. I don't think we would claim a map maker is misrepresenting something if the scale on a map of the US showed just 1 mile when the width of the map is about 3000 miles or a map of Washington DC that shows a scale of 100 miles and thus extends off the edge of the screen. Those scale errors can't reasonably be taken to suggest the US is just a few miles across or DC is over 100 miles across. That is effectively what is being argued here. Springee (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have used such software on multiple sites and have never seen an error like this. And this is an extremely highly viewed site, with the error going back at least five months on the main page. If not purposely misleading, like other articles on the main page that you won't discuss, it is sloppy beyond belief for a news source to be used by an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Do I think it's sloppy work to have that error? Yes. Do I think it's an intent to suggest average gas prices are over $6/gallon? No. That's really all we need to say about it. If you want to discuss the other article please do so in a discussion about it vs gas prices and we can let others join in. I would be happy to offer some input there but so far what I'm seeing is you don't like the bias (something I sympathize with) but you haven't shown factual errors etc. That is, you haven't shown anything that justifies downgrading to below, "use with caution". Springee (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, as far as your assumption that the daily gas prices have been wrong for over five months in the direction that fits the Fox bias is a glitch; I’m not willing to accept that this isn’t purposeful. And if it isn’t purposeful; it’s an egregious, long term error that casts doubt on reliability. As far as your claim that factual errors haven’t been shown (other than gas prices I guess); does that mean you believe Fauci funded experiments behind the Wuhan lab leak (that didn’t happen) and is a criminal, or the months of attacking vaccines and masks and pushing the narratives of election fraud are accurate, or that a NY judge just released someone who attempted to assassinate a candidate with a knife? A quick glance at the site over a few days makes it abudently clear that it is an attack site that doesn't appear to care whether statements are false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the averages have been wrong. As far as I can tell the averages when you hover over any state are correct. I said the heat scale appears to have a coding error so it doesn't render correctly. If you want to talk about other what ifs and what do I think about this article or that please list the article in the discussion section so editors can review your concerns. Springee (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You continue to state as fact your guesses. That's a poor way to evaluate RS. Well, it's been continuously wrong for over five months, even though updated daily; but it doesn't matter. And I am allowed to give examples of horrible misinformation in this section. Although, no reason to bother anymore as you have your own "facts" about some software glitch, even claiming it is unreasonable to think they would not tell the truth. Hey, they only stopped spreading lies that George Soros and the Venzuelans were behind voting machine fraud when they were sued for a billion+. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is more likely, Fox is deliberately creating a heat scale that is messed up while posting two numbers, one over the national average, one under yet the state by state results are correct or this is a code error of some type? Springee (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Springee, with It would be like a map of the US with a scale that was inappropriate to the size of the country you are begging the question. For a person who has no idea the size of the US, then that would indeed be a misrepresentation, likely to mislead a user. If it were a map of some geographical feature you'd never heard of, like the Magasump Wash, you'd have no idea whether the map was accurately showing a 10 km wide space vs.100 km wide. Few Foxnews users keep tabs on the price of fuel outside their local region but many are quick to notice a graphic that suggests it may be alarmingly high. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't misrepresent, it just wouldn't be useful. Let's assume I have a map of the US that is 1 meter wide. I put a scale on it that shows a 1mm long line and says that line equals 3 miles. Absent giving you a ruler and stating 1mm=3miles it's not very helpful if you want to estimate the distance between two cites. However, it is still correct. If the map also includes lines between cities with distances on them then you can still get good information off the map even if the scale is effectively useless. That is what we have here. The heat map is rendered in a way that compresses the low side range. It's clear the scale is messed up and the two prices on the scale are to help you read the scale, not to tell you what the national average is. Else, we could claim the lower number was the national average but that wouldn't support the "anti Biden narrative". But beyond that, the numbers when you hover over the states appear correct (no one has claimed otherwise). Also the relative colors on the map indicating lower and higher cost states appear correct. That circles back to the primary point, claiming this coding error is somehow intentional or proof that Fox is trying to spin things etc is just not reasonable. Springee (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is so unresponsive -- and so repetitive, even compounding the error in your argument that several editors have explained above -- that your posts will simply be disregarded by whoever closes this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this whole back and forth has been very repetitive. As for how much impact this gas map will have on the final closing, I guess we can't know unless we ask the closers. My guess would be none. This is is simply not significant enough to make much of a difference. If it's deliberate, it's not obvious enough. If it's an error then it doesn't grossly impact the overall reliability. Several editors is you and O3000 Andrevan but all three already argued for a downgrade. If you really wish to get a wider consensus perhaps you should ask a wider range of editors. Of course, you would have to convince editors that the number was actually meant to be the average and explain why the $3.xxx number isn't meant to be the average with the $6.xxx being perhaps the highest in the survey. You would also have to explain why the state level data is correct etc. That starts to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole. Springee (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to influence the outcome, just trying to help you give it a valid shot while avoiding time-sink equivocation and empty repetition. That's not your usual style, so I must say I was disappointed to see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo – Not the greatest source for politics, since the source has a strong bias to the right. Better sources should be used if available. If the source is going to be used, the articles need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All newspapers/networks should not be used for science topics. If used for science topics, newspapers/networks need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade - To put it very simply, Fox's quality as a source has gotten worse recently. If, somehow, the company gets its act together, we should reevaluate its standing. But for now, lets describe it as it is instead of how we wish it was. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo This seems a bit of an over reaction to a fact check generally covered under the current RSP commentary. Why would this expand it to other reporting? We should also be wary of making any changes on issues so obviously contentious. This is more likely to spawn edit wars with tu quoque responses than to improve the quality of the project. Squatch347 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo for politics. I agree with a lot of what MHawk10 has written in this thread. For politics, Fox News is marginally reliable, meaning it is usable, depending on the context and the claim it is being used to support. Fox News is a large WP:NEWSORG, and while most of their political reporting is routine and not particularly factually controversial, they have an extremely clear partisan bias, and tend to spin information (with an underlying factual basis) in a way that is most beneficial to their "side". That spin/partisan bias is most clear in their talk shows and news headlines -- evidence presented here indicates that their headlines can be misleading enough to be in some cases described as incorrect. But WP:HEADLINEs, and their talk shows, are already correctly considered unreliable; we already have it correct there. Ultimately, I haven't seen convincing evidence presented here that their errors outside of headlines and talk shows are egregious and frequent enough that we can't rely on the facts underneath a partisan spin, as long we take extra care for information about living people, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and understand context. For "science", I'm not entirely sure what being marginally reliable for science actually means in practice. We absolutely should not use Fox News as a source on what e.g. the science of climate change is, and (as Springee said above) it is absolutely fine for us to use Fox News as a source for their routine reporting on the James Webb Telescope. But we shouldn't use any news org as an authority on what e.g. the science of climate change is, so I'm not sure what that even means in practice. Endwise (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo – All news outlets are biased, and Fox is not extreme. Can't deprecate a whole news organization based on anecdotal evidence of misleading content or catchy headlines. Also, repeating an RfC just a few months after a similar one was conducted strikes me as a gigantic waste of editors' energy. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  The closer is likely to disregard this !vote for two reasons: 1) RS have been provided that document the failures of Fox as RS for news, invalidating "anecdotal". 2) "Bias" is a straw man. The issue that's been raised is willful falsification, e.g. in matter of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. JFG, given your former participation in American Politics editing, where these issues were extensively discussed, one would have thought you remained aware of these facts. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Seth Rich issue is a matter of one person likely making false claims that Fox News did not initially followup on checking, but later redacted the story with the admission they failed to check their sources. That is not the falsification if the Daily Mail kind. Yes,fishy as check and the redaction was likely promoted by threat of lawsuit, but it was redacted nevertheless. Masem (t) 15:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, WP:MANDY. Fox pounded that story and made claims that no reasonably informed journalist would have taken at face value. Just look at the talk page of our article and see how many WP editors, presumably careful editors, took the conspiracy theories at face value, even after Fox's tepid retraction. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fox's bias showed in full force and made them quietly turn tail and issue the redaction, but this type of on-the-spot that fits the works's views is not isolated to the right... Just that most of the time the is clear attempts to corroborate details. For example the amount of speculation from left leaning media in the FBI search of Mar-a-lago, or even the situation at the Indigenous Persons Parade in 2019. Mind you, most of the type they are very careful to not express their speculation as fact, but even when wtong, they still redact details.

  But in the bigger picture, we should never be rushing to include the speculation of any RS unless backed up by other sources corroborating details. eg we can say the day it happened that the FBI had searched and seized material from Trump, but we should not include any of the wild guessing that was going on in the left media. It took a few days to affirm it was related to classified documents and not, for example, evens of the Jan 6 investigation. We should have been doing the same with the Seth Rich issue ( no idea if we did or not). Waoting for the media to eventually come to a consensus on reasonings for events for a few days is the way we shoukd be editing. Masem (t) 16:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t know what left wing sources say because I rarely read them. I read the NYT and CNN, which have consistently said they expected to find classified and non-classified docs owned by the gov’t. Which turns out to be absolutely correct. Here’s the Fox News legal analyst today name-calling, saying the DOJ can’t be trusted, insulting the judge in the case, assuming anything in Trump’s favor was redacted. [38]. I don’t think we should use any right-or left-wing source and have always said MSNBC shouldn’t be used, even though I’ve not known it to devote so much time spreading absurd conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  That clip is from Fox & Friends: talk show, not news. Levivich 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the news program? Not being snarky -- it's a serious question. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News @ Night daily 11pm-midnight and Fox News Live weekends 12pm-3pm; I think the rest of the time it's talk shows. Levivich 21:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

An hour after 11pm and three hours on weekends? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I forgot America's Newsroom weekdays at 9am for 2 hrs. Levivich 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

How many cites are to these scant hours in Wikpedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

All cites to Fox News in Wikipedia these days are to the news, because the talk shows are already not citable per prior RFCs. This RFC is about whether to also make the news shows not citable. Levivich 00:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• CNN, a well establish left leaning news org, suggested a connection to Jan 6 (but also identified the national archive and the election interference too) on the day it happened: amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/08/politics/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-fbi-donald-trump/index.html they carefully did not say anything to be an absolute connection, but that would still be something that we'd not include. Masem (t) 20:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no connection. CNN said that the DOJ has two active investigations, and named them. That is, CNN specifically said that was a different investigation. OTOH, it gave a great deal of space to claims by Trump and Republicans. That's the way a balanced article should be written. As for left-leaning, I'd say it was right-leaning by European standards and regularly takes Biden to task. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

CNN is consistency see left-to-centralist [pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right], and simply following CNN as a routinely reliable source for use here, ever since Trump took office, the hyperbole towards the right has been underpinning their work, though when they report facts, they are generally 100% objective (hence why they also include criticism of Biden's policies). There hyperbole and exaggeration or slant of stories is nowhere as obvious as Fix but its there. But to stress : this bias does not mean unreliable. Sticking to objective statements of fact as the prime material we should be including, both CNN and fox are covering the same events but just their slanted takes on it. Masem (t) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not the Pew study again. It has been knocked down so many times in the last few years in WP. Who watches what is not a sign of bias. CNN and Fox aren't even in the universe. The constant stream of lies about masks, vaccines, the election. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Masem, your comment is thoughtful and constructive, but the !vote that launched this thread was neither of those, and it seems to be supported by straightforward misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  We clearly want to avoid sources that willing produce falsified material and not acknowledge it was fabricated or wrong as has been with Daily Mail, but this has been shown with Fox here. It is easy to try point the finger of purposeful disinformation, but like in the Seth Rich story, that was one person and a hasty network decision they later redacted even though it took a lawsuit threat to do it. Everything discussed has shown Fox has an very active bias and tendency to spin in the manner clickbait, but the objective details of most stories are correct, even if it is a different slice of the details compared to left leaning media. Hence the need to stress that if we are analyzing Fox under this microscope of "misinformation", we should be doing the exact same for other press sources which do the same, just not in the same routine manner as Fox Masem (t) 20:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade I am convinced of arguments presented by Atsme. I think Fox News has a great fact checking process and outstanding journalistic reputation. I cannot see any credible evidence here regarding the allegation that Fox News systematically publishes fake news. I also think that some of the downgrade arguments presented here use politically biased jargon, which the closer should take into account when evaluating the consensus.--Madame Necker (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Madame Necker: Oh really? Just do a quick search. Here's a recent example of some Fake News, from two different sources:
  

The Guardian:  Fox News airs false photo of Trump search judge with Ghislaine Maxwell

Business Insider:  Fox News aired a bizarre fake photo replacing Jeffrey Epstein with the judge who signed off on Trump's search warrant

What kind of fact checking goes on there at Fox News? I wonder. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Using a software altered image is not fake news. Most major news organizations do this practice. Madame Necker (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker: umm, LOL seriously? Swapping the face of Epstein with the face of a judge, and artificially creating & constructing a completely false narrative, isn't fake news? Hmmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you get the impression by watching Fox? I suggest you strike that embarrassing claim. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, these refs talk about the talk shows of Fox News, which is undoubtedly unreliable on WP:RSP (think of the far-right Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson), though this discussion is mainly discussing on politics and science-related news. Though, I strongly disagree with Madame Necker's claims. Most major news organizations do this practice- news organisations that are mainstream definitely make mistakes a lot, but usuallu outside of talk shows they'll correct and apologise, which isn't the case usually with Fox News. Madame Necker also ingores entirely the evidences provided below, and instead states that it has outstanding journalistic reputation. Sure, Fox isn't as bad as The New York Post or The Daily Mail, but saying that others who vote downgrade use (POLITICALLY BIASED JARGON) doesn't really have much evidence, IMO. VickKiang (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that the main page of the Fox News website is repelete with statements and links from and to the talk show videos. That site should never be used as RS. If the site isn't used, how can anyone find these morsels of reliable news in a scant number of hours a week where there is actual news? When a source is 90% opinion (often conspiratorial nonsense) and 10% news; how do you determine what is RS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate is my first choice Downgrade would be second choice. To build on XOR'easter's comment that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox. If something is notable enough other reliable souces should have coverage on it well. I cannot imagine something meetin criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia only because of its coverage on FOX. It is easier, simpler, and better to just deprecate it. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. It would probably be better to separate "science" Fox from "politics" Fox, and declare all popular-media discussions of science to be unreliable in higher-class articles. Thus, I don't really have an opinion as to "science" Fox. As for "politics" Fox, I have seen little evidence in the survey, and what of the discussion I have read, that would lead me to believe that this RfC should have a different outcome from the last RfC. If there is a difference, it is only because of the selection of editors and comments in the current RfC. Fox "politics" articles have not gotten substantially worse since the last RfC such that they should be depreciated compared to other popular-media articles. In general, sourcing to only one site is not good practice, so Fox shouldn't be used as the only basis, but that claim also applies more broadly to other popular-media sites. The only content I have seen expressed as worse-than-usual is Fox's headlines, which we can ignore anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade:  As mentioned by many others, Fox dabbles in misinformation. Both in regards to politics (election fraud conspiracy theories, for example) and science (downplaying or outright denying the reality of climate change). They certainly are not a fair and balanced media outlet by any means, as evidenced by the perspectives they choose to give more weight to. Fox does however remain a useful source when quoting what certain politicians may have said during interviews and etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Dabbles in misinformation" is disinformation. Misinformation is accidental, disinformation is intentional. -- GreenC 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade - Sites that intentionally engage in disinformation, as Fox does according to multiple reliable sources and ex-employees, use techniques. One is to post 100% reliable stories to give the viewer confidence it is a trustworthy source. They then intermingle unreliable stories. It's a trojan horse approach. RT America did the same. Thus it's true there is reliable content on Fox, but, when it comes to politics and science (which is politics to Fox) the entire site is inherently a problem, discerning what is real or not is not exact. -- GreenC 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. The Fox News strategy is one in which they don't want to be portrayed as overtly disseminating disinformation, so they will on occasion claim that mistakes were made, or that a doctored photograph was a "joke" or whatever. And yes, sprinkling in reliable stories is another way to give them the veneer of credibility. Good points. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The doctored photograph was featured on Fox's televised talk shows, which is already off limits as a source on WP. This discussion is about Fox's website's coverage of politics and science. X-Editor (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. But this is also a good example of the low-quality Fox News editorial standards, and lack of fact-checking capacity. You are aware that foxnews.com embeds video segments from their televised programming, and includes that content as part of their news articles, correct? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  That still doesn't matter, because we're talking about Fox's articles, not video segments posted on Foxnews.com. X-Editor (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  But the video segments are embedded within the articles. The content is mixed together & combined. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then don't rely on the videos as a source. If the content is mixed together in the text of the article, don't rely on that either. But there are plenty of articles on Fox's website that do not rely on content from Fox on TV. X-Editor (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo. below, I asked for examples of problematic uses and editing disputes related to them - in other words, disruptive usage that would be prevented by this change. Of the examples provided, none support downgrading the rating, as the references appear reliable for the content they support and the objections appear to be based solely on the fact that Fox News is the source.

I am also convinced by the arguments that downgrading it would damage our ability to present certain topics from a neutral point of view; given the fact that downgrading it would not address any identified problem, and would in fact cause an NPOV problem, I don't believe such a decision can be justified and I must oppose it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have also asked for examples of where this is leading to bad content in article space, but haven't seen anything presented. Without that this is a solution in search of a problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

See the recent example Andrevan added relating to if Fox can be used to say a letter objecting to some recent legislation exists.[39] It seems the arguments happen because Andrevan is acting as though RSP says Fox is red rather than yellow (never mind the facts of the article in question, color is all that matters). Springee (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"the objections appear to be based solely on the fact that Fox News is the source." This is a very good point that I hope the closers of this RfC take note of. Most disputes regarding Fox's use as a source in certain instances are based solely on the fact that it is Fox and not the source being inaccurate, which is what really matters. X-Editor (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's because Fox is synonymous with inaccuracy. How can anyone know if they're a quality, reliable source, when they also push disinformation? The accuracy of Fox is in dispute because of this unpredictable nature. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"That's because Fox is synonymous with inaccuracy." citation needed. If there's no indication from other RS that certain content from Fox is disinfo, then we should not assume so. X-Editor (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV would also be a major issue, as there are several instances in which Fox is the only source that reports on certain events and certain aspects of events. X-Editor (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That raises an important question. If Fox is the only one of the major news networks to cover a story is that because they are wrong/the story isn't important or is it because they have a different perspective and we may be neglecting an important perspective if we don't include it? I'm sure it's not the latter in every case but suggesting its never true also seems suspect. Springee (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what major national or world events would occur, where Fox News is the only one reporting on it? I have my doubts about this. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Likely none. However, not all of our articles are about major national or world events. Springee (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. This is why I think Fox should be downgraded but still available for use as a source when quoting someone they've interviewed in a story, for example. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering how much Fox is used on WP, there are bound to be instances of Fox being the only usable outlet to report on certain stories. X-Editor (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

But WP editors are not here to be truth-sleuths. We just convey the WEIGHT of the mainstream. Sad as it is, if Fox or any other source is the only beacon of truth and reality on a given article topic, it will not get much play in our content there. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please, everyone, stop for now. This RFC is already as long as The Adventures of Tom Sawyer already, and people have to read it to close it. If you haven't convinced the other side with 69,000 words of discussion, you probably won't. Take pity on whoever is going to close this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said on both points. I'm no fan of Fox News but your second point here is crucial. Retswerb (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade, as Fox News does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that WP:RS requires. I won't say they're the strongest bits of evidence, but the ones thsat have stuck with the me the most during this lengthy discussion have been
  • The use of doctored and faslely captioned images in coverage of unrest in Seattle. Fox didn't even get its apology right the first time, as it was still maintaining that the photos in the "collage"—itself a misleading term for the illustration—were taken in the same week. (see The Seattle Times)
  • The uncorrected false claim that Fauci "dismissed a study" on vaccine efficacy, when he instead cautioned against using the preprint to guide clinical decisions, echoing the advice of its authors. (see Politifact)
  • The whole Seth Rich fiasco. The Fox News story istelf was abhorrently bad, and it was immediately followed by some high-order feet dragging on retracting the story and admitting any wrong-doing. It's made much worse by Fox News insisting in its eventual settlement with Rich's family that the details of the settlement be kept secret until after the 2020 election. (see NPR, New York Times)
  The kind of deep bias that typifies Fox News coverage is not itself disqualifying when it comes to reliability, but no source we consider reliable goes as far in publishing false, misleading, fake information in service of its bias as Fox does. It does not demonstrate willingness to pull in the reins and "get it right" when the topic area is sensitive or raw, like during civil unrest or an election season, or when the stakes for getting things wrong are so high, like during a peak of the pandemic.
  All that said, I oppose deprecation. It's hard to support deprecation when attempts to define what the term means here have failed. When I compare Fox to sources that are presently deprecated, it comes out smelling like my garbage bin: bad, but I know there's worse out there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade or Status quo generally reliable and use known experts and commentators. Certainly institional to a large portion of the American and global public. Roughly analogous to CNN, just on the other side. Both should be treated the same IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade. Claiming that FOX News is generally unreliable for factual information isn't just false, it's absurd. It should be obvious that it's the only major broadcaster that even covers many important stories that our almost exclusively left-leaning media prefer to ignore—deprecating it will effectively help censor an enormous volume of entirely verifiable information and do grave institutional harm to Wikipedia. Deprecation should be reserved for organizations that deliberately publish misinformation, and this trend for wielding it as a political cudgel has put us on a terrible path. This crap isn't just maddening—even more, it's deeply saddening. Please, fellow editors, don't destroy our encyclopedia over your personal politics. ElleTheBelle 16:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  @ElleTheBelle: But why upgrade Fox? Is there anything to show that they have actually made improvements to their fact-checking capacity or editorial policies? I don't see any evidence of that. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  @ElleTheBelle: Please note the lack of evidence provided in your comment and your blatant appeal to emotion. Saying "Deprecation should be reserved for organizations that deliberately publish misinformation" while at the same time supporting an upgrade for Fox News (remember those election lies?) and presenting no evidence to support your stance doesn't seem to be convincing. Nythar^T.C 14:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade, mostly per Andrevan's evidence. I have serious reservations about all TV news and opinion shows, and I value the many hard-working right-leaning Wikipedians I've met over the years ... but those subjects aren't under discussion here. This is about Fox. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo per Mhawk and BilledMammal. Editors have presented convincing evidence that Fox is known to publish biased articles, and, on some occasions, false information. This is a good reason not to consider it a generally reliable source and to treat its articles with additional scrutiny – i.e., the status quo as it stands. It is not a reason to quasi-prohibit its use to source uncontroversial facts. – Teratix ₵ 03:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or Deprecate - Fox News, the website as well as the TV station, has a well-evidenced tendency (see sundry comments above and below) to push stories that are not well-founded, represent a known and predictable political agenda that overshadows the general idea of news reporting, and which serve to mislead the audience and cloud rather than clarify public debate. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about other sources are irrelevant here; we are not surveying opinions of MSNBC or whatever, but only the Fox news website. And the simple truth is: if a story is reliable, it will appear on a more reliable platform than Fox. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade we can almost always find better sources for what Fox reports on and the risk of letting users determine what is "good" and what is "bad" Fox News is high. We should generally avoid it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate. If they actually say something that is accurate & true then there will be better sources anyway. If there aren't then it shouldn't be here. Either way they are like the UK Daily Mail, untrustworthy. --AlisonW (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Agree that if they do the unusual thing of being accurate, there will be better sources that can be used instead. While it's also true there is bias on other channels and other programs that are more correctly called "news outlets", there is overwhelming consensus that FOX is "entertainment" and propaganda, not journalism. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sorry , but I haven't had time to read all of the comments above, but I think that Fox News should be downgraded along with all other news sources. They are in general primary sources and should be used with extreme caution per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. I've found, in my experiences, Fox generally publishes factual information on non-political topics. Fox's publications show bias, but not in ways I would consider edging on falsehoods (again, non-politics). There is a real issue of politics and science reliability from Fox, especially from the cable news segment, and unambiguous falsehoods from the talk shows. Political and scientific information can be used from Fox, with careful attention to avoid biases. Closer attention should be made towards the affiliations with 24/7 and cable news networks as a result of this discussion. Those with cable news branches present more shaky reliability, bias, and a great amount of political tension. Traditional print outlets that are a part of news networks suffer from decreased perception of reliability due to the association (e.g. CNN's cable news to Republicans diminishes CNN's online publications), but important to us they are affected by the internals of the company in a real way. The parent company's decisions are not about pure journalism—unlike other outlets like Reuters—they are split between cable, traditional journalism, and sometimes entertainment (thanks, corporate consolidation!). So, back to Fox, its journalism isn't isolated from the cable programs, and this is what I believe to be the cause of Fox's shaky reliability on politics and science. The status quo is a middle ground between allowing all of it to be grouped as reliable, questionable, or unreliable when the internals of Fox don't reflect one encompassing evaluation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade Fox themselves claim that Fox News is not news but rather entertainment. Except in very limited cases, such as quotes of what someone (themselves newsworthy) said on one of their programs, my view is that citations from Fox are not acceptable when reliable sources are needed. I did not participate in previous RFCs on this topic or I would have been advocating for this then. Disclaimer, this RFC was mention in the admin's newsletter, which is how I became aware of it. Deprecate is my first choice but I would accept Downgrade.++Lar: t/c 16:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are thinking of the defamation suit against Tucker Carlson. Carlson's show isn't covered by this RfC. Also, he used the same defense Rachael Maddow used when she was sued by OAN.  Springee (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, I believe it's broader than that. Endemic, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any citations for this? Springee (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Citations for my view? You'll just have to take my word that "my view is that citations from Fox are not acceptable when reliable sources are needed" is indeed how I feel about this matter. You're digging in very infertile ground. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  What I mean is you claim that Fix says their news is actually entertainment. That is quite a claim and this I was interested in seeing the evidence supporting it. Springee (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I find it amazing, and frankly, depressing, that you characterize it as "quite a claim"... It is a pretty widely held view. I found this opinion piece, backed by research, that makes the case against Fox being "news" nicely. NBC news . See SWATJester, just below me, they sum this up nicely. In short, we don't need Fox News, and including them is harmful, not helpful. In fact, given how most people feel about Fox, merely including them as one of many sources may well lead many folk to consider WP overall less reliable, since it uses tainted sources. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Note also, you've latched on to a side issue (who said what), apparently because you can't actually counter their endemic uselessness as a news source. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I've ever added Fox as part of an original edit. I have defended their use in some cases. As for "their endemic uselessness", well how am I supposed to reply to an opinion presented without evidence? Springee (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, I think the issue is you are making a claim, a rather extreme one, that Fox themselves, don't consider their reporting to actually be news yet you can't back that claim with any sourcing. I can understand pointing to the Carlson/Maddow defense as evidence but in those cases it was a specific legal defense to respective defamation claims in context of a commentary show. To claim Fox internally feels the same about their news programming is quite a stretch. You can say they don't do a good job but to claim they know they are producing entertainment vs news and that is their intent seems like a claim that really needs some sort of backing. "Widely head view" is not the same thing as fact. Plenty of widely held views (carrots help vision, the Ford Pinto was a fiery death trap) are not based in fact or are a distortion of a kernel of truth but taken to a point not supported by evidence. That we don't need Fox, they are harmful etc is your opinion and presented without supporting evidence. Your claim about including Fox discredits Wikipedia can be turned around by people who feel throwing out a major network news sources based on the opinion of some editors can also be seen as undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade but the only reason this isn't Deprecate is due to the edge cases. 99% of the time, any topic covered by Fox News can and will be covered by another, more reliable, less bombastic/inaccurate source. However 1% of the time, an article from Fox may be exclusive, or otherwise not covered in sufficient depth elsewhere. Even then, the vast majority of the time, that information will resurface on a better source after a few days, but I can't rule out the possibility that there could be an edge case where it isn't. So while I think Deprecate is actually the correct choice, out of deference to that rare exception, my !vote is for Downgrade. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Upgrade Wikipedia desperately needs more balance and there are far worse publications like Slate and others that are considered RS. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate first choice, downgrade is second choice. Fox News itself dropped the "fair and balanced" motto back in 2017. I think that's enough said. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @OhanaUnited: any rationale besides the motto change? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade on politics and definitely on science. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes: for the benefit of the closer(s) and other participants, could you elaborate on the reasons behind your !vote? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt anyone needs it for sourcing science. As about politics, I think this is a "questionable source" meaning that political claims published by Fox News should not be considered a reliable information simply by default. One must check who was the author and cross-verify such info using other sources. I am not saying it should never be used for sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade. There might be strong exceptions, but I would put the honos on the editor to justify why other higher quality sources couldn't be used, or barring any, why such a source might be used (e.g, routine coverage of a non politics/science event). Fox News has increasingly become even more sensationalist and divorced from factual reporting. In future, the RfC should be more explicit whether we should list the options as Option 3 or as I did, Downgrade. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo or maybe Upgrade I have not seen a very compelling case that they should be downgraded past the usual I don't like it arguments. Changing their motto, biased, or anything to do with headlines is irrelevant to policy. Fact is they still appear to meet our, fairly low bar, of what a RS is. Personally I try to use any other source, just because it saves time with lazy arguments, but that does not mean it is not a RS for things. PackMecEng (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade Murdoch's propaganda and disinformation machine. Based upon their politically tinted, innacurate reporting about COVID-19 and vaccinations alone, Fox News has demonstrated that it is willing to change facts to provide their viewers and readers with "what they want to hear", rather than providing factual, objective news reporting. Additionally, I find myself in agreement with some of President Joe Biden's viewpoints (source) about Murdhoch, particularly that Murdoch is "the most dangerous man in the world". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Upgrade - of course, it's hard to prove a negative ("FoxNews.com doesn't make a lot of mistakes"), especially given that they have published literally 10,000s of articles on political and science matters. But I have found them to be reliable, and an important source of information on topics that are ignored by more left-wing sources - the Hunter Biden saga is a good example of this, as Iazyges, YoPienso and others have already noted. Perhaps the best proof is the paucity of good examples in this RfC of Fox News' unreliability - reading through here, I don't think I have seen one example presented of a clear-cut falsehood that was published on their website. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  The "Hunter Biden saga" is a canonical example of the sort of stuff Fox goes with that is completely unreliable, not worthy of repeating in this encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  What did they get wrong? Springee (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, a couple days ago, Fox New site had a prominatly displayed image of Hunter Biden with a Chinese Communist flag filliing the background. It was photoshppoed from Biden at a World Food Program USA presentation not related to China. It wandered down the page over two days and is now gone. The linked article was by a Fox News reporter and editor -- not Tucker Carlson. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Remember that photographs and other material accompanying any article from any source should not be considered part of the material covered by reliability of the source. Those are not selected by writers and editors, but those from the copy and web publishing areas, and like headlines are not subject to editorial review. That makes for the clickbait problem but that exists at several mainstream sites too, though usually not with photoshopping involved. Masem (t) 17:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, if CNN or the NYTimes prominently displayed an image of Chelsea Clinton from a charity event photoshopped to include a Chinese Communist flag in the background; there would be a massive uproar. And they're still claiming gas is $6.239. How can anyone pretend this is a news site? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No they are not claiming gas is $6.239 a gallon. Sorry, you keep saying that by you are wrong each time you do. If you want to claim their website is crap because they haven't fixed the index on the gas map, fine but please don't claim they are saying something that just isn't true. Springee (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

They have been saying a different number each day for SIX MONTHS always above $6, higher than the average in any state, and you are still claiming this is some sort of bug based on absolutely nothing. You are just making this up. They have made no such claim. If they have such a serous bug, incorrectly reporting a number of great importance to a couple hundred million people, near the top of the main page of a news site -- they should be deprecated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link for this? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

KON, I originally missed it since I was looking on a tablet and the gas map only seems to display when you have a wider display. This is a link to the actual map [40]. This was discussed quite a bit around Aug 21. Search for O3000's !vote to see the previous discussion. Springee (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Yes, that looks like some bad coding for the map key. That's an oddly specific thing to base one's whole assessment on. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect numbers, pushing an anti-Biden position, posted on the front page of the site for over 180 days claiming a source which has no such numbers. And, that's certainly not what I base my whole assessment on. I have posted numerous problems with Fox in the RfC. The Fox News main page for years has looked like a political attack page againnst one political party and has heavily pushed anti-vaccine, anti-mask, and election fraud stories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The numbers by state when you roll over are correct, so its literally just one bad number used for visual scaling purposes. 57% of all stats are made up - that's where that falls into. Also, the front page of CNN at multiple times looks like a political attack page against one political party and heavily pushes pro-abortion, pro-immigration, and pro-gun control stories. (Note: I support these positions but it should be remembered that those are only positions/issues and not truths) But that's no reason to deprecate them. Bias != unreliability, and how a site presents front page/website material is out of the hands of editorial control, so we absolutely should not use that as a metric. Masem (t) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Masem, did you really mean to say "pro-abortion" and "pro-immigration"? I'd be surprised, because I generally respect your views as thoughtful minority opinions. Maybe that should be restated or reexamined for a more specific objection? SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

On a phone, which most people use today, you would have to know to tap on the states as there is no mouse. It’s the only number most people will see. I don’t know what you mean by visual scaling. No state has that high a number – and that number has changed every day, for the last half year, even though there is no such number at the source. As for CNN, it’s site is nothing like Fox’s. I have seen numerous article links on one day attacking Biden. Looking at CNN today, it is remarkably balanced. Fox, OTOH, has numerous stories today attacking one party. Same as every single day. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo The current cautionary language and related Wikipedia policies, e.g., NPOV, are good enough. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 16:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade: While much of what they publish is not outright wrong, it is too often combined with distortion-by-selection, scatterings of sensationalistic and biased adjectives and sideline commentary, "general blurring of facts and opinions", inadequate attention to careful checking and corrective action, out-of-context presentation and interpretation, improper amplification of low-reliability sources, etc. It is too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade For science. From what I've seen most (or all) of their science stories are based on other more reliable sources that should just be used as references instead. Like the top two science articles on their website right now are analysis of a couple of YouTube videos. There's zero reason people can't just cite the original videos in such instances. I'm neutral on using them as a reference for politics though since both sides make good arguments for their position and I don't really feel like picking a side one way or another. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Could you be more specific on what articles you are referring to? Right now the top articles for Science on Fox News are about James Webb telescope updates, Titanic wreckage now have 8k resolution, Fifty foot megalodon sharks mistakenly seen, and update on Artemis 1. The only questionable article is about the menopause tech that may be paid article, but still is not outright lies. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact specifics, but one of them was the Titanic wreckage now have 8k resolution "article." Which if I remember correctly was just a video from YouTube of the Titanic wreckage and some random Fox News commentary laid over it. The commentary didn't really add anything that couldn't have been obtained the video itself or somewhere else. Like the "James Webb telescope captures 'Cosmic Tarantula' in stunning new image" is essentially a commentery video by Michio Kaku of information that can be found on more reputable sites like The European Space Agencies. The 0-foot megalodon shark article is just a qoute from a tweet by The Atlantic Shark Institute. What about "NASA funded tech that helps relieve menopause symptoms", which is supposedly by Julia Musto? It happens to be an almost direct copy this press release from NASA. Which apparently they didn't credit. So in the best case Fox Science is serious churnalism. At the worst though they are blatently commiting plagerism. Neither one makes them a reputible source of information. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Titanic 8k resolution is also found in CNN, NY Times, USA Today, Geekwire, Ars Technica, and Independent. The fact that Fox News only added commentaries didn't matter for its reliability, as long as the coverage is factual, it is reliable. The fact that other major MSM also cover it show that it is indeed an event worth covering, no matter what is the source.

Megalodon shark news is also covered by Newsweek, Miami Herald, CNET, MSN. This showed that other MSM also think that it is worth covering.

The fact that JWST update can be found in more reputable sources does not mean that Fox News is not reliable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This showed that other MSM also think that it is worth covering. The issue isn't whether the story is worth covering or not. It's if Fox's coverage adds anything useful to the story or not. Especially if whatever they are adding to the story comes at the cost of them also adding false information to it. People have already shown plenty of evidence of them doing exactly that and I don't feel the need to regertitate other people's points. Although I will say that if you can show evidence of Ars Technica doing the same thing and to the degree that Fox has then I'm more then willing to vote for them to be downgraded to if anyone does an RfC related to them. Pointing out other news sources that covered the same story like it's some kind pf counter evidence to Fox's fault as a news outlet is just laughable though. Yeah, news outlets often cover the same topics. And? Got me! --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

By your commentaries such as And? Got me! and Pointing out other news sources ... laughable though. it seems that you are not interested to engage in good faith. I shall not trouble myself and yours further by continuing this line of conversation. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks. You to :) --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Staus quo or upgrade. I'll say it again - this RFC is poor, rushed and guided by a single editor in a certain direction, and so I hope the closer refuses to take the result of this RFC as the general consensus about Fox on Wikipedia, regardless of what conclusion it is. Status quo or upgrade based on the rationale of other editors as well as the fact that Fox's journalistic standards have not changed enough since the last RFC to warrant a downgrade. Willbb234 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  But have their journalistic standards changed enough to warrant an upgrade? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not what I said. The result of the previous RFC was incorrect. Willbb234 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You said to upgrade Fox, but based on what? Saying "on the rationale of other editors" is kinda vague. What has changed with Fox News to warrant an upgrade? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade Their reporting over the past several years has significantly dropped in regards to accuracy and the ability or even willingness to prevent misinformation being actively pushed in their published articles. Since control over Fox News itself has shifted during that time period and the drop in factual quality of their reporting because of it has been openly noted by various other reliable sources, the reason for the rise in misinformation pushing by Fox is plain to see. It has gotten to the point that any political topic and most science topics, since they largely only cover science when it relates to political views in some way, that they report on is presented in a manner in order to actively disinform and promote wrong information on said topics. Which makes them not a reliable source to use on Wikipedia outsie of directly attributed quotes. But as a source for plain facts, they can't be considered reliable and alternatives should be used at every opportunity. And if there are no actual reliable sources covering a topic that Fox News is, then the base factual accuracy or existence of the topic should be questioned due to Fox News being the only ones covering it. Same as what we do with The Daily Mail.

And I have to say that for any editors above saying Upgrade, their basic editing should be questioned in regards to the quite possibly biased additions they have been making to the project. Because anyone that actively uninformed about Fox News or having active political leaning bias so strong as to support the organization despite their known disinformation in journalism would raise questions of those editors' capabilities to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Silverseren^C 20:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade or deprecate. Their extreme political bias makes them in general an unreliable source. If they say anything true, better sources wil have picked it up. We shouldn't be using sources like this in an encyclopedia. John (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment if Fox is deprecated, wouldn't that mean Fox is deprecated not just for politics and science, but other areas it is found generally reliable in? This should be factored into the discussion, since it's clear its not ending soon.--47.16.96.33 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to generally unreliable for science and politics – on a number of occasions I've come across Fox News being used as a source for politics and current affairs and been surprised. I believe it's generally accepted among mainstream experts and academics that Fox, the poster child for toxically partisan American media, is so unfailingly skewed it has individually had a significant impact on America's polarisation. I usually spend a few minutes seeing if I can remove it by finding another source. I've read other editors here arguing Fox is acceptable on a "case-by-case" basis for politics & science because it usually gets the most basic biographical facts right, but has "too many uncorrected factual errors to be generally reliable" (I see links below corroborating these frequent "errors"). My view is that Fox News isn't reliable-biased because its bias seeps into, and subsumes, the entire process of its journalism, particularly fact selection and fact checking. This isn't a source we should ever be using for science articles. As for politics, Fox's mission to push an partisan viewpoint across its output causes several problems. By accepting Fox can occasionally be a acceptable source for information that can't be found elsewhere, we're indicating it occasionally falls within the spectrum of valuable mainstream opinion when other sources don't. I don't buy this. If Fox is saying something other sources aren't, I believe it's almost always because it's trying to push the public conversation in a partisan, non-expert led direction. For example, if I go to the Fox Politics page today the leading headline is "Hunter Biden said he would be 'happy' to introduce business associates to top CCP official". A source obsessed by partisan issues will skew our coverage away from a balance of expert opinion and the principle that Wikipedia is mainstream -- crucially, "mainstream" does not mean mass popular opinion, it means expert opinion. Fox may, very occasionally, hit on something most other outlets get it wrong, this is not a justification for its use, it's an indication of the flaws of academic bias we must accept to remain reflective of mainstream scholarship: we must trust mainstream sources to adjust and accept their mistake. To cite Fox taking an outlier position against the mainstream is very likely to result in contamination with misinformation and fringe views. To expect editors to be capable of determining valid, accurate encylopedic information in a mix of unfailingly skewed fact selection and outright falsehoods is impractical. And a source whose everyday purpose is satiating people who are angry, or making them angry about something new, isn't compatible with a serious, respected encylopedia. I don't support outright deprecation because I don't think there's any need to systematically remove existing links or "prohibit it"; rather, we should be generally be avoiding further use and insisting editors have a higher minimum bar for politics and science sources. I'm not interested in arguments along the lines of "but X is also biased"; in some cases I suspect this is whataboutism, and in some cases it may be valid, but it doesn't change the problem here: unfailing partisanship combined with frequent factual errors. Additionally, arguments such as "Fox is rightwing, so banning it will lead to left-wing bias" are also irrelevant to my stance, as I don't think Fox-style tabloid journalism is appropriate for a tertiary source whatever its political bent, and the mainstream of expertise should be determined by using academic sources (books/journals), not media outlets. Jr8825 • Talk 04:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you sure that Fox is still headlining Hunter Biden? The news you mentioned about Hunter Biden "happy" to introduce business associates is published 4 days ago here which is unlikely to be still the headline of Fox News politics today. The current Politics headline I am seeing now are about border issues, funding bill crisis, insulin price caps, and Trump vs. DOJ. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it was the leading story when I wrote that comment ~12 hours ago, although it isn't now. If it was published 4 days ago then I see that as further evidence of the obsessive partisanship which I think makes it unsuitable. Jr8825 • Talk 15:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo or upgrade. These attacks on sources based on politics will eventually leave us with nothing to reference. The left will wanna downgrade this, and the right will wanna downgrade that until we have zilch. Huggums537 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  5 albert square and/or Guerillero, isn't this a violation of Huggums537's topic ban? I'm not sure it's still in place, but I likewise never saw that it was lifted. Perhaps one or both of you could clarify, as admins who are familiar with the matter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not aware it's still in place. 5 albert square (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was lifted -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, sounds good. Thank you for the clarification! Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade: per FlantasyFlan, Fox has been downgrading itself in recent years and we need to reflect this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or Deprecate because Fox has clearly become a political apparatus supporting certain politicians rather than factually reporting. It's quite clear that they can longer be trusted to tell the truth based upon the evidence that has been presented by others here. Noah^Talk 14:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo per Mhawk10, among others. Also, as Toadspike noted, that we can have so much discussion about this source and little agreement on what everything means is compelling reason to leave Fox exactly where it is: "unclear" reliability. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate - I think Wikipedia has finally lost its way, so helping to push it over the edge is the only way to get it back on track. Accelerate. KRLA18 (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Discussion (Fox News news website)

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

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

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

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

  The more I see !votes on this, particularly those echoing "status quo" the more I think that there's a bigger picture discussion on the need to assess how we should be writing articles that are current events in the news, at least drawing the line between "just the fact ma'am" objective details and the talking head subjective ones. This applies to then how Fox News should be used, and/or the overreliance on mainstream commentary in light of Astme's !vote. This is the importance of RECENTISM, that we shouldn't be trying to measure the public opinion temperature while an event is currently in the news, as as soon as we do that, we often start falling into endless debates on source reliability. If we were far less focused on capturing the short-term public opinion (instead waiting for the 10yr view), then the issue of using Fox News becomes far less of a complex issue. But that aspect is beyond the scope of this RFC. Masem (t) 03:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  My vote was heavily influenced by @Atsme, @Blueboar, @CaptainEek, @Red tailed hawk, @BilledMammal, @Chris troutman, and @Rhododendrites as well as yourself. Huggums537 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Re #1, Leadstories take issue with the statement that Trump Tower servers were infiltrated saying that in fact only DNS data was accessed. There is some difference between infiltrating and "exploit[ing] ... access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data" [41] but it feels like splitting hairs.

Re #2, Fauci "cautioned not to use the study to make decisions about which vaccine to take for a booster shot" but "did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings," per Politifact.[42] This is not the same as dismissing the study entirely but "not to use the study to make decisions" is pretty close to "to reject serious consideration of" which is one of the definitions of the verb dismiss. They also write later in the article that he doesn't "doubt what they’re seeing." I can see how their bias impacts what they emphasise but I don't see misinformation. Alaexis_¿question? 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the statement about "infiltrating" the White House servers is inaccurate. It is not found in the indictment and apparently comes from Kash Patel, so they should have attributed it [43]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So we agree that this is a valid fact check and an uncorrected error by Fox? Would you like to retract your comment that there is "no misinformation"? Andrevan@ 20:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at two more examples. Re #3, Politifact fact doesn't say that the Fox article contains falsehoods (unless I missed something there), but rather omits some context. Re #4, what exactly is false here? They call the Steele dossier "discredited," but so does the NYT (Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry) adding that the dossier was not "a reliable source of information." I'll amend my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3, Fox News wrote several articles about this paper berating the other media for not covering it and treating it like everything in it was a factual statement, but Politifact says, " multiple public health experts and researchers released statements about the paper's methodology being flawed." Clearly goes to spinning science inappropriately for political reasons. #4, the NYT link you offered says, "Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate." But according to Fox it was a hoax hatched by the Clinton campaign. Clearly bad facts and spin offered to advance a perspective. Andrevan@ 19:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Re #3, again, where is misinformation? Providing insufficient context is not misinformation. We have other sources and hopefully can get a balanced picture from all of them. Same with #4, what exactly did they say in the two articles you've mentioned that is false? Alaexis_¿question? 09:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

*3, Fox makes statements such as: "The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality. ... Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses." Fox calls it "Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies. " However according to Politifact,: "The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" ... The paper’s authors — Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke — all come from an economics background. Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, has aired opinions about lockdowns and "fascist" vaccine policies on Twitter and has repeatedly elevated false claims about the pandemic. Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university." So first of all, only one of the economists is affiliated, and they have a political axe to grind. So it's attacking lockdowns from a political perspective, and attempting to make it seem like a public health study, making statements about mortality etc, when it was actually written by economists. Politifact says, ""The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in an emailed statement. "To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies. The working paper did not include new data, and serious questions have already been raised about its methodology." Because Johns Hopkins is known as a leading medical university, there's credential confusion going on here by calling it a JHU study, though it is not from the public health or medical dept at all. It's more than insufficient context: it's overstating, obfuscating, misinformation for political reasons.

• 4, Fox states that "revealed that the dossier had, at the time, only "limited corroboration." The dossier has now been largely discredited. " However our own article states, " However, some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, namely that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton, and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians"'. Not "was corroborated at the time" but some of the dossier remains true, so Fox is spinning or ignoring facts. Fox conveniently ignores this and says that it originated politically with the Clinton campaign, and attacks that Mueller's team donated to Democrats etc. It also states, "Mueller's investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election." We know that's not true: there was evidence, though not sufficient to charge a conspiracy, particularly pertaining to Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Wikileaks, as well as the Internet Research Agency and GRU, but Fox omits this information. The article says "despite acquittal...," but ignores the actual acquittal, instead claiming that Mueller et al unfairly attacked Trump. It's political hackery and contains several false statements about the dossier and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 14:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• You're putting the cart before the horse. The Wikipedia article about the Steele Dossier is out of date and badly in need of a rewrite. A recent NYT op-ed went so far as to call the dossier a "hoax." There was a lot of contemporaneous bad reporting about the dossier (but we haven't downgraded anyone for that). You'll notice the lead now says Five years later, it was described as "largely discredited", "deeply flawed", and "largely unverified" with a cite to a WaPo article noting they took the unusual step of correcting and removing large parts of 2 stories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• That op-ed is not usable, of course, it's a piece by right-wing-leaning columnist and provocateur, Bret Stephens (see his controversy section, I've never looked at his article so I have no idea if it's fair or balanced) and is WP:RSOPINION and only usable for attributed and very disclaimed claims. The Steele dossier was partly corroborated, which is what our current article states. Regardless, the Fox News piece has significant errors in its description of the Clinton campaign, the Durham case, and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• You can't use a claim on Wikipedia to try to prove something a reliable source says is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a CNN article which has some of the same detail but doesn't have the same errors as Fox: Steele was right that Russia used "trusted agents of influence" to target Trump's inner circle. And he was correct to suspect there were secret contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials, even though Trump denied any Russian ties. But Steele was wrong about so many of the key details. [44] Andrevan@ 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished. A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources. We've never revisited any of the RS who pushed misinformation about the dossier 5 years ago, and I see no reason to single out Fox. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ernie, what reliable source said the Dossier was a hoax? SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• We can't make an RSNP decision based on cherrypicked unverified claims about content on a single topic. That's counter to the core purpose of RSNP evaluations of publishers. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Andrevan, I've asked for specific examples, I'll let others decide if they have been provided. Re #4, I can only repeat that a recent NYT article calls the Steele dossier discredited without any caveats ([Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry]). Alaexis_¿question? 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• It also says it doesn't undercut the Russia stuff - whereas Fox specifically undercuts all the Russia stuff. Andrevan@ 16:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

  So essentially you are now just saying that our previous consensus was wrong… that Fox has always been bad and we should have seen that before? got it. Thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what I said, our previous consensus was that Fox was "marginally reliable" at best, and not usable in many cases, so we don't need to draw a line and say "marginally reliable" here and "unreliable" here - easier to just mark it all as unreliable. [18:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)] adding further clarification: "Marginal reliability" requires a case-by-case basis evaluation, which already contains some caution and doubt for contentious claims. "Generally unreliable" is stronger but still does not fully deprecate the source. If we do downgrade to "generally unreliable" I believe that some older Fox News content could be marginally reliable if there were a sufficient consensus to do so, but I do not believe from a simplicity and a pragmatism perspective, it will be beneficial or necessary to carve out a case-by-case marginal reliability for older Fox News content as a matter of categorical determination. If Fox News had previously been "generally reliable" at an earlier point then I can see the necessity and wisdom of doing this. The current marginal reliability already excludes Fox News for contentious political uses that would also be prohibited under a downgrade so I don't see the value of carving that out, it just makes more work for editors and judges of consensus. Andrevan@ 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• By my reading I would not say it has declined recently (there are a fair number of older sources discussing its tendency to push misinformation, and the more recent ones often treat it as simply an accepted fact that Fox works to advance misinformation, often as something that goes right back to the original purpose it was founded for.) Rather, I think that there is more coverage of that fact, and the coverage tends to be more strongly-worded, in part because COVID made Fox's willingness to push misinformation when it advanced its ideological agenda more pressing. There's a wave of coverage discussing how we got here in terms of vaccine denialism or people taking horse dewormer, and much of that coverage focuses on the role Fox plays in constructing, as one source put it, an alternate reality formed out of misinformation. But they don't treat that tendency as a new thing, just as a particular pressing and alarming case of it due to the public health concerns involved. (That said, I'm basing this more on the sources I presented rather than Andrevan's, since I feel that secondary sourcing describing a source as producing misinformation or otherwise being generally unreliable is more important than examples which we personally feel are wrong. The key point for reliability is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Among high-quality sources that examine the news, I don't think that Fox ever has, but I think it's become easier to demonstrate this recently because the pressing case of COVID has produced more coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I do think it has declined recently, in 2018 when former Hannity producer took over the digital arm, and after the election in 2020 there were significant layoffs and reduction in staff in the digital news reporting, fact-checking and research departments. This has only continued to accelerate under the Biden administration and with the COVID pandemic continuing. See [45] [46] Andrevan@ 19:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• From one of the previous RfC attempts there was what I thought an interesting example brought up by @Andrevan as a prototypical disruptive use of Fox as a source, but which I instead argued was possible justification for why outlets like Fox can be more beneficial than not. To expand further, I think the main risk with any kind of "gotcha" piece like this is of undue weight relative to the subject's history or to that of their colleagues. But I would rather this risk be attributable to an outside source who may have some independent credibility or lack thereof than to present bare facts in opposition in wikivoice, which is SYNTH by implication. The latter pattern shows up quite often in politics-related articles (not exclusive to BLPs) and then inevitably propagates online. As Wikipedia is more trusted than the news (plenty of other similar surveys and studies), even more care must be used as wikivoice comes through in the selection and positioning of facts to publish.

I also want to object to a previous argument that we can deprecate Fox because we have plenty of other sources to choose from. Clear fallacies aside, I some empirical counterpoints. The first is that news coverage is getting dangerously sparse, so every outlet is in fact important if it may pick up a story that no one else does. The same study also looks at the effects of general literacy and demographics on news consumption and how it affects sparseness, and I suggest that if we deprecate the most popular news network in the U.S. (though it hardly compares in scale to online sources and social media in particular) we only lose credibility to increasingly isolated segments of the population (that's kind of a stretch without a real direct study, but that's my hypothetical concern). My second point is about general robustness – that the fewer sources we consider adequate, such as NYT or The Guardian, the more damaging a failure can be. And despite our general negative outlook on the state of cable news in particular, a study from Reuters (2018 I think?) is considerably more optimistic about the potential for journalism in the internet age, and counters the narrative of media bubbles and political conformity. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Warnock piece was discussed above. To put a finer point on it: Fox News alleges that Warnock flip-flopped or lied, because he supported a compromise bill, supported by Stacey Abrams, that included a form of voter ID. Voter ID has long been a tool, like the poll tax, of Jim Crow and voter suppression. A lot of commentators thought this attempt at compromise by the Dems was something of a reversal since many had been against voter ID.

When he was a pastor and before any run for politics, in 2015, Warnock said: "Dealing with these voter ID laws, this is not about voter verification, this is about voter suppression. They’re still playing the same games."" However that is not a statement that Warnock opposes any/all voter ID laws, merely that they were being used in a discriminatory way. He also states, "All of these voter suppression laws saying we've got to have voter ID laws because if we don't they might vote twice. Are you kidding? Have you been in America these last several years? It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone twice," this is also not a statement of opposing voter ID of any kind, but specifically discriminatory voter suppression, in other words that the push for voter ID is predicated on a false pretense of voter fraud which doesn't exist.

It also quotes similar statements from 2012 and 2013 in which Warnock decries discriminatory voter suppression, stating, that such laws, per Fox, were designed to exclude women, Black people and the poor from voting, rather than to protect against voter fraud. He goes on to say, Since the January election, some 250 voter suppression bills have been introduced by state legislatures all across the country – from Georgia to Arizona, from New Hampshire to Florida – [all] using the Big Lie of voter fraud as a pretext for voter suppression.

Again none of these statements say that Warnock is opposed to any and all voter ID laws, but Fox went with this: Senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., claims he has "never been opposed" to voter ID laws — but a Fox News review of Warnock's past comments found that he has been a fierce opponent of voter ID requirements. This is an exaggeration at best of his statements. He did attack the basis for discriminatory voter suppression and he lumped voter ID laws in with that, and rightfully so. However he never in politics opposed a voter ID bill, or came out against voter ID writ large. It's certainly not usable in a BLP the way it was presented. It was undue weight, not attributed directly but just said "critics" in a pretty WP:WEASEL way. And there's a lot of smoke here, but no fire.

Fox quotes Warnock's response to NBC: "I have never been opposed to voter ID," Warnock told NBC News in an interview published Thursday. "And in fact, I don't know anybody who is — who believes people shouldn't have to prove that they are who they say they are. But what has happened over the years is people have played with common sense identification and put into place restrictive measures intended not to preserve the integrity of the outcome, but to select, certain group."' That seems clear. Voter ID is a tool of voter suppression, but the compromise that was supported was deemed acceptable. It would be reasonable to cover some nuanced evolution of his position, but the way Fox spins it for political propaganda is a serious problem. And please note this article, though it's essentially an op-ed[47] is marked as News, under "Voting," and does not have the badge for "Opinion." Andrevan@ 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost all of your post should be on the article's Talk page. I'm not arguing the finer details of flip-flopping in any context other than the Olympics. As for whether this was an op-ed, by today's mainstream standards I don't think so: see AP News May 2020, CNN Politics April 2022, NYT Politics April 2022, this discounting several WP, CNN, NBC articles labeled "Analysis". I don't agree with the inherent merits of calling out every individual contradictory statements of public figures -- and there's arguments going back decades about this -- or that it results in more accountability and not less. But that has been the reality of how (primarily) infotainment has evolved. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox puts opinion in the news section, and ignores or invents facts when they are inconvenient for its narrative. I've never seen an article under "analysis" in another publication that just accuses a partisan actor of lying so brazenly (I do not except your McCarthy example, there were tapes for god's sake). This is a pattern from Fox. See another article from them about the same topic, voter suppression in Georgia.[48][49]. "Democrats, corporations and the liberal media repeatedly decried Georgia’s Republican-passed Election Integrity Act as the next Jim Crow, but the Peach State is now seeing record-breaking turnout for early voting ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Last year, President Biden called the law, known as SB 202, a "blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience," ascribed it as "Jim Crow in the 21st century" and was supportive of Major League Baseball moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta as a response. Biden urged Congress to pass sweeping federal voting laws, including the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Biden, along with Democrats and members of liberal media, argued that the law would deny people the right to vote, especially minority Americans, and could lurch U.S. democracy off balance. But voting in Georgia is breaking early records despite the state’s "controversial new election law," as The Washington Post put it." The Washington Post admitted over the weekend that the number of Georgians turning out to vote in this year's midterm election primaries was "surging," despite its previous reporting and claims that the state's new law aimed at election integrity would lead to voter suppression. "Corporations and the liberal media," right?

• The Brennan Center said the bill was a wide-ranging bill that targets Black voters with uncanny accuracy. [50]
• Brookings said, [51] Just three short months ago, a violent mob overran our nation’s Capitol Building to revolt against certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Many of the rioters carried signs proclaiming “Stop the Steal”—reflecting the lies that President Donald Trump and his team stoked about voter fraud. Today, many elected officials are using that same pretext to dismantle the voting rights won during the civil rights movement..
• [52] "The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers."
• NBC: [53] The measure, Senate Bill 202, limits early voting sites and restricts both the number and the available hours of drop boxes.
• NPR: [54] "Poole is one of millions of Georgia voters affected by sweeping changes to state election laws enacted by lawmakers last year. The changes include restricting access to drop boxes in counties that used them the most, which also have the highest number of voters of color and Democrats, according to an analysis by NPR, WABE and Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) of drop box locations, voter registration and other data."

According to Fox News, because voting was up, despite voter suppression, therefore there is no voter suppression! This is typical Fox, they can't resist taking a potshot at the liberals. But Fox conveniently ignores the "400 percent increase in mail-ballot rejection rates in last year’s municipal elections... the bill’s provision allowing any voter to challenge registrations led to an attempt in Forsyth County to reject the registration of 13,000 voters."[55] in the Washington Post story that would suggest that those worries may have been reasonable. In fact, the Washington Post story actually describes how voting rights groups have helped people to vote IN SPITE OF the voter suppression going on. It's just bad journalism on the part of Fox, it goes beyond spin, it's selective reporting of facts, and misinformation, along with a healthy dose of unprofessionalism. They're not calling balls and strikes, there are no pretensions of reporting facts, instead, we just get the all-spin-zone right down the middle. There is no comparison to CNN. I guarantee you if CNN tried to mention the "liberal media" or the "conservative media" that reporter would be fired. Here is the same article that Fox News called news as an opinion column in the Hill[56]. The same Warnock piece was a GOP article [57] NRSC post [58], but on Fox, partisan op-eds are just news. Andrevan@ 02:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, why is all this here and on its article's Talk page? Regarding the hypothetical CNN reporter being fired, you can do the google search yourself. And maybe you should take a step back from this issue and just imagine if objectively none of this were "obvious", and every attempt to demonstrate an effect had shown none, or was mixed, or was questionable (2018 the entire journal issue -- there's no comprehensive review afaict). Now I'm not saying that anybody here is following the actual research, because most aren't (FiveThirtyEight is a notable exception). But if you were to take this uncertainty or likely small effect at face value (and assume everyone else were doing the same), would that change your perception of how these articles are presented? SamuelRiv (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little befuddled by your response and the edit summary. I've shown that Fox has failed fact checks, and that some are inappropriately adding Fox to articles. Voter suppression is real, it's pretty unequivocal, but that's really not the point. Fox News spins the facts, ignores facts, or misstates facts in a misleading way, in content marked as news. Fox took a WaPo article that pointed out how voter suppression is real, and has led to an increase in mail ballot rejection rates, and removal of primarily black Democrats from voter rolls. Yet despite this, due to the action of voting rights groups, voting has increased. Fox has reported on this by saying that voter suppression isn't real, and puts these words in the mouth of the Washington Post. Even if you don't think voter suppression is real or a problem, that isn't what Wapo said. This goes to Fox being an irredeemably flawed source. You are free to disagree, you are also not obligated to respond if you tire of this, but I don't agree and I do not think you've made your case that these errors and misstatements are forgiveable or par for the course. Andrevan@ 04:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

12 links and not a single one deals with the existence or nonexistence or quantitative magnitude of voter suppression in any way. And I know there is literature supporting its existence, hence why I said the literature is "mixed". Please remove that linkspam so nobody else has to sift through papers you obviously haven't read. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

These papers all go toward the issue, in particular "Opposition to Voting by Mail Is a Form of Voter Suppression That Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color", "Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws", no I haven't read these end to end of course, just a skim of their abstracts for the most part, but they all support the existence of voter suppression, and they contradict the Fox News coverage. You can challenge them, of course, or challenge my reasoning, but I do not wish to remove them. Andrevan@ 04:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Question for those who suggest deprecate, how would that work? With the Daily Mail it was generally straight forward, if the source is DM it's out. How would one deal with information on Fox News? We say Fox is fine for non-politics, non-science but then we would have, in effect, remove on sight for Fox politics? How does that work in cases that are marginal? For example, an article about a politician that says she was born in Jackson, MS. Would that be "politics" thus a deprecated source or basic reporting thus green? The current "considerations apply" status avoids this issue since, I suspect, most editors would be fine using Fox to support an uncontested claim that a person was born in a particular town even if we all agree this is "political" reporting. This is even a potential problem with a "generally unreliable" since we would have to then argue if this claim is general reporting or poltical reporting. Springee (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the same as Daily Mail? Are you worried that Fox News will be the only source of a politicians date of birth? Maybe if you paint the worst case scenario chain of events, it would help me understand your concern. CT55555 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That answer sidesteps the question. I used birthday because it was presumably a fact that few people would challenge. Let's assume that yes, this is the only place we have been able to find it. Consider that if Fox were the source for the birthday of an non-political business owner we would say the article is not political so RSP says Fox-> green, source is good. If the person is a politician we say, RSP says Fox -> yellow. Then we can decide, well this isn't a contentious claim (the presumption is this isn't) thus Fox is OK. However, if RSP says Fox is red or even black as some are advocating then the logic is: uncontroversial claim about a politician -> Fox is black -> can't include. Effectively we don't have a clean transition from when Fox is OK to not OK. A claim that is uncontroversial in most cases (a person's birthday) magically changes from green to red/black simply because we say "this is a politics article". As another example, what about someone who both owns a business and runs for office. Are all stories about her business automatically now considered "politics" and thus not reliable? This would create a sort of reliability chasm where an article would transition from "reliable" to "unreliable" if someone argues it was "about politics" or "about science". Would a Fox news report on the issues at a city run hospital be green or red? What about issues with a department of transportation that was failing to inspect bridges on I5? It seems like this could create issues where articles that we would normally say are borderline politics or politics adjacent are now treated as green or red depending on a talk page argument over if this really is "Fox politics". Currently that isn't an issue since yellow allows for these borderline cases (case by case). This is also why several of us have asked what problem are we solving here. Springee (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Edit per comment below Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer you perceived that I was asking a clarifying question, rather than dodging your question. The truth is that I am not certain exactly how wikipedia would implement such a ban, but I note we seem to run the project quite fine without The Sun and The Daily Mail. I think the implications are that indeed if Fox News was the only source that gave someone's birthday, indeed we would not include that information. I think that's the point we're being ask to vote on. It seems unlikely to me that Fox News would be the only source on something important. CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that did come off as snippy. I've struck it. Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think one of the things that makes rating Fox difficult is the range of groups within Fox. Consider that Adfontes Media's bias chart has 5 different fox sources (not including individual talk shows) listed. They are, in order of reliablility (score is reliability, bias):

Fox Business (website) 43.34, 5.88 [59]

Fox News Rundown 42.42, 7.60 [60]

Fox News (website) 35.80, 13.59 [61]

Fox News: Fox & Friends First 34.11, 13.56 [62]

Fox & Friends 32.56, 21 [63]

For reference, the Washington Post is 40.07, -8.8 [:Fox News (website) 35.80, 13.59 [64] Per Adfontes ratings the best sources are reliability scores over 40 and +-17 for bias. The next range is over 24 and +-22 (which is a rather generous range). The best parts of Fox really are quite solid per Adfontes while other parts aren't. Thus just saying "Fox" could mean a poor source or one that is better than the Washington Post Certainly one option would be to finely discect which part of Fox is being cited. Springee (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADFONTES is not an RS. Andre🚐 04:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please review what the link you created actually says. It says the source is self published and thus can not be used in article space. This is not an article space discussion thus your concern is a red herring. Springee (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Status quo from WP:RSP and past RFCs

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

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

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

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

Suggestion for List of References: I suggest we group all references in one list rather than per editor. First, it is easier to view all sources when they are a single list. Second, a number of these sources are being challenged. Separating the challenge from the source in question[65] makes it much harder for others to follow the sourcing discussion, especially when there are multiple editors and replies. Editor specific lists are not common in RfCs. Springee (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the list of evidence from having the discussion so new editors to the RFC can review the list for themselves. I am ok with grouping discussion sections or having them as seaprate sections. Andrevan@ 19:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is how things are commonly done and it may create the impression that these sources have all been accepted. It's much better to present them and allow them to be discussed individually. Consider that it's not significant who says "these are sources". It is important what editors say about the sources. Springee (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please respect the section as it exists now so it can be reviewed in and of itself, and respond to the sources in separate sections. It will be very difficult to review the list if many editors are all going to discuss inside the list of sources. I don't think the sources need to be "accepted" or "rejected" per se. They will be obviously in dispute as there are many editors discussing this. Andrevan@ 20:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Absent support from other editors I'm not going to make the effort to nest everything together. However, I do think that the way you have set it up fails to allow editors to make it clear that a number of these sources are flawed/challenged. This certainly isn't a structure I've seen in other RfCs. Even if it does make sense to keep raw references separate from discussion of the sources, it doesn't make sense to separate them by which editor provided them. Springee (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's duly noted, and I think editors understand, that this is not clear-cut, and that there is some interpretation needed. My interest is in clarity and not in claiming that none of these are challenged. I think they will all be challenged by someone or another. Andrevan@ 20:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Evidence added by Andrevan

[to make it easier to review the evidence provided, please respond in a separate section or subsection at the bottom of the list, not inside the list. thanks! Andrevan@ 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)]

1. headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
2. headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE
3. 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues
4. Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation Headline was "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'", body says: Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. Headline was "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia", body says: The dossier has now been largely discredited. Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated
5. headline was "What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe", body says "Hunter Biden, who famously had his scandalous laptop dismissed by much of the media in the run-up to the 2020 election" (really? RS say that it was correctly dismissed when only NY Post could corroborate the story - giving cover to bad journalism practices) Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. See related Vanity Fair piece
6. Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE (response to WP:HEADLINE objection: yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact: In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." )
7. Headline was "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused", body says "Ever since the Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession was" Politifact: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”" (fact check is not of Fox but it's the same false statement)
8. Lab leak conspiracy theory Headline was "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report", body says "The United Kingdom's government is increasingly reassured that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China, according to a new report. While the theory that the coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dismissed by world governments early into the pandemic, evidence continues to trickle out supporting the claim. Government officials in the U.K., U.S., and elsewhere have begun voicing support for further investigation into the lab leak possibility." Lab leak theory, articles claiming lab leak theory is likely despite it being a fringe theory. Science.org: Why many scientists say it’s unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a “lab leak” Fox headline was "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory", body says: "The true origin of the virus that has killed millions around the globe remains unknown."body: New reporting from Fox News' "Special Report" showed there was an effort by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and other scientists to not mention the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. The consensus was reached on a call in early 2020 that the lab leak theory should be left out of an early paper on COVID-19 origins because it will add "fuel to the conspiracists." Two years later, there is no definitive proof that the virus started in nature or that it leaked from a lab. But the theory that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses, is no longer shunned as a conspiracy and is gaining more traction among scientific communities calling for further inquiry. FOX NEWS SPECIAL REPORT OUTLINES FRESH QUESTIONS ON WHAT FAUCI, GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT COVID ORIGIN Fox News talked to several scientists and investigators who have studied COVID-19 origins, and here are some reasons – science-based and circumstantial – why they believe the evidence points to the global pandemic originating from a Wuhan lab, possibly from a researcher accidentally getting infected during an experiment with coronaviruses and spreading it into the community. CNN: "The Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, was most likely the epicenter for the coronavirus." The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? more lab leak articles that claim some kind of cover-up by Fauci et al
9. Headline was "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story", body calls Daniel Dale, CNN fact checker, a "liberal reporter","very obviously a rank partisan"
10. Headline was "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric", body says: "PolitiFact appears to be shielding President Biden and Vice President Harris from criticism over their past rhetoric expressing distrust in the coronavirus vaccine during the Trump administration. "
11. Headline was "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'", body says, more doubting the fact checkers: Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton pushed back against the fact-check, writing, "@Politifact is corruptly lying about Biden WH change to the definition of ‘recession.’ And now this lie, to protect Joe Biden, will be used to censor countless users on @Facebook and other social media platforms."
12. Headline was "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'", body says: "But the so-called "fact-checkers" at PolitiFact felt the urgency to defend the president from the tongue-in-cheek mockery."
13. Headline was "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'", body says: PolitiFact's fact-check garnered criticism across social media platforms, with several accusing the outlet of bias, dishonesty and of "twisting facts." "It’s not like @PolitiFact has any credibility," NewsBuster's Dan Gainor tweeted. "And this is why."
14. Headline: "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration", more calling PolitiFact left-biased
15. Headline was: "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: The so-called "fact-checking" news outlet Headline was "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'", also "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: Critics panned the liberal fact-checker for its "false" ruling on Trump's remarks.
16. Headline was "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says", body says: A new study suggests that PolitiFact is doing more to "defend" President Biden rather than fact-check him.
17. Headline was "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'", body says: The liberal-slanted "fact-checking" website PolitiFact was the butt of the joke on Thursday over a job opening on its so-called "misinformation team." Critics pummeled the fact-checking website and its reporter for unintentional "honesty."
18. This isn't a failed fact check but goes to the general blurring of facts and opinions. Fox News frequently uncritically amplifies sources we consider unreliable, "Three reporters on the byline for this story that could have been written by Ron Klain alone," Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross tweeted, referring to the White House chief of staff. , they also frequently cite The Federalist and its publisher is a major contributor. Andrevan@ 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody see the huge flaw here? Most of the supposed unfactual assertions in this list are HEADLINES. We already know headlines in any media are unreliable. See WP:HEADLINES. In other words, this list is pretty much meaningless. YoPienso (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, most of the items are not headlines. The only one that is explicitly a headline is #6 and it has a rationale as to why it is an issue nonetheless due to the article treatment and the insufficient corrective action. Andre🚐 18:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You could be right. Your list is so unwieldy I'm not exploring it. I do see, however, that you refer to headlines on items 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. YoPienso (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the references to the headlines to distinguish what was the headline and what was the body, because several people had incorrectly claimed as you did, that the errors only occurred in the headline. The errors occur in the body. Andre🚐 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not an evidence Many of the points presented here as evidence are either incorrect or gravely taken out of the context. Viewing the links presented here, none of them show that Fox News actually said that Covid-19 originated from Wuhan-Labs. The article simply reflects what UK government believed as an opinion, not a fact. Similarly, pointing out that some scientists ruled out Lab-leak theory does not mean they present this wrong claim as a fact. All other points presented are trivial like this one, and I can easily show why they are wrong in five minutes. I am not convinced by this 'evidence'.--Madame Necker (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Madame Necker: You suggest that you could easily show why they are wrong in five minutes. Some of the failed fact-checks are minor, but Politifact is without a doubt an RS. Could you please explain in more detail on your thoughts that the evidences are incorrect or gravely taken out of the context? VickKiang (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In the 7th example, it says the government attempted to change the definition. Factcheck website states it didn't change the definition. Attempting and achieving something is totally different. This is one of the example I can give you to show how they are out of context. Madame Necker (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The government did not attempt to change the definition of a recession. The NBER definition has been the same for many years. Andre🚐 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You need sources to prove that or I will consider it original research. Madame Necker (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

See here. It mentions that [many] widely-shared social media posts took screenshots from the White House blog post and claimed they documented the executive branch’s attempt to “redefine” recession. For example, Jacqui Heinrich, White House correspondent for Fox News, tweeted... but the article refutes it by saying that the definition of a recession is subjective (though, Snopes also noted that NBER says the current US economic conditions is a recession, but it's just one of the main, but not the only, indicator). VickKiang (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my point, it does not contradict Fox News. It doesn't say White House didn't attempt to change the definition. Madame Necker (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my point, it does not contradict Fox News- essentially by this you are saying that you are agreeing with Fox, and refuting Snopes, a fact-checker which is an RS? VickKiang (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's an IMF pub from 2009 which is broadly similar to what the White House wrote and our article recession says, and they never attempted to redefine, [66][67] p.52, "There is no official definition of recession... NBER... uses a broader definition and considers a number of measures ... a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months ... comprehensive set of measures—including not only GDP, but also employment, income, sales, and industrial production—to analyze the trends in economic activity" Andre🚐 22:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Not at all, Snopes and Fox don't contradict each other. That the government may have attempted to change the definition doesn't mean it was successful in its effort. @Andrevan How is a 2009 article related to what the government attempted to do in 2020s?.. Madame Necker (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It simply shows that the recession definition in 2009 isn't that different compared to 2020. Snopes and Fox don't contradict each other entirely, but Fox's claim is misleading IMO (Andrevan would probably agree). If you say that Fox's is perfectly correct and using cherry picking to say the government may have attempted to change the definition doesn't mean it was successful in its effort, essentially agreeing with Fox and most conservative outlets, that's totally fine, this isn't blatant disinformation but subtly misleading. However, I'm curious that do you have a straight RS on WP:RSP saying that White House "attempted" to change the definition of a recession, or wouldn't your claim be OR as well, without a creditable reliable source? But after all we're having a discussion anyway, and your vote is appreciated (of course, the disagreement is likely due to our different political views, which is perfectly fine and needed so that WP truly reflects the consensus and NPOV). Please address my question, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Fox News is reliable enough to attest that fact in this case because the information it provided was not disputed. If I had seen a fact-checking website that disputed that there was an attempt, I would only then try to find additional sources. Madame Necker (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There's not a single reliable source that states the White House attempted to change the definition of recession, because they never did. Andre🚐 23:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no counter-evidence to prove that they've never made an attempt. Madame Necker (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

By this logic, you are implying that if there isn't "evidence" to counter than Fox News is wrong, it should just be assumed as correct? IMHO, [t]here is no counter-evidence to prove that they've never made an attempt is a logical fallacy, if, according to you, there's neither evidence that White House made the attempt nor evidence that it did not made the attempt, which seems to be your POV, why would you say that Fox News jumping the gun and saying that White House certainly made an attempt is true? Your statement, IMO, is contradictive and poor. VickKiang (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang There is evidence by Fox News and it is not contested by other media publications. Madame Necker (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your statements seem to imply, again, that if Fox isn't contested by other media publications, it's an RS. However, it's very rare for a fact-check to be contending a specific piece. The Snopes and PolitiFact clearly dispute the claim that White House changed the definition (and also these saying it tried to change the recession definitino on Snopes) it, which generally critiques all right-wing pieces that say so. You keep asserting Fox News has evidence backing up the claim, but where's the evidence that Fox cites that also appear in other RS? VickKiang (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News evidence is present in the news article by Fox News. If you want to get information about Fox News' sources, you need to personally contact them. Sometimes outlets do not publish their sources explicitly for privacy or some other reason. Lastly, I don't think I need to cite more than one RS for an undisputed claim. Madame Necker (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense... partially. Per WP:RSP, Fox is not reliable, but marginally reliable or situational, on politics. Frankly, saying that Fox is an RS is wrong, so the undisputed claim is false. VickKiang (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to analyze a source's reliability depending on context. According to the page you've cited, it is allowed to use Fox News for uncontested statements. Madame Necker (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Mme Necker's argument has a burden of proof that isn't met, and hinges on the word "attempt", but it's a sophistic argument. Regardless, Fox has taken a stronger wording on this issue elsewhere, clearly stating outright that White House redefined recession. "Some liberal media outlets are beginning to fall in line with the Biden administration's spin on redefining what a recession is ahead of the release of potentially devastating economic stats."[68] " two consecutive quarters of negative GDP – the definition of a recession.... Fox News Digital found in a report on how the White House is "redefining recession.""[69] Andre🚐 00:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. That statement is about other media outlets' stance on the definition issue. It does not reflect the fact-checking websites you provided, which merely analyze whether the government made a change to the definition. Madame Necker (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't say so. Firstly, the definitions of recessions are contentious claims, IMHO (just see Recession on WP). You purpose that uncontested statements are these that haven't been challenged by RS directly, this is false, as RS indirectly challenged the claims by media that White House tried to change the definition of a recession (from Snopes), so IMO this is a contentious statement. Per RSP There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Nowhere does it say that statements that weren't contested directly by fact-checking orgs aren't RS, by this manner, a fact-check organisation could only check at most hundreds of articles from one organisation each year, Fox probably publishes thousands or more, would all of these claims be considered uncontroversial? (P.S. The RSP wording directly imply Fox's bias here). Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Uncontested statements are non-contentious claims. Madame Necker (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, [if] outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. In this case, Fox News appears IMO to be a minority claim, that probably isn't due and not represented in other RS. Where did you get that [ncontested statements ([by fact checking organisations]) are non-contentious claims? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced by your argument that outside citation is the main indicator of notability in this case, whilst there are so many other factors determining reliability. Regards to second topic, my point was that if a claim is uncontested, it is non-contentious. Madame Necker (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't hedge the question, as where did you get that if a claim is uncontested, it is non-contentious? VickKiang (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Contentious means "causing, involving, or likely to cause disagreement and argument" per Cambridge Dictionary definition. I don't see any disagreement by a reliable source on whether the government made the attempt. Madame Necker (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How can you possibly not know this is highly contested and contentious? Do you read anything outside of the right-wing echo chamber? Recession is far more than a trivial rule of thumb about GDP. When has there been a recession with increasing wages, low unemployment, and the highest consumer confidence level since May? Let the economists argue over this (which they are), instead of believing what a Fox correpndent states. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Objective3000 I read every kind of news outlets from English, German, Spanish, and Swedish. You wrongly focus on whether the definition is contentious. That is not the issue. My point is Fox News' statement regarding the government attempt was non-contentious. Madame Necker (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The government definition of a recession since 2008 has been: "a recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as 'a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales'.[70] Now, Fox News may have a different definition based on a simplistic rule-of-thumb. But the US government definition has not changed that I can see and Fox's claim is most certainly contested. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about something else. You may want to re-read the thread. Madame Necker (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is again false. Did you just ignore one of the refs Andrevan said previously, when Fox implied the government did "spin" it? An NBCNews.com report from Wednesday detailed how the White House is scrambling to spin the bad economic news facing the country and convince Americans that there is not a recession, nor is there going to be- doesn't this imply that this spin is trying to change the definition? Ignoring these from Fox and cherry-picking is not helpful at all, IMHO. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This sentence does not contradict with previous statements by Fox News or fact-check organizations. It describes the government's attempt to change the definition and does not say it was successful in its efforts. Madame Necker (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Last thoughts from me. Mme N. fails to grasp the central point, and appears to not have the context on the dispute. Fox states, "two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth, which has long been the measure that determines whether the U.S. is in a recession". This is false. That was always just a rule of thumb, as the 2009 NBER definition shows. You can debunk it with this other Fox article which does not have an error: "The NBER has also stressed that it relies on more data than GDP in determining whether there is a recession, such as unemployment and consumer spending"[71] Fox states in Fox voice, not attributed to any other outlets, "Biden administration's spin on redefining what a recession". No "attempt to redefine" to the NBER definition could occur since the NBER definition has been there since at least, 2009. Andre🚐 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. NBER definition has not been changed because the government's attempt was not successful. Madame Necker (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed that the government attempted to change the definition at any point. That is just false. Andre🚐 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Necker, you are displaying the dangers of using Fox News as a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Even as one trying to keep Fox, it is absolutely not the case that the govt made any official change to the definition of a recession...the claim they were is a combination of hastily rushed social tweets and of course Fox all but presenting that was the case to try to trap a few left leaning journalists in that web. Its the type of article, under the current RSP status for Fox, that we should simply overlook. now this not saying the adticle is making shit up like Daily Mail or Breitbart, but they are twistibg words to the extent of truth to tell the story they want. they do not do this much of the time , even on other political articles that stay close to objective, but this is the tyoe of articke tgat without corroboration from Other RSes, i woykd just ignore. Masem (t) 14:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Evidence added by Anachronist

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

Evidence added by Softlemonades

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, this MSNBC opinion piece isn't usable, but there is a real study that they are reporting on that we could find, Softlemonades. I believe it was "Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind survey." Andrevan@ 17:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking for the survey all I can find is an old one from 2011. Im going to strike it until someone can find the original Softlemonades (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment from GoodDay

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

I didn't know about this particular example but do we need an example to say no news source is 100% reliable? The idea that a news source could be perfectly reliable is, I hope, beneath the level of discussion occurring here. Organizations are made of people and people, even meticulous people, make occasional mistakes. I kind of expect that people understanding such basic premises. What primarily matters is how an organization operates and what its goals are. Are its goals to provide reasonable coverage, factual statements, and thoughtful analysis sans agenda? If so, that's a good news organization. Yes, it also matters how it responds to its mistakes when it inevitably makes them. How does it publicize such mistakes and make retractions, etc? There are entire organizations devoted to ethical journalism such as the Society of Professional Journalists. They provide many ideas and principles that journalists, reporters, and organizations should try to meet.

It wasn't clear to me how your comment supported your conclusion. It seemed to me the most reasonable interpretation of your words was an enthymeme with a suppressed premise that the incident was staged. So looked into it. (It bares noting that the first websites I found while searching for "Arwa Damon sniffing backpack" were sketchy Russian news sites.) But I did manage to find a CNN video segment that seems to be the source. After watching it a few times, I can't help but interpret your comment is pure FUD and the spread, intentional or not, of propaganda. First, your comment is counterfactual, chemical weapons require a certain dosage or concentration to be fatal. So the idea that taking a sniff hours after an attack implies it must be a fatal dosage is simply false, especially whilst taken in a camp where people are still obviously living with the contaminated clothing and its vapors for a long time. Second, the report never mentions the chemical and there was and still is some uncertainty about it, but it is now believed to be some chlorine-based weapon. Chlorine most certainly can be detected by smell and does in fact "sting" even in low doses. In my life I've accidentally breathed a full lungful of concentrated chlorine vapor, much much worse than the sniff under question would have given. It was awful but I survived. As I further looked into this, it is Russian news outlets that were pushing that the attack was staged contrary to the OPCW's conclusion it did occur. So you seem to be furthering the idea that this chemical attack A) never occurred, and B) that CNN setup an entire camp of people to act as victims of an event that never occurred and made a fake, staged news report about it. Your comment is irresponsible as far as I'm concerned and it wasted my time only to find your concern was a nothing-burger. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Critique of evidence from SamuelRiv

It takes longer to break down the sources listed than to actually find them, but I have already done so for some of them in the prior RfCs: My critique of the NewsGuard downgrade, and a breakdown of three sources: BLM-Hamas link (Andrevan #6), Clinton 'infiltrate' (Andrevan #1), and "Fauci dismisses study" (Andrevan #2). (If evidence is withdrawn please strike it while preserving the numbering). The tldr on those is WP:HEADLINE; valid; and "does WP:HEADLINE apply to Instagram?". If others want to look into more of these they should, because we shouldn't have to tolerate being thrown masses of "evidence" if half of it falls under WP:HEADLINE or WP:RSOPINION. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing any evidence, let's discuss it. I'm not sure what you mean about "tolerate being thrown masses of 'evidence'", the evidence is quite valid as you yourself admit on #1, and you are not obligated to volunteer to review it, but any reasonable argument should be rebutted with another reasonable argument or more evidence rather than simply hand-waving a dismissal. Also, everything I added is marked as news and not opinion. I have updated my evidence to show what was a headline, and what was a body, but I reject your assertion and characterization. Only #6 as mentioned is explicitly an error in a headline, but I still include it, for reasons discussed below.

• 1 - confirmed - valid. False statement, failed fact check. Not corrected to this day. Also appears throughout other coverage about the Durham situation. There's a fire here, not smoke, not minor.
• 2 - the error appears in the body, first sentence, reading: "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." so this is not limited to the headline, instagram aside. I don't know the policy on instagram, it's not relevant to this. It also quotes Fauci out of context to make it sound like he had dismissed the study, whereas he was merely cautioning people from getting a Moderna booster on the basis of the study, because the study was still a pre-print. Clearly misleading at best and Politifact clearly calls it false, not on the basis of the headline.
• 6 - Yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact explains: "In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." Look at the current editor's note: "EDITOR’S NOTE: This report’s headline was updated to more closely reflect the Black Lives Matter tweet." This editor's note is itself a bit misleading since it was a false or misstatement or error, but they just call it "more closely reflect" which is a bit dishonest. [72] It still counts as a failed fact check toward their reliability. The body still implies that BLM supports Hamas even though it doesn't state it outright: "The leading Black Lives Matter organization declared "solidarity with Palestinians" Monday, a week after Hamas terrorists in Gaza began firing a relentless barrage of rockets into Israel" It also still includes the URL slug "black-lives-matter-hamas-terrorists-israeli". The entire article claims to be about BLM but still mostly discusses Hamas, so I would say this one still damages Fox's credibility in a significant way and shouldn't be discounted. Andrevan@ 19:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagreed with your assessment that it still count as a failed fact check. In my opinion, "supporting" is a generous term, it could be supporting in name only, or it could be silent support, or supporting with material support. In my opinion, BLM "declaring solidarity" with Hamas can still be construed as "supporting". OIC, the Non-Aligned Movement and Indonesia, all clearly a supporter of Palestinian independence, used similar wording with BLM - "declaring solidarity". I don't think the line between "declaring solidarity" and "support" is too far fetched. In short, "support" does not imply material support. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

BLM did not declare solidarity with Hamas. They declared solidarity with Palestinians. So it's false. Andrevan@ 19:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And the text of the actual article correctly says BLM declared solidarity with Palestinians… it’s only the headline that mentions Hamas, and the headline is already not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The text of the article still implies that Hamas == Palestinians, when in fact Hamas is just one faction of the Palestinians, as evidenced by SunDawn's confusion on the matter. The Editor's Note is also dishonest and misleading since it does not properly clarify or apologize. Fox News stealth-edited the piece and only provided an Editor's Note when prompted to by the CNN fact checker. The body of the article still implies that BLM defended Hamas terrorism when they did not do so. Andrevan@ 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Headlines are generally unreliable, Fox News or any other news in the world. The article clearly mentioned that the "enemy" of Israel is Hamas, not Palestine. I generally see that the implication that BLM supported Hamas is depending on the bias of the reader, as saying that you support Palestinian independence one week after a deadly rocket strike by Hamas is not a good outlook. Hamas is not Palestine, but Hamas is the "military arm" of the Palestine independence movement. It is wrong on my part to assume that they are wholly the same monolithic organization, but Hamas is still closely related to Palestine independence movement, which in turn, closely related to Palestine as a "nation-state".

Finally, I have to reiterate that the issue is on the headline, which had clearly been established as an unreliable way to judge an article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hamas is a specific faction of the Palestinians, and is not equivalent to the PLO or Fatah, or the Palestinian Authority. Hamas is the radical faction, while other factions are more moderate, so equating them on the part of Fox, or implying that BLM supported them, is irresponsible journalism at best. The article body is still bad even aside from the headline. It is not equivalent to say one supports the Palestinians' independence or Palestinian refugees to say one supports terrorism or Hamas' violent actions. The entire article is about the Hamas escalation of unrest and the rockets launched, and then interspersed are BLM claims of solidarity. This implies that BLM endorsed violent terrorism, headline aside. Andrevan@ 01:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

How would I characterize the appropriate standard response of a public health/science official to the press inquiring about a preprint? "Dismissive" is a fairly accurate descriptor, if tentative could be an implied qualifier. The only thing that makes the body of #2 somewhat questionable is its publication during the pandemic, which requires a bit more care in science reporting than we know Fox and several other media outlets undertook. That said, one frequent retrospective critique of mainstream press coverage of the science however is that it wasn't critical enough -- that is, it didn't convey uncertainty when and how it needed to be conveyed. So in my opinion the validity of #2 is only dependent on whether a Fox Instagram post == HEADLINE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Fauci wasn't dismissive of the preprint, despite the statement in the article body that he did dismiss it. He simply sounded a note of caution that folks looking to get a booster, shouldn't choose a Moderna booster simply because the preprint study showed a bit of a better outcome for Moderna. He said it was safer to get the same booster you got before, ie 2 Pfizers and then another Pfizer. I am not aware of the policy on an Instagram post, but I don't care to debate that point, because it's still a failed fact check and a mischaracterization, taken completely out of context, that Fauci had dismissed the study whereas he had actually just sounded some caution on making decisions based on a preprint study and that the jury was still out. [20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)] Adding: Fauci was not only not dismissive - he didn't take a position on the study - he simply advised waiting and caution, and to follow the current best practice advice - get the booster you got, and they're roughly equivalent. The study itself, which showed that Moderna was a little better, actually might be valid and Fauci might not only not have dismissed it but he probably accepts the study. Moderna has a little higher dosage and several studies have shown it was better. So, it's a double-sin by Fox: casting doubt on the study itself, and misquoting Fauci. It's classic misquoting. It'd be like if early results came out for an election showing Bill Clinton ahead, and Bill Clinton said: "We don't count our chickens before they hatch. These are early results only in from a few counties totalling 3% of the vote." and then Fox wrote in their article body, Bill Clinton dismissed early results showing him ahead. It inappropriately implies that Clinton believes the results are bad, suspect, or not trustworthy, when he as simply being cautious and patient - preprint studies are still being reviewed. Andrevan@ 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Misquoting is an inaccurate direct or indirect quote, or one that is placed so out of context or selectively edited so as to change its meaning. None of that is the case in the Fox article. You are accusing them of mischaracterizing Fauci's statement (in the article body), but your counterpoint, that "he probably accepts the study" is completely out of left field. If you look over WP:MEDRS it gives good basic information in general on how medical studies work and are evaluated as evidence. Fauci's comments sound a lot to me like "ask me after it's reviewed," and then he immediately redirected the topic away from the paper. Your Bill Clinton example is actually maybe a good one, since we may have different interpretations about precise use of language -- I would say "dismissed" is also not a mischaracterization of Clinton's hypothetical comments, though perhaps it's a shorthand: he was dismissive about the notion that he should pay attention to early results, not the validity of the early results themselves. I'd say that shorthand is justifiable, if sacrificing precision for concision. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying Fauci accepted the study at the time, I'm saying it is equally invalid to say he accepted or dismissed the study. Your point that it is out of left field, equally applies to Fox and myself - you can't say he accepted it, and you can't say he dismissed it. My point is that he took no position, and Fox misquotes him to say he was dismissing the study, which necessarily implies he is doubting the study's conclusions or its methodology or veracity, but actually, he was simply pointing out it was too early to say. Similarly, the Clinton example, if it was using to imply Clinton was doubting whether the polls were fair or accurate, would be a misquote of him if they say he dismissed them. Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant. This makes it sound like he's dismissing the validity of the claim, not that it was too early to use the study for anything. Andrevan@ 23:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment on the entire political news issue by Iazyges

Rare involvement into Wikipedia politics, but I think this is important. Aside from whatever the finding of this debate is, we have to confront a reality in media: Fox News may be regularly less reliable, and perhaps even more partisan than other institutional medias like CNN and MSBNC, although both of those are debatable. But they are also right on issues where the others are not. Did Fox News use stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, attempts of political actors to sabotage President Trump, and Covid Hesitancy for the sake of partisan benefits? Certainly. That does nothing to dismiss the fact that Fox News covered it when other institutional news places would not. How absolutely humiliating for the New York Times that it has been forced to admit the probe into Hunter Biden is real, and that the New York Post of all places was faster to the beat than they were, and after they worked day and night to debunk a true story. Did Fox News attempt to connect the issue to Biden to hurt his chances of winning the election? Almost certainly. That makes the truth no less true, nor does it make it any less concerning to see institutional media unquestioningly rejecting it. According to the Durham Probe itself, as SunDawn says, there is a very real fire. Political elements attempted to directly sabotage the sitting president of the United States, arguably the most powerful nation in human history. Finally, ponder that the brilliant and accredited minds of many institutional news media could not predict that there might be some issues to crop up from a rushed vaccine where the producers were told ahead of time they would have no legal liability. Perhaps they truly believed that our Pharma industry was a beacon of ethics and goodwill; unlikely for any reasonable person, but possible. Perhaps they wanted to prevent panic, also very possible. Inexcusable is that they have gone out of their way not to cover real concerns that that the various vaccine manufacturers rushed their product for maximum profit while fearing the FDA would probe them for them. Again, perhaps all of these were blown out of proportion, and used for partisan gain. But they are all real stories, and it's concerning to see institutional media running interference on them. Perhaps these institutional media are more reliable on average than Fox News or other news media like it, but they objectively, irrefutably suppress true stories that Fox News was willing to run. I do not personally use Fox News, nor necessarily ascribe to many of the views of the hosts or commentators (aside from perhaps Tulsi Gabbard), but dismissing them out of hand as a result of partisan bias is ridiculous given that they will run true stories that others will not. Fox News has a place on Wikipedia for this, even if it might politically disagree with many of our editors. God have mercy on America. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Blacklisting news media which have brought up news (such as the Hunter Biden case) which later The Washington Post ends up admitting are legitimate simply would result in that news which are not politically correct would be likely to remain forever suppressed. What was that about "democracy dies in darkness"? XavierItzm (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: I think that in today's age most stuff eventually gets out in a way that cannot be easily suppressed; even if we did deprecate Fox News, I feel it would just set us 6-12 months behind on such issues, which is hardly confidence inspiring... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You have a real point despite your conspiracy stuff. UNfortunately I have noticed that the news sources we call reliable have a habit of blacklisting things that don't sit well with the government or corporatons or the military or their particular partisan readership or whatever. They don't actually tell lies, they just drown it out. Media critique sources such as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting quite often point out cases, though such sites tend also to be stongly criticized by partisan sources that don't like what they say. with the way things are going soon Wikipedia will only have articles on things corporate sources approve of. I think this is something to be very wary about especially with the way people are becoming more and more polarized. NadVolum (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum: At this point I would argue that the vaccine manufacturers rushed out the vaccine is not "conspiracy stuff", given that it was effectively the state policy of two back-to-back American Administrations; otherwise, I agree. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes the vaccines were rushed and there were failings. But above you said "also very possible. Inexcusable is that they have gone out of their way not to cover real concerns that that the various vaccine manufacturers rushed their product for maximum profit". The link you gave has no grounds for thinking the companies were going for profit never mind rushing for one. I've no doubt profit is very important to them but you do need to be a a lot more careful about alleegations like that. NadVolum (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Iazyges. All the evidence presented in this discussion is, more broadly than addressing only Fox News, a testament to America's painfully fractured media landscape. I'm too tired to go through all the sources and give an informed opinion, but from scanning the evidence (and responses to that evidence) I see a "case-by-case" conclusion: Too many uncorrected factual errors to be generally reliable, but enough useful content that, when not in direct conflict with other sources, is invaluable in the pursuit of neutrality. I do not envy whoever ends up closing this RfC.... Ovinus (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of why we shouldn't jettison Fox News from our RSs: The MSM is ignoring the fact that Biden tested positive for Covid again today, while Fox headlines the story and includes the doctor's letter as evidence. YoPienso (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to find a better example: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/biden-feels-well-still-tests-positive-for-covid-19-doctor-2 CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

LOL. You'll need to find a better example--the National Post is a Canadian paper, not one of the major US outlets. Find the story in ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NYT, WaPo. YoPienso (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. We can write articles using Canadian sources. There isn't any inherent need for US sources. If Fox was reporting important issues that nobody else was, you've have a point here, but for the purposes of a functioning encyclopedia, Canadian sources solve the problem that you think exists. CT55555 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right that we don't need US sources for any article at Wikipedia, but in an RFC about a US source, i.e., Fox, we should compare it with other US sources. Many of us are pointing out that ALL sources have inherent biases, so we can't pick and choose the ones we like. If they're reasonably reliable, we have to accept them. And in this cases, Fox is reporting news that few other sources are, and since it's 100% verifiable (reproducing the doctor's letter) and relevant, we shouldn't chuck the source. The National Post, where you found a report that Biden still tests positive for Covid, isn't a well-known source or even available in print in all of Canada. The fact that US MSM is ignoring the President's condition reflects a strong bias that should be balanced. In this case, Fox is necessary. YoPienso (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For your argument to persuade me, you'd need to show me that Fox reporting things that otherwise would get missed. That appears not to be the case, with the example you chose. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of what the various sources headline: At this moment, Fox is headlining Hunter Biden (among other news topics) as well as Alex Jones. ABC, CNN, The Guardian (US edition), The NYT, and WaPo all feature Alex Jones but nary a word about Hunter Biden. (I'm not pasting in any links because headlines change so fast; I'm looking at the home page of each of those outlets.) And yet, the Hunter Biden story is important in US politics, but has consistently been ignored by the left-wing media. Here's what CNN had ove 2 weeks ago. This is a big deal, and the omission of in-depth stories about Hunter Biden turns many right-wing Americans against our major news sources. YoPienso (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S.For your argument to persuade me, you'd need to show me that Fox reporting things that otherwise would get missed. That appears not to be the case, with the example you chose. And yet, Fox was reporting something that was getting missed. My new example is better, but my first still stands. If you visit each of those sites every day as I do, you'll see Fox covers a lot of stuff the others don't, or highlights stuff the others note in passing. Of course this is an example of bias, both of inclusion and omission. YoPienso (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please state the specific piece of encyclopaedic information that we would be unable to include about Hunter Biden on wikipedia if Fox News was not available as a source? CT55555 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

1) Pssst: Fox is MSM.

2) Every outlet covered Biden getting Covid and some "yup he still has it" type stories. Plenty of coverage of this "rebound case", too, e.g. NPR a few days ago. That Fox chooses to "headline" another "yup, he still has covid" story isn't a great example of why they're so valuable (not that it's a problematic story, to be clear). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right; I was responding to CT55555's comment. I understood him/her to mean it was a poor example because a little Conrad Black rag in Canada also carried the news. (Btw, ABC has now mentioned Biden testing positive for the 7th day in a row.) YoPienso (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Critique of "Evidence added by Andrevan" by GRuban

1. headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"

   And that fact check comes from Lead Stories, which we don't have an article on, because it's a fairly obscure site. Let's see what the major sources have to say about it. CNN: "Special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump" "Special counsel John Durham accused a lawyer for the Democrats of sharing with the CIA in 2017 internet data purported to show Russian-made phones being used in the vicinity of the White House complex, as part of a broader effort to raise the intelligence community's suspicions of Donald Trump's ties to Russia shortly after he took office. The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters"; The Independent "Did the Clinton campaign ‘infiltrate’ Trump Tower and White House servers?" "The tale recounted by Mr Durham — a complicated spying operation conducted at the behest of a presidential candidate, stretching over a period of years — would make a compelling storyline if it were remotely true. But according to experts, it’s not." In other words, The Independent says that what Durham said is false - but he did say it. CNN says that what Durham said is so complex that it's understandable that journalists got confused. I'm guessing they would include The Independent's reporters in that confusion. So is this a shining example of Fox reporting? No. But neither is it sufficient cause to ban them for most political work. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

   Fox: Something happened, person finds

   CNN: Person alleges something happened

   Even before getting to whether it was true, there's a huge difference between the reporting here. In the headline and first paragraph of the article, Fox is presenting this as a scandalous fact first, then attributing it. And when it's attributed, it's a "finding" not an "allegation". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry - it's a headline, and we are prohibited from using headlines – it's a BIG NO-NO – because they ALL do the clickbait. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

   No, this error is not in a headline only, but appears in the body as well. Andre🚐 22:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

2. headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE

   Well, yeah. If someone "cautions against using a study for choosing a booster", he is "dismissing the study as a guide for booster shots". That's what the words mean. In this case the headline is strictly correct. The sentence from the body is stronger than that, but it's taken out of context, as the very third sentence of the article makes it clear in which sense Fauci is dismissing the study. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

   it's taken out of context - It's not taken out of context, it's the very first paragraph of the article, in its entirety, and it's flatly wrong in a predictable, damaging way. Good journalism shouldn't present something that's entirely wrong, which also happens to be a scandalous line that plays well with their primary demographic, followed by a clarification multiple paragraphs later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

   Uhm, isn't this is a case of medical science having opposing views? We don't use news sources for medical information anyway - we use MEDRS, so this is a moot point, move along. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

3. 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues

   Again, let's see what our other sources say. "A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good" that's WUSF (FM), which is National Public Radio, "generally reliable for news and statements of fact", and I don't see the nominator urging they be deprecated. I'm going to stop here as the top three examples by the esteemed nominator are way too weak to completely silence the generally acknowledged political voice of half of the United States. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

   None of these are reliable sources for claims about the effect of lockdowns on public health, so this one doesn't really matter either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

   True, but it still goes toward their unreliability as an outlet that they publish bad, partisan-cooked info and don't take it down later when it's fact-checked by external experts and fact-checkers. Andre🚐 21:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

   We have MEDRS for a reason; even the NYT gets it wrong sometimes. This case is just overhyping a single study, which is fairly common in general. Ovinus (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan politely requested that I move this critique down to its own section, so I'm doing that. While I'm at it, though, I'm going to add something else. User:Andrevan has a beautiful user page, as well he should, as a Wikipedia editor of 19 years standing, former administrator, all that. I bow. One of his userboxes is: "This user has strong political views, but feels that Wikipedia is not the proper place to express them." I applaud that emotion. That's absolutely correct. We're not the encyclopedia of the left, or of the right, but of the world. That's absolutely the right way to do it. Then a few userboxes down says: "Nevertheless, this user persisted." Er - for those who don't know, that's basically the catchphrase of Elizabeth Warren, an unapologetically liberal US presidential candidate. Her photo is right next to it, to confirm, that is, in fact exactly whom he means. The next userbox is of Bernie Sanders "This user believes the government represents all of us, and not just the one percent.". Likewise - in fact whether the Sanders or Warren presidential candidacies were "more liberal" was a hotly debated issue at the time. A few more, "below the fold" (needing to be expanded by a button click) we have: "This user supported Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election." "This user supported Hillary Clinton for the 2016 United States Presidential Election." "This user supported Barack Obama for President in 2008 and 2012" "This user supported Bernie Sanders for the 2016 United States Presidential Election." "This user believes that former U.S. President Donald Trump steered the United States onto a dangerous course." "This user ardently opposes the policies, actions, and behavior of Donald John Trump". Yeah. That's rather a lot, actually. Now, none of that is wrong, if you want to express your political views on the Wikipedia, you certainly can do it on your user page. But then ... you are not the same person who wrote "This user has strong political views, but feels that Wikipedia is not the proper place to express them." are you? You're even allowed to be inconsistent on your user page - I guess. But attempting to further those political views by deprecating those of the opposition, like this nomination is attempting to do, is more than expressing them, it's actively harmful to the neutrality of the Wikipedia. Please. Remember what you're here for, what we're all here for. It's not to score points against the political opposition. It's to write encyclopedia articles. Muzzling the opposition is actively opposed to that. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This ad hominem stuff isn't a good look FWIW. I'd suggest removing it (and you have my permission to remove this response, too, if you do). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

On #1, the fact check stands, the person who writes for Lead Stories is a credentialed person despite the outlet not being itself notable[73], and the Independent source you linked clearly supports that this interpretation was factually incorrect, and Trump used to make false statements: "He weighed in once more on Monday to connect Mr Durham’s allegations to his own false claim to have won the 2020 election, declaring: “I was proven right about the spying, and I will be proven right about 2020!” It’s not the first time Mr Trump has made unfounded allegations of political espionage against prominent Democrats." The Durham indictment DID NOT MENTION "infiltrating White House servers." It's a lie being used to advance a political POV that the Clinton campaign spied on Trump or attempted to infiltrate servers - they did no such thing.

On #2, he did NOT dismiss the study AT ALL. He didn't dismiss anything. It doesn't follow from his statements that the study was "dismissed" or that he was being dismissive. He said, the study is still early, so don't read too much into it yet. He cautioned against using it to choose Moderna versus Pfizer because someone should get the same booster they got originally - did NOT comment on the study's veracity, but merely advised caution because it's a preprint, and the effect between boosters might be small, so get a booster. His quotes are misleading and completely out of context, and there's a blatant false statement that remains uncorrected.

On #3 - it appears to be from a site called "Health News Florida," and not every local NPR affiliate is reliable, so maybe this one isn't either. Either way, they simply referred to the study and they did make the same affirmative bombastic claims as Fox. I wouldn't accept this local NPR article as valid any moreso than the Fox article. The study still has methodological issues and was being overrepresented and overstated. Andrevan@ 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Each side of the 2-party political system in the US has their own version of events, and unsurprisingly, each believes their side is the correct one. In the case of Clinton spying, allegations are strong and the evidence is even stronger; however, none of it matters until the Durham investigation and subsequent trial has concluded, a jury presents a verdict, and multiple secondary sources publish their respective news articles. Until then, neither side is right or wrong, and to declare otherwise reduces one's own credibility. It was quite easy to present a rebuttal to Andrevan's rejection of GRuban's 3 points as follows:

On #1 – According to WSJ (which partisan editors have already attempted to downgrade at RSN): the Clinton campaign did spy on Trump. Mr. Durham’s revelations take the 2016 collusion scam well beyond the Steele dossier, which was based on the unvetted claims of a Russian emigre working in Washington. Those claims and the Sussmann assertions were channeled to the highest levels of the government via contacts at the FBI, CIA and State Department. That alone should have every single American concerned, regardless of political persuasion.

On #2 – it's semantics...CNBC stated: "White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Monday that Americans should continue to get two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, despite a recent U.S. study that showed the shots are highly effective after just one dose." CNBC did not use the word "dismiss" they used "despite" For example, if you refuse to eat spinach despite being told that it's good for you, and eat carrots instead, you are dismissing the goodness of spinach in favor of carrots. We're supposed to be wordsmiths.

On #3 – Fox is no different from other news outlets, and we already know not to use news media for medical information. Every single news outlet should be downgraded relative to medical reporting, and MEDRS should be required for sourcing. Kudos to Project Med for developing MEDRS.

In summary, our job as editors is to choose sources from a NPOV, not that we should only choose neutral sources. If you're not choosing sources that presents an opposing view to your own political leanings, you are not complying with policy. We need all significant views so that our articles will reflect a proper balance, and not mirror a single political view or news source. I consider it our obligation to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

1- The error is in saying that Clinton paid to infiltrate White House servers. Obama was president at the time, and the servers whose DNS traffic was non-invasively analyzed were in Trump Tower. Durham's indictment never mentions the White House. The WSJ Editorial Board opinion piece you linked also has a similar error. "Special Counsel John Durham continues to unravel the Trump-Russia “collusion” story, and his latest court disclosure contains startling information. According to a Friday court filing, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign effort to compile dirt on Donald Trump reached into protected White House communications."

2- If I eat spinach despite carrots, I did not dismiss carrots. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood. Sometimes ya want a nice creamed spinach. Maybe I had a big steak. I'd eat carrots if I had soup. Carrots are still valid and I love them too, I am not dismissing them just because I ate spinach despite (not to spite) them. You don't have any info on my carrot preference from me eating spinach despite being given good info about carrots. I do love wordsmithing though, as I am sure you do as well, so we have that in common.

3- Sounds like we agree Fox should be downgraded for science reporting if it's not reliable for that.

I strongly agree that we have an obligation to our NPOV policy and our community principles and values. Part of that is ensuring we get info from reliable sources that don't make a lot of errors, which could accidentally slip into our work if we aren't careful. That's why discussing this stuff and being really thoughtful and thorough is really important, and a valuable use of this time and noticeboard. So thank you for your thoughts and participation. Andre🚐 22:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this down. Just trying to keep this RFC somewhat "wieldy." On the userboxes, just to be clear, I have a statement about my userboxes which is that they are full disclosure of my biases, which I will not insert into articles, and I reserve the right to edit on issues on which I have an opinion. That is not related to Fox News failing fact checks. For example, I don't agree politically with National Review or Reason (magazine) or The Wall Street Journal but I am not looking to downgrade those sources, just Fox. Also please note that several other users attempted to open a Fox RFC so I believe one was needed. If you have specific feedback of any edits I've made that you have concerns with, let me know. Andrevan@ 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

GRuban, after reviewing the sources and comments again, I reject your mischaracterization of the fact checks. Clearly, all 3 are serious lapses of responsible journalism. And while you may arbitrarily determine to stop there, I believe the evidence provided by myself or others are more than sufficient to downgrade this source. There are many other right-wing leaning sources that will not be downgraded and do not have the same issues. I have no interest in silencing or censoring any valid information, I am merely concerned about factual reporting being tossed out the window to win political points. Andrevan@ 21:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

And, as a note on the sections, after I responded in your response section that I requested you create, I separated this section because you asked me to do so on your talk page, but you may continue responding in this section. I just wanted the very first evidence section, since it will be the root of a tree of many branches of discussion, for example the SamuelRiv branch that was already extant prior to your comments, not to have inline responses inside of the list of evidence. You could respond in a separate subsection or thread after the list, of course, not inline. Andrevan@ 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually ask that you respond in a separate section, I just asked what the general rule you were using to have me make a separate section was. I'm glad you convinced yourself, but there are now multiple people that have exactly the same objections to your "evidence". You've been shown that the Independent and NPR are saying much the same things as Fox says, you've had it pointed out that you are seriously splitting hairs about the great, irreconcilable difference between dismissing a study for its intended purpose and ... no, that's pretty much it, really! Your evidence is full of holes that you're trying to conceal behind writing a wall of text with CAPITAL LETTERS, and whatever your intent, the effect of this proposal is clearly political. By removing the undisputed most vocal, most popular, source of the American right, you would make writing articles about conservative US politics an order of magnitude harder; authors would have to use mainly sources that disagree with their subjects, we might as well only write about Ukraine using Russian sources. --GRuban (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

GRuban, in the section discussion with SamuelRiv, he accepted point 1 as valid. I maintain that point 2 and 3 are valid as well. I am not splitting hairs. The Independent source does not contain the error in the body. The local NPR affiliate does not contain the same text, but it is not categorically reliable either. You need to AGF and not accuse me of concealing holes or text-walling. That is inflammatory. You may engage in refutation of my point or state other arguments, but now you are avoiding doing so, so we can agree to disagree. If you would like, I will merge this section back with the one above. Andrevan@ 13:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. No preference as to merging. --GRuban (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't read so much into my acceptance of one point of evidence. I also agree with everything GRuban has said about it, and this is not in conflict with it being an example of poor reporting. Any such case also has to be evaluated in the context of the well-known deficit in journalists' technical knowledge and conflicting opinions on whether technical topics should be covered with a critical approach. It's a problematic situation, and no outlet is free from mistakes, but the Fox article is better than many others in that all almost its assertions of technical fact are directly attributed to relevant others (the exception is the final graf, which is noncontroversial). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, we can reopen that point if you would care to. I don't agree with much that GRuban has written, and he has also added some very politically charged and inflammatory statements. I don't understand this argument you're making about technical knowledge. Fox News wrote that the Durham indictment said that the Clinton campaign infiltrated Trump and White House servers. They didn't infiltrate, and White House servers aren't mentioned at all. Maybe you could excuse the misunderstanding of "infiltration," though I would not, because nobody infiltrated anything. But the "White House servers" is a blatant fabrication. Egregious failed fact check, for political attack reasons. I don't understand the technical knowledge application there - maybe you are talking about the COVID ones with that? For the Durham indictment, if it didn't say something, but they claimed it did say something, that's wrong, and it remains uncorrected despite the fact check being out there. Andrevan@ 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree to disagree: "referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing positions. It generally occurs when all sides recognize that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable." In other words, he doesn't agree with any of my points, I don't agree with any of his, but we do agree that we are going nowhere good, and if we keep it up we may very well get there. So if you - plural you: anyone, ladies, gentlemen, and those who do not recognize that choice as a binary - "care to reopen that point", you may of course do so, but I would request you please be so kind as to do it in another section without my username on the heading. And possibly Andrevan's, though that's his decision. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion arbitrary break

SunDawn, hope you don't mind I'm moving this in a separate break. Andrevan@ 06:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to respond piecemeal as I don't think I have time to respond to all, but I will respond to #2. The Independent, which is a reliable source in WP:RSPSS, though caution is advised, also use the similar wording that "Fauci dismissed study". While some may see "dismiss" as Fauci throw the whole paper to the bin, some can see "research is only preprint" and "some of the variables are confounding" as a dismissal. Fox clearly stated that the study (that Fauci allegedly dismissed) is not about the efficacy of boosters, but about the difference of efficacy between Moderna and Pfizer booster. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point, but here's the difference: that Independent article has the misleading headline, but the body is correct: "Dr Anthony Fauci has said a study that sought to determine which Covid-19 vaccine is more effective against the Delta variant has not gone through the right reviews yet. Dr Fauci said the study, conducted by the Mayo Clinic, was “preprint” and needed to be “fully peer-reviewed” before its findings could be more widely accepted." He continued, “I don’t doubt what they’re seeing, but there are a lot of confounding variables in there, about when one was started, the relative amount of people in that cohort who were Delta vs Alpha.” Compare to Fox, night and day. Fox included the error in the body: "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant. "Andrevan@ 06:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree. From my standpoint, Fauci calling the paper as "just preprint" and "have confounding variables" is "dismissing" it, while you clearly do not feel the same. Fauci calling for the people to not look much into the paper because of problems associated with the papers, from my standpoint, is "dismissing" it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand where you're coming from. In casual parlance, maybe you could get away with saying Fauci was "dismissive" of the paper. However when it comes to science, "a pre-print that hasn't been reviewed" versus "dismissed", the way the Independent described it is better, and more accurate to what Fauci said, and Politifact agrees that Fox's version is a misquote and has rated it "False." Even "casting doubt" or "raising questions" would be milder than "dismissing" the paper. In journalism there are rules about making sure to quote people accurately, and correct it when you misquote them. If you don't, it's a reliability issue. Andrevan@ 06:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

What CNN talking heads said about the Bidens' view of Fox News
I'll just drop this in here: "What the Bidens really think about their media coverage"--a discussion between Michael LaRosa (Jill Biden's former press secretary) and host Brian Stelter. At 2:25, Stelter asks what the Bidens think about Fox. LaRosa says Mrs. Biden doesn't watch Fox except when pointed there by aides. At 3:01, he says, "I don't think we should ignore Fox. . . It's an opportunity--not always a threat . . ." He goes on to say, ". . . when they go to far, you call them out, as you would anybody." When Stelter asks if he thinks the administration should engage with Fox, he equivocates, but points out Mrs. Biden sat for two Fox interviews during the primaries and the administration posted an editorial on FoxNews.com. My takeaway is that if CNN and the Bidens don't dismiss Fox out of hand, neither should Wikipedia. YoPienso (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended content

What's the exigency?

I see evidence of problematic claims/stories by Fox News, but I'm curious about the practical reasons for downgrading. To initiate a discussion that will take a lot of time and produce a lot of conflict, I'd hope that it would address concrete problems editors are encountering with some regularity. I am not as active in the relevant areas as some others, but I've not perceived Fox-citing POV pushing being an unmanageable challenge since that last RfC. Could someone provide examples of other conflicts/discussions/problematic edits that would've/could've been avoided if only Fox were red on politics/science instead of yellow? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Second this question. Springee (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I posted 2 diffs earlier of my own reverts, in response to Springee and others. Here's another recent example which we haven't discussed, not my own involvement, that might be interesting.oldversionreflink Andrevan@ 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears the ones you posted earlier are disputed. What about the Rittenhouse one is a problem? I can see someone disputing the use of a long quote but that is a weight vs reliability issue. The talk page only mentions Fox News once and that is only in context of challenging the need for the long quote. Ironically the sources for that content where changed with no change to the article text. So what made the use of Fox unacceptable in the first case if all the content sourced to Fox was deemed acceptable? How does that support the notion that allowing Fox News on a case by case basis is an issue? Springee (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: This example cites Tucker Carlson's show, which is already considered generally unreliable for any subject. With the Warnock link above, it looks like after you removed it, that was that. And at the 9/11 article it doesn't look like there was a big problem, either, beyond some edit warring. What would be different about those diffs if Fox were downgraded? The point I'm trying to make is people will never stop adding Fox News citations. To justify a new RfC, I'd want to see that the current setup isn't sufficient (i.e. problematic content is still being included or vast amounts of time are wasted that wouldn't be wasted if it were downgraded). With things as they are now, it's been a long time since I've seen any real issue with challenging Fox's inclusion for politics/science. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Although it looks like Tucker Carlson's show since it has a big clip of him at the top and the words "Tucker Carlson Tonight" as the section, and references the show in the body, it is actually a media article by Joseph A. Wulfsohn. And the content was in the article for a little while. I do consider these, along with the other 2, to be a problem that would be improved by downgrading. In the Rittenhouse example, as Springee points out, the current text remains problematic, and we're having to fact check it with Snopes. Andrevan@ 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the way it is being used in the article is undue but I'm not seeing the issue with accuracy. This is basically reporting what Rittenhouse said. Are you suggesting Rittenhouse's quotes were altered? It's no longer sourced to Fox but you argue it's still a problem. That suggests the issue isn't sourcing but how the content is being used. More to the point, what editing or talk page disruption has resulted from this use of Fox News as a source? BTW, fact checks in general can be problematic in part because they often try to dumb down a complex issue into a T/F binary. Additionally, arguing to a conclusion rather than presenting a range of reasonable conclusions is common. Springee (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that we're giving air to the idea that Rittenhouse is going to go around suing people for "Media Accountability," basically free publicity to his baseless legal threats. According to Snopes[74] there was no case pending. This problem remains in the article and originates with the Fox News media section coverage.

While I'm here, I also just want to point out that as of today the front page of CNN, NYT, are Kansas abortion rights, WSJ right below Taiwan/China, and Fox is running with Pelosi's husband DUI. The only coverage of the abortion thing is way down below the fold[75]. Andrevan@ 16:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't care what stories a paper has above or below the fold... bias is a separate measure of a source from reliability. You're arguing we should penalize Fox for not making an important election result related to abortion right as the lede, but that is the way of groupthink that we should only reward sources that prioritize what we want them to prioritize, which is heading into RGW territory. Masem (t) 16:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that their only coverage of this significant event at all is Kellyanne Conway spinning it, but it's labelled news, not opinion. Andrevan@ 16:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Its labeled analysis. Which is the same as opinion for how we should handle it (eg with clear attribution if due). Yes, the prose introducing the interview frames the vote as "against pro life", but to argue that is wrong is more thought policing in trying to eliminate Fox as an RS. Masem (t) 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do you see it labelled Analysis? It looks to have the byline, "By Fox News Staff | Fox News", and it says, "This article was written by Fox News staff," the section is listed as "Abortion." Andrevan@ 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought it had said analysis but even without that, that is not a news report but simply an interview with a non Fox staffer, stating her analysis and opinion on the matter, so still wouldn't be used as news. Masem (t) 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's true, it is not usable, but it was the only news at the time on the site on the issue. Their actual news on Kansas has now since been posted although Paul Pelosi is still top billing. The first story isn't bad.[76] The 2nd one I guess you could call an op-ed but isn't labeled as such. [77] The 3rd is biased but has no glaring factual errors.[78] My point in bringing up these examples is that Fox very often puts opinion into factual articles, and on frequent occasions has crossed a line into falsehood for political spin. Here's one that really looks interesting[79]. I found where it seems to be from[80], it's also picked up by the Daily Mail [81] and the NY Post [82] Christian Post [83] Daily Caller [84] but interestingly enough, not the AP, CNN, NYT, WSJ, or any reliable mainstream source. I wonder why that is. Could it be because at least some sizeable percentage of Fox is a fringe unreliable source that doesn't have journalistic standards for verification? Here's reliable local news about the incident[85] The victim was not injured and the woman was released. Fox is a tabloid just like NY Post and Daily Mail, even if it sometimes publishes reliable content. Andre🚐 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The article uses "alledgedly" twice and never says absolutely that the person was struck. So no, no false information there. Buas in picking a story that shines poorly on the pro choice movement for obvious reasons, but all sources have such bias. So thats not an issue. Masem (t) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, since you stopped responding in this thread and instead posted above in the survey, I assume you do not find these examples of problems in articles persuasive. However, I just wanted to add, that if you agree that on the merits that Fox News, is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors... per the current descriptions on WP:RSP, your position as "status quo" because you generally object to the system on RSP doesn't really address whether we should continue treating Fox as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply." I certainly understand the argument that editors can revert changes, or remove bad information, but what about all the information that we fail to remove or revert? What about that time during which editors must spend time verifying and ascertaining the case by case determination for sources that are mostly not going to be constructive? Andrevan@ 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The examples don't persuade me that there's is a problem that needs addressing (and/or which is productively addressed here). My status quo !vote is support for no change; it's not placing my opinion about Fox into the provided boxes as much as saying that the current system seems to work, and that I don't think changing the designation would be constructive. In other words, it's more a judgment about what I think is best for Wikipedia than an opinion about the reliability of Fox, and to that end you would be justified considering it an outside-the-box or IARish !vote if that helps to clarify. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I am beginning to question this RFC. Firstly, it was created just a day after plenty of discussion on the talk page about how this RFC should go ahead. To me, this seems like the creator was looking to get it off the ground as soon as they could and wasn't willing to let other users weigh in on whether or not the RFC should be allowed to be created - excuse me if I have missed previous conversations but I believe it is good practice to leave these things for at least a week before acting on them. Secondly, the creator has continually pushed their opinion throughout the RFC, replying to many !votes with their objections and providing mountains of evidence to support their point. While I do admire personal dedication to a cause, this really does seem a lot, and so I question whether the creator is doing this in the best interest of the project or to push their point of view over the line and get Fox downgraded or even deprecated. Anyway, this really hasn't had enough time to brew and the dominance of the RFC by a single editors makes me question whether this RFC can reach a meaningful consensus and one which will accurately reflect the feelings of the community on such an important and widely debated topic. While I do have opinions on Fox News, I have tried my best to look at this through they eyes of a neutral observer on just another RFC on Wikipedia. Regards, Willbb234 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:AGF, please, I worked with a number of editors on the talk page before opening the RFC, and there were several other Fox RFCs that were attempting to be opened by other users. I don't agree with the logic that the RFC maybe should not have been "allowed to be created." You may disagree with me, my evidence and arguments, and I have tried to give those who disagree due space and respect, and civility, so I ask the same good faith. It is far from clear how the RFC will end up, and I am acting in the interest of the project, I will respect the consensus whatever way it ends up. Andre🚐 21:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites makes good points. Thankfully the RfC has been widely advertised so I trust that it will represent a broad consensus, although I wouldn't be opposed to letting it go 60 days rather than 30 days—this is probably one of the most significant RSN/RSP questions ever. I worry that editors will aggressively cite this RfC as license to remove any citation (and especially politics-related ones) to Fox; that seems like a fairly AP2 thing to do. To prevent such disruption, this RfC would need to have a conclusion like, "Fox considered generally unreliable post xxxx", but that kind of explicit "partial downgrade" doesn't seem to have strong precedence in RSP. The disruption that would result from mass removals/replacements of Fox sources would be far more injurious to the 'pedia than having a few questionable citations, which can (and should) be challenged on case-by-case basis. The Sagan standard, which is policy, applies in many of these cases; editorial discretion should trump the blanket conclusions codified at RSP. Ovinus (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the 60 days idea, if others do as well. Andre🚐 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[struck my support since Ovinus did aboveAndre🚐 01:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)]

There is a fresh exigency at Talk:FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago#Fox_News_sources?_Best_to_avoid_when_possible? FWIW Andre🚐 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see any exigency there. Someone has asked how to interpret the current (status quo) consensus expressed at RSP (asking if it means that Fox should not be used in that article)... three people reply saying "correct, it should not be used" and one person points to this RFC. How is this "exigency"? Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The question was asked because it was used, and removed[86], and the current RSP "consensus" states "no consensus, or some considerations apply, use with caution for contentious claims," and the request I am making is that we make that stronger so it's clear that Fox should not, as a general rule with plenty of exceptions, be used for politics and science. It seems that many editors already feel that this is the case, but that's not what its current statement at RSP expresses. Andre🚐 00:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See also the below section "Problematic editing" and this edit and accompanying dispute [87] Andre🚐 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of effects of this proposal

I ran a search for "foxnews.com". I got 2,261 results. Here is the first page. (When I re-ran the search some of the results moved around, so possibly someone trying to reproduce may get slightly different results, but they should at least be similar.)

First page of usage of foxnews.com

Article	Classification	Link
Fox News
Micron Technology	Science	"FOXNews.com - Micron Tech to cut up to 2,000 more jobs in Idaho - Science News".
Murder of Kelsey Smith	Politics	"Mother of murdered teen pushes for law forcing cellphone carriers to release life-saving information"
Janeane Garofalo	Politics	"Transcript: Janeane Garofalo on Fox News Sunday".
Cognitive computer	Science	"CES 2018: Intel gives glimpse into mind-blowing future of computing"
Michael Lockwood (guitarist)
Catherine Bach
Breitbart News	Politics	"FOXNews.com - Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer"
Janice Dean	Politics	Janice Dean slams Gov. Cuomo's 'tone deaf' victory lap on COVID: We're still mourning
Winona Ryder
Florida Man	Politics	"'Florida man' browser extension pokes fun at Trump, Sunshine State".
Jen Selter
Scott Walker (politician)	Politics	"Police Remove Protestors from Wisconsin Capitol"
Lisa Marie Presley
Turning Point USA	Politics	Charlie Kirk calls Trump the 'bodyguard of western civilization' on first night of GOP convention".
Chris Benoit	Science	"Wrestler Chris Benoit Double murder–suicide: Was It 'Roid Rage'? – Health News"
Thomas Ravenel	Politics	"White House Hopeful Rudy Giuliani's South Carolina Campaign Chairman Indicted on Cocaine Charges — Politics
Jyoti Amge
Marcus Schrenker
Perez Hilton

So, what's the point? That if this proposal passes, we will do real damage to the Wikipedia. 11 out of the first 20 are either science or politics, and there 2,261 hits so presumably this is a proposal to remove citations from 1,243 articles. Now some are easily replaceable, I think two are Associated Press articles, so some searching finds this copy of the first entry there. Most aren't. But will the people enforcing the decision actually replace them? Even the easy ones? My 16 years of experience here say no, they will robotically delete the sources, spending less than 10 seconds on each one, and leaving the text uncited. The current status quo is that Fox News on science and politics is already debatable, so if a caring editor wanted they could make that replacement now, and it would be a strict improvement. This, however, is a proposal to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an automatic removal, obviously. It would be handled on a case-by-case basis with priority given to replacing the source with an equal but reliable one. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. Did I mention that the status quo is that Fox is already debatable so if someone was going to replace it with an equal but reliable one they would be encouraged to already? Did I mention I've been here for 16 years and that's exactly how it happens? Want to make a bet? If I can find multiple, many, many, many, many, examples of exactly this kind of mass removal with no priority given to replacing the source whatsoever, specifically based on a source being listed as deprecated from one of these discussions, you will write or noticeably improve an article on a subject of my choice. If I can't, I will write or noticeably improve an article on a subject of your choice. The Wikipedia wins either way. Do we have a bet? --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying that mass removals don't happen (in fact I don't remember specifically, but I know there was a recent-ish ANI case about this), but it is strongly discouraged. Curbon7 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I, however, am denying something. I am denying your statement, "It wouldn't be an automatic removal, obviously." I am asserting the exact opposite of your statement, that it would be an automatic removal, obviously. Because that's how it works. I will make my bet proposal stronger - if you accept, I am willing to demonstrate that in a majority, possibly an overwhelming majority, of cases that is exactly what happens. It would take me some time to do that research, it took me hours to put together that table just there, so I'll only do it if I know I'm at least getting a new or noticeably improved Wikipedia article out of it. You take the bet? --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that if you think something is true, just demonstrate it to be true without incorporating gambling into it. Gambling is illegal in some places, prohibited by religion in some culture, and an addition for some people, so you're introducing a complexity here that could be unhelpful. CT55555 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

GRuban's point isn't one of gaming, but just "if I'm right, you write an article for me, and vice versa". I'm half-inclined to take their offer, but I don't have strong opinions on this topic and would rather just drop the stick. Curbon7 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban that indiscriminate removals are very likely. Also, looking at that list these all appear to be examples where we wouldn't normally question using Fox as a source. Take the second one (I'm treating the first as an AP reprint). I don't see anything in that article that would be considered questionable. It looks like rather straight up reporting. If we decide that isn't a "politics" story then per RSP we treat it as green. If we decide it is politics then currently we say case by case. Does anyone think that story isn't acceptable? However, if we GENURL or deprecate then this story is either green if we say it isn't politics or red/back if we decide it is (after all, the mom is asking for a political solution. Note that other Foxnews references in the same article would be OK as straight reporting since they aren't discussing laws/politics. Honestly, that doesn't make any sense nor would pulling all the Fox references under the idea they aren't reliable per RS. This really is a solution that will cause problems rather than solve them. Springee (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on events and discussions here over the past 6 years, we've lost sight of the scope of RSN. I'm thinking it began when a few editors decided to create WP:RSP, which to my recollection, was never properly approved by the WP community. If it was, then please provide the diff, and I'll strike that part of my comment. RSN is for reaching consensus about the reliability of a particular source for citing specific material, including challenged material; i.e. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. How we got to the point of deprecating and/or grading political news sources is beyond me. This process conflicts with our RS guidelines. I'm also of the mind that unless there is unanimous agreement (or close to it) to deprecate a source, it should not be deprecated, and even it is, it can still be used per contextmatters. The criticism of WP in mainstream stems from our mirroring left-wing biased sources – they currently far outnumber right-wing biased sources. NPOV is seriously lacking. We don't have to like any of the political opinions, but we are obligated to include all significant views on the left, right, and in the middle. Do we now consider our editors to be experts on political opinion?^rhetorical If Fox is as bad as some editors are claiming, our readers will figure it out on their own. We should be publishing the opinions of all notable political commentators so that our readers can see the stark differences, not hide them. In summary, this RfC needs to be closed by 3 trusted closers the way we handled it after the last Fox RfC, and 30 days is plenty. Quite frankly, status quo has the strongest arguments. I'm also of the mind that we need to stop these attacks on entire sources - no more deprecating and grading political sources, all of which are based on opinions and propaganda, and they all do it. It's time to return to our long standing guidelines and the intended use for this noticeboard. Atsme 💬 📧 19:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And to go off this, I point to a comment elsewhere I made that regardless of how this RFC closes, there really needs to be a serious discussion of how editors approach current events that are typically political in mind, drawing the line between what is more appropriate for an encyclopedia than 24/7 news coverage, and separating when we should be focused on facts and putting aside editorials and analysis made in the short term, sticking to an impartial, dispassionate take on events. We have lost the expectations that had been set due to the last 6 or so years and likely will get worse if we don't correct for it. Eliminating Fox News as a source is only a short-term bandaid, as I can already see calls related to the next remaining most conservative source, the WSJ, in some places. It shouldn't be about banning sources but writing for an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need to ourselves take a more conservative (no pun intended) approach to finding better citations for Fox News. WSJ is pretty reliable despite being slightly conservative; they are not spreading conspiracy theories in "opinion" every other article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: As a small note, there are about 16K articles in which the string "Foxnews.com" appears in the code. Just searching for "Foxnews.com" would exclude articles that contain links to the website that do not display the url the page is rendered (as is the case in most citations). Not all of these are going to be original Fox News pieces, but the scope of the source's use in areas of politics/science would appear to be much broader than your initial analysis suggests. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, if we're frequently citing a source that we already generally agree is at least WP:BIASED and low-quality when it comes to science and politics, that's a sign that the current RSP rating isn't doing enough and ought to be intensified. Relying on low-quality sources (or using WP:BIASED ones without proper in-line attribution noting their bias) does more damage to our reputation in the long run than having a few citation-needed tags. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is misleading or otherwise misunderstands "politics and science". It's used in Micron Technology to verify a statement about jobs, not a scientific claim. In Murder of Kelsey Smith it's used to verify that Fox covered the story (why is this politics anyway?). At Jeanine Garofalo it's being used to verify that she appeared on Fox News. At Cognitive computer, it's not being used as a citation at all. The Breitbart News example looks to have been already swapped for a different source [without downgrading or deprecation]. The Janice Dean example should be removed not because it deals with politics but because it's a primary source (the whole paragraph it appears in contains only sources written by Dean). I'll stop there. So far I'm more than half-way through the list at the top of this section, and absolutely nothing would be changed if Fox's status were downgraded. The only ones that would be removed already can/should be removed without the need to change the status. That's why I support the status quo, but the other arguments against downgrading/deprecation are thus far really poor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Problematic use/editing disputes examples

Apologies if this has already been discussed, as I have not read the entire discussion, but are there any examples of editing disputes related to the use of Fox News? If there aren't any such disputes then I don't see the purpose of this discussion, as that means that we are handling the source appropriately under the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I provided these examples [88] [89] [90] which were discussed at length above. Andre🚐 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan:. I'm not seeing any editing disputes for those. In addition, I'm not convinced those uses are problematic; the first was removed solely on the basis of it being Fox News, rather than due to problems with the content. The second appears to be a Boston Globe source, not a Fox News source, and the third appears to be WP:ABOUTSELF statements, unless we have evidence that Fox News in manufacturing quotes? BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The first was recently re-added from a different source[91] and I broke down my objections to it in a different section of this RFC above. The 2nd removes the section with CounterPunch and Fox News called "Telecommunications Leak," see the bottom of the diff and responding user edit summary[92]. The 3rd is problematic on a BLP basis since the article subject is making baseless legal threats about others, and problems still exist in the article today, which can be traced to that Fox content. Andre🚐 01:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I see; for the first and second, I agree with the comments by Mhawk10. I also note that there is no discussion on the talk page about either.

For the third, its use might be problematic on a BLP basis (although I am not convinced of that) but that doesn't make Fox News unreliable, just as it doesn't make the other news agencies that have reported on those legal threats unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking over that Rittenhouse article and the diffs, I honestly think that section was significantly better when Fox News was the source. At least it's not the worst BLP I've seen. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree, and those reverts were unwarranted. Removals of material for no good reason except for a partisan dislike of a source only serves to validate concerns over the downgrading/deprecating of entire sources with pretty much the only sources left standing being center-left and left-wing media sources. It sure looks like misuse of this noticeboard to me, and now I'm wondering what venue would be best to bring this up - VPP or ARCA or will it take a full blown ArbCom case? The conflicting use of this noticeboard, and the whole RSP process needs to be discussed before the WSJ gets buried in that same graveyard. Atsme 💬 📧 03:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the content dispute about the Fox News sources that were removed only serves to substantiate the raison d'être of this RFC. Please AGF, as I have stated I have factual concerns about Fox News' reliability, with considerable evidence that has been discussed, and many editors (it's at least 50/50, I haven't counted) agreeing to at least downgrade the source. I have no intention of proposing to downgrade WSJ's news page. Andre🚐 23:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with SamuelRiv with regard to to the Rittenhouse edit [93]. This is exactly the sort of removal that we should discourage (assuming editors feel the text is DUE). The original source of this information is Fox (Carlson?) interviewing Rittenhouse. The sources added as replacements were simply citing the original Fox interview. Additionally, the content that made it to Wikipedia is a direct quote and a summary of a claim of intent made by Rittenhouse. In effect this is just quoting/summarizing his interview. Why would we question Fox in that case? Fox being a bad source could support a claim that the content isn't DUE but the "fix" was keeping all the same content but finding different sources (that just cite the original Fox interview). Wanting to use Fox sourced content without citing Fox undermines our whole RS system. Again I will note I'm not claiming the actual content is DUE (I tend to think much of it is not but I also felt the whole article was unnecessary). Springee (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The content was bad, and the source is bad, if we didn't allow the usage of the bad source, we wouldn't have the basis for including the bad content. Andre🚐 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So the content is bad because you don't like the source. However, you aren't saying why the content is bad other than "source". If that is the extent of your reason why the content is bad then you really don't have much of a reason. Springee (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What is this talk of liking? I like it fine. The colors and the fonts are great. It's just not reliably sourced. [Nor is the content due, because there's another letter which contradicts this letter that appears in all the prominent, well-respected WP:GENREL sources. (sorry, this belongs in section below, not this one)] The Rittenhouse example was giving a platform for baseless BLPviolating legal threats. The content is bad, and it's being justified by bad sourcing. Andre🚐 19:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see another interesting example we have Talk:Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, where we have the bundle of sources being offered [94][95][96][97], nothing in any reliable source has reported on this, with the given that Fox Business (tho marked as politics) is not reliable for the letter's contents or even its existence quite frankly. Andre🚐 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The letter is given credence by this long piece in Australian Financial Review, which seems reasonably even-handed. I don't think the Fox Business News website would invent a letter from a group of economists out of whole cloth. To be of value to their target daytime audience – people in business – the website has to be reasonably grounded in reality. The opinion-oriented Fox Business tv shows are, of course, another matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking at those links, (especially in the context of American politics and how perennial this kind of thing is, and that's just for the letters that make the news), and your honest reaction is that "Fox could still be fabricating the whole thing", then you need to quickly pull into an exit lane before you officially drive into the city limits of Cuckooville. If you are personally that concerned that the letter might be fabricated, pick up a phone and call one of the profs. I looked at the list -- I'm pretty sure at least some are reachable. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether Fox is reliable to use for the letter. Did Fox call all of those professors and make sure they actually signed it? Why aren't the other outlets covering it? Maybe they made those calls and some of those names aren't real signatories. It doesn't mean the entire thing was from Cuckooville. Andre🚐 03:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The problematic letter[98] is still being added to the article, contrary to claims that there is no dispute on the usage of Fox as a source. Andre🚐 18:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what the problem is with the edit? Are you suggesting the letter isn't real? Is the issue that Fox isn't reliable or just that you think the content isn't DUE? If the same article were sourced to the Wall Street Journal would you change your mind about weight? Regardless, this seems like a reasonably point of discussion and only a "problem" because you disagree with inclusion. A web search shows Reason.com also talking about the letter.[99] A Detroit News oped also mentions the letter [100]. So how does this prove Fox is a problematic source? Springee (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are both opinion pieces. The letter doesn't appear in any reliable mainstream factual sources. I don't know the full reason for that, but it's enough not to trust the letter coming in on the basis of op-eds and Fox online. Andre🚐 19:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page in question, why are you claiming the Reason article is an OpEd? Are you suggesting it's an Oped in that Reason the publisher is going to say, "views of commentators many not reflect the views of Reason.com"? Or are you saying it's commentary/analysis? It is commentary/analysis to say the letter exists? That seems like a factual claim. Anyway, what you are doing is saying any time there is a content dispute it must be proof that Fox isn't reliable. Unless you are claiming Fox is lying about the existence or content of the letter it seems more like using RSP rankings to win a content dispute. Springee (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's not reply twice and state the same arguments twice. I responded there[101] The Reason piece is obviously not usable. And as to the 2nd part, I am not stating that every content dispute is evidence that Fox is unreliable. I posted my evidence why Fox is unreliable in a separate section. These are example of content disputes that would be different if we generally considered Fox unreliable versus the present status quo no consensus scenario. The letter only appears in opinion pieces, with secondhand unreliable sourcing, but also Fox. The letter isn't evidence of Fox's unreliability, it's evidence of a dispute over usage of Fox being reliable in scenarios where it shouldn't be. Andre🚐 19:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is it "obviously" not usable? You claim it's an OpEd but is that because you are saying it's commentary (but subject to Reason's editorial review and fact checking) or is it because it was published as an OpEd and thus outside of stricter editorial review? Are you claiming the parts of the article that are subjective analysis shouldn't be used or that any facts introduced in the article is thus also just opinion? I get that it's not always clear where the line between commentary and factual reporting lies. However, absent the article being an "OpEd" with reduced editorial oversite, it should be treated as analysis from a RS and certainly it's reliable for the existence of the letter. Springee (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious by inspection, you don't need to dig deep to understand what I'm arguing. It's prima facie unreliable due to the link to blatant unreliable secondhand source. The entire article is a spin piece, there's nothing usable in it except for the most basic facts like existence. Nor is the content due, because there's another letter which contradicts this letter that appears in all the prominent, well-respected WP:GENREL sources. Andre🚐 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your opinion? Is it because they aren't using a dry delivery? I generally prefer it when sources don't use appeals to emotion but if that were our rule most media sources would be out. Anyway, as I said before, can you explain the difference between commentary mixed with factual reporting and OpEd? This is probably an important topic for the RS guideline since, as Masem has mentioned many times, many sources mix both aspects of reporting. Springee (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not about appealing to emotion, but usage of hyperbolic or superlative statements, or passing off opinions (like the idea that the Inflation Reduction Act is too big) as facts, are problematic. WP:RSOPINION, WP:BALANCE, WP:BIASEDSOURCES, there's some good explanatory essay info at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. And as I said, if you look at where the op-ed links to the letter, it links to a source that is not reliable at all. Which suggests it's a blog thinkpiece oped and they didn't actually do any reporting or journalism per se. In general, even an op-ed in the New York Times, wouldn't be usable in this situation. The Fox News source, though, doesn't fall neatly into the opinion category. It's actually under business reporting. Andre🚐 19:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ElijahPepe's assessment

To get a full picture of Fox News' reliability, it's worth taking a look at what Fox News is and isn't, what defines a reliable source, and how their stories compare in a variety of different situations.

First, to define Fox News. Fox News is a variety of different things, but under the umbrella of the Fox Corporation, these sources make up what is considered Fox News:

• Fox Television Stations, a group of television stations in the United States located primarily in high-density and populous cities, such as Tampa, Florida, and Philadelphia. The stations considered under this umbrella are current stations, not former stations owned by other organizations, such as KTVX in Salt Lake City. This also excludes Fox affiliated stations, since their ownership is under another organization.
• Fox News Channel, the flagship cable news channel of Fox News Media.
  • Fox News Channel programs, such as Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity, are included in this umbrella, although are a separate categorized entity.
• foxnews.com, the website for Fox News Channel.
• Fox Nation, a streaming service that primarily covers opinion-based shows.

For all intents and purposes, the programs on Fox News Channel featuring pundits such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are heavily-loaded opinion pieces and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia; instead, their scope should be limited to attributed opinions. Their opinion on science-related articles is also just as null and void. It should also be noted that their heavily charged language and opinions can give undue weight to the topic at hand. This also means content on Fox Nation should be handled with caution, since it features many of the same pundits.

As for the television stations owned by Fox Corporation, their reliability is up for debate. From what I have seen from these stations, they tend to cover local news with a centrist slant. Certain stations may employ a conservative staff or use content from the Fox News Channel, but content from these local stations seems to be acceptable for usage on Wikipedia.

This leaves the larger topic into play: How reliable is foxnews.com and by association, its cable news channel, when it comes to science and politics related content?

There are two major parts of a news organization: bias and factual reporting. To understand how Fox News Channel plays into both of these, it's worth taking a look at how it chooses to cover a topic by examining a few different days throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The first date I want to look at is November 3, 2020, the day of the 2020 United States presidential election. On the day of the election, foxnews.com predominantly covered opinions, with much of those opinions held by supporters of Trump. It's difficult to say whether or not some of the stories on foxnews.com at the time had ulterior motives, but stories such as 'NYPD union endorses Trump, says president has 'undisputed record of supporting police' alongside 'McSally confident Senate seat won’t flip: ‘Arizonans are going to choose freedom’', despite being factual, feature little mention of Biden or his campaign's response to the election. Certainly not a smoking gun as to Fox News' bias or lack of credibility, but certainly an important thing to note.

Another date I'd like to point up is June 1, 2021, a standard day for Fox News. The big story of the day is the COVID-19 lab leak theory, which regained attention that month. The headline of the day features the words, "FROM 'CONSPIRACY' TO 'FEASIBLE'" in response to British intelligence agencies reassessing the possibility of COVID-19 leaking from a lab, genetically modified or not, with a majority of the article backing up the conclusion made by such agencies, with a small paragraph at the end stating that Biden, on the other hand, doesn't believe that COVID-19 leaked from a lab. Another story from that day offers even more loaded language. While lab leaks aren't uncommon and it is entirely possible that it leaked from a lab, evidence suggesting that COVID-19 evolved naturally without any human involvement is more parsimonious and more likely, and it appears as if Fox News Channel hasn't done the due diligence required to properly engage in providing a non-biased report of the theory. This also casts doubt on their ability to properly report science-related articles; Fox News clearly lacks hesitancy and—dare I say it—maturity when it comes to such a heavy topic. The origins of COVID-19 are widereaching and their implications are huge, with regards to China–United States relations.

For something more modern, let's take a look at June 28, 2022. The observant among you might note this as the day of the sixth hearing into the public hearings into the January 6 attack. This day's news obviously has an anti-Biden slant, with the short taglines of each story including language such as "Biden vs. Dems" and "AO-Scheme", in reference to the name of U.S. represenative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Certainly not a smoking gun report into the unreliability of Fox News, but it's worth noting nonetheless, considering that the big story of the day (Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony) has been disregarded for—again—more right-wing content, it's not looking great for Fox News.

Finally, I'll take a look at today (archival link for future reference). Again, more right-wing centered content, with Hunter Biden being the big focus today. Not a huge smoking gun either, but beneath the clickbait stories you'll find the more important stories. While some stories, such as Trump invokes Fifth Amendment rights in deposition seem innocuous, they're presented alongside Trump raid blowback could cost top Biden official his job, GOP senator warns and other various perspectives from Republican speakers.

As of now, I'm of the opinion that, if the content isn't related to politics in any conceivable way, and its reporting seems factual (unlike the lab leak story on June 1, 2021), then it's worthy of being put on Wikipedia as a source. Otherwise, its reliability is seriously into question and may even constitute being unreliable or questionable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A decent assessment, BUT… you chose to assess Fox’s coverage for dates when specific (poliarizing) stories were reported. To make your assessment more complete, you need to examine their coverage on other (more “random”) dates. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I analyzed it on one specific date. The others were random, including the lab leak one, although I'll concede that it is an unusual day for Fox News. Still, why should a news organization mention such a theory as a fact regardless? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are looking too much at story placement and headlines, which I agree are both egregious in recent years at the Fox News website, but neither of which matters for our purposes here. When a WP article links to an online news story in a cite, there is no way of knowing how prominent that story was that day, and headlines we disregard no matter where they are from. What matters is the story itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Headlines and story placement are clickbait and they ALL do it. Fox is being singled out because they've got right-wing talking heads, and WP is known for its left-wing bias. Fox has held the #1 spot in tv news for 20 years, so picking on the big guys is natural - David & Goliath - bringing them down on WP is not going to turn viewers away from Fox; rather, it will cost WP more contributions and readers. Why would we do that? The top banner of this noticeboard states very clearly: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. That is not how it has been used relative to Fox. Atsme 💬 📧 19:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There are also years of precedent using it to address general questions of using sources. Andre🚐 20:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Years of misuse doesn't make it right. Atsme 💬 📧 11:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post, 9 June 2022:

the lab-leak theory has gained prominent support from some experts, including some U.S. officials

Methinks if the Post can report on a possible Chinese lab origin years after the fact, Fox News was entirely within its rights to report on a possible Chinese lab origin immediately after the fact. To say Fox News is not reliable because it reported on what the The Washington Post itself continues reporting years later is not responsible. By the way, I entirely agree with ElijahPepe that «The origins of COVID-19 are widereaching and their implications are huge», or at least should be. XavierItzm (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You said it yourself here, "years after the fact". The Washington Post takes a much more cautious approach towards this subject, as it should, that Fox News does not. If it takes years for this story to develop, and it's presented in a way that doesn't give credence to one side or the other, then I don't see the issue with how the Post chooses to report on this. I take no issue with reporting on what UK intelligence believes, but it's presented in such a way that it's a much larger event than it actually is and does give credence to the the theory. I put science-based articles under a much closer magnifying glass than I do regular articles, because they have serious impacts on public perception and scientific discourse.

As an update to this assessment, I took a look at the current Fox News front page and, as to be expected, it's more of what I saw in my assessment, with the article slug (biden-attacks-maga-gop-members-congress-full-anger-violence-hate-labor-day-speech) of this article telling you all you need to know about how politics are covered on Fox News. It's loaded language like what's in many articles on Fox News that is a concern for its reliability, and the lack of some kind of board that reviews articles for accuracy. Every news source is going to have slip-ups, but Fox News seems to have ulterior motives behind their slip-ups, not genuine news reporting. There's little differentiating between what's an opinion and what's news.

I want to iterate here that not all of what's on Fox News is rebranded Breitbart garbage—some of it is true news reporting, albeit with a tabloid twist. This is a good example of an article that I would be fine with on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Fox News is too unreliable in its reporting to get a pass for having that article alongside "Gingrich blasts Biden's 'hateful' Philadelphia speech: 'The country is a mess' ahead of midterms". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

And now this

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1557926941646282752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1557926941646282752%7Ctwgr%5E194c6194812865c803d9e21df3d15ff3214dcda5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F2540492%2Fofficial-investigations-against-trump-thread

So how much more really do we need? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Also reported by the Guardian: Fox News airs false photo of Trump search judge with Ghislaine Maxwell (12 Aug 2022). When I searched for additional coverage, I found a previous report from CNN Business: Fox News publishes digitally altered and misleading images of Seattle demonstrations (June 14, 2020), and Fox News says it 'mistakenly' cropped Trump out of photo featuring Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (CNN Business, July 6, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• The latest falsehood just makes the handful of Upgrade Voters look absolutely ridiculous. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you lot had cared to read through some of the discussions here, you would notice that editors are keen to make a distinction between the the website and televised Fox news and thus your comments aren't appropriate. Willbb234 16:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because some folks are keen to make a distinction doesn't mean that distinction is supportable. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That for all purposes is Tucker Carlson's show which is already off limits. (Just because Tucker didn't host it that night doesn't change the fact its one of Fox's talking-head shows). Masem (t) 17:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Tucker or his stand-in would never be allowed anyway, and is already considered unreliable under our present parameters which specifically do not permit opinion talk shows. But I do want to point out that Fox News, as a corporate entity, has chosen to not apologize for the photo. Instead, they are claiming it was meant as a funny joke. While it might not directly have relevance to the question of this RFC, it is yet more evidence that the Fox News organization doesn't care about the accepted journalistic standards for fact-checking and making corrections. Andre🚐 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Which (to my mind) in some ways makes it worse as if we can't tell the difference between one of their "jokes" and a real news story they have some shoddy editorial standards. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Which would then apply immediately to any site that doesn't clearly distinguish between news and op-ed/analysis. Which I don't think we want to do (as many popular RSes have started to drop this distinction), we want editors to use common sense to recognize (per YESPOV) that RSes may publish pieces that they do not mark as oped but are clearly oped and should be handled that way as opinion pieces. Masem (t) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to imagine you know this isn't how wikipedia rules work. I further have to imagine you know the bleeding of news and opinion IS NOT the issue at hand. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Their actual news coverage of the events in question isn't great either, such as reporting that the judge represented Epstein's pilots and scheduler (and, what's the relevance of that?) or that he gave $1000 to Obama (and $500 to Jeb Bush, so?). They give a lot of air to Trump's thoughts on all this, "Former President Trump is disputing the classification, saying the records have been declassified. ", with no real accountability or check on what he has to say.[102][103]. And the latter includes this borderline false or misleading statement, "Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena" (well, evidently not all of the records, so are we now reporting Trump's statements as fact and the statements of everyone else as dubious opinion?). Fox News is above and beyond other sources that may be nonetheless partisan, in that they will selectively report truth and even change the facts or dispute them for conspiracy theories. Andre🚐 17:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If a news source quotes a person, there is no expected responsibility for the source to verify the reliability of that statement, though obviously some sources will dig in to verify (eg most of the media has been fact-checking claims Trump made about the 33 million documents Obama took when he left office to proof Trump wrong). As long as the news sources does not express what the speaker of the quotes said as fact, there's no issue. We don't want the source to be misquoting or falsifying quotes (as the Daily Mail did), but we are also not expecting the source to run down to proof the quote. Masem (t) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven said "if we can't tell the difference between one of their "jokes" and a real news story..." , so I was speaking to the blurring of the lines between news and opinion that should apply across the board. Masem (t) 17:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They said "jokes" and you interpreted that as "opinion". The issue here is it obviously wasn't a joke and a doctored photo was presented to viewers in prime time indicating a federal magistrate judge was associated with Jeffrey Epstein. That we cannot distinguish news or information from a source from JOKING or malicious misrepresentation is a wholly different matter than the mere bleeding together of opinion and news. It is a mistake to misinterpret the word joke to mean opinion in the incredibly easy to interpret context in which that statement was found. Second, YOU KNOW that if we reach some sort of decision here to downgrade or deprecate FN as a source that we would not magically apply that as precedent to other decisions about news/opinion distinction widely. That's a basic feature of wikipedia guidelines and policies; making the mistake of treating decisions here as having precedent over unrelated matters is just as troublesome as mistaking the context and meaning of a sentence that's less than 20 words long. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Journalists do have a responsibility to confirm statements[104], especially if they represent those statements as fact or give them a lot of weight, which Fox does do and just did. The quoted portions in my prior message that read, "Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena", which quote an anonymous source, in full: "The source questioned whether the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the warrant for the FBI's raid of Mar-a-Lago Monday was aware of Trump's "past compliance with the subpoena," adding that, if the FBI was looking for additional documents, another subpoena could have been issued, as Trump and his team were "cooperative" and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena issued in the spring. " Because of the construction, it's not clear whether the entire statement is a paraphrase or a quote (the writing isn't fantastic either as it's a bit of a run-on), but either way, it's sloppy sourcing spin at best, and borderline fact-checkable. And, if anyone doubts, this is a real editing dispute in the article too. Andre🚐 17:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A high quality RS will try to verify any quote they publish, particularly if it creates implications that were not already known, and I agree that Fox likely doesn't do that in many cases, but that quote verification has never been a consideration of what makes an RS, simply that they publish the quote unchanged and attributed to the speaker. And yes, Fox is absolutely spinning the story on the papers, but so have the main RSes (eg calling it a raid to start with). Just reading courses like CNN or WaPost you can read the "yeah, take that!" attitude in how they are presenting the story, not quite saying Trump is likely going to be charged, but definitely setting the pace for that, which is just as much of a spin. The entire situation around this specific topic is showing lots of bad journalism problems and thus why I'm not surprised to see IPs and new editors trying to argue for the "Trump did nothing wrong" side to be presented. This is why its important to understand that what Fox does that can be pointed to in concentrated form that are being argued for downgrading, also occur in more dilute forms throughout the rest of the media. It's how modern journalism has come to be. But I wouldn't argue for downgrading most sources, just that we learn how to write to the long-term view, and there's no deadline to get current event articles up to current, as to avoid favoring one side over another in the short-term. Masem (t) 17:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is that Fox, as a low-quality source that may be questionable, does distort quotes, take them out of context, and worse. They allow errors to persist and sometimes their correction, is a non-denial denial or a non-correction that doesn't apologize for having a fast and loose relationship with integrity. Because, as mentioned, it's a feature, not a bug. Contrast with a still high-quality WSJ news page, which I consider generally reliable, "someone familiar with the stored papers told investigators", or for WaPo, ""people familiar with the investigation told..."", that is the proper way to refer to reliable anonymous sources. Don't get me wrong - journalists have made mistakes and they are only human - just look at Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Everyone makes mistakes. It's how they deal with mistakes and how they institute policies, standards, and guidelines to prevent them. If there are indeed other sources that are doing it on a Fox News concentration, we should look at whether they are appropriately judged on their reliability as well. So far, while I've seen many claims that other mainstream WP:GENREL sources also are just as bad, not a lot of great evidence that I have seen. Andre🚐 18:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Normally I'd ignore this junk but I had to click on a link about journalist responsibility, so this is in reply to Andrevan's comment beginning: "Journalists do have a responsibility ...": you cite this source when it has zero relationship to the claim you are making. (Nothing about a responsibility to confirm statements and it even is explicit that the methodology for confirming statements is haphazard, but that's for quotations in interviews given to the reporter, which is likely not the case for the story in question, so it's irrelevant on literally every hypothetical level.) This is a repeated pattern of behavior for you here and on other Talk pages as well. I don't want to accuse you of not reading even the introduction of the sources you are citing, but that would be the simplest explanation of your behavior. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The portion of the source I linked that was relevant to the conversation was, "On quotes: “…methods for checking the accuracy of quotes vary greatly. Some reporters routinely record and transcribe interviews, while some record but rarely transcribe and others rarely use recorders at all. Some check quotes against tapes only if there is a specific concern, such as difficulty hearing, or the threat of libel litigation.”" The point it was going to prove is that journalists have a responsibility to check quotes. You've repeatedly accused me of bad faith and questioned my sources, but the sources continue to hold up for the claims I've made and I stand by them. [23:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)]

This quote also goes to the kind of thing I was talking about: "“Some arrived for the interview armed with indexed binders full of source materials; some had clearly refreshed their memories of the reporting by reviewing their notes, and related articles, before their meetings with us; one checked additional facts and followed-up via email,” the researchers write." [23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)]

Here's more if you still don't believe me that this is just Journalism 101 that journalists have to rigorously assemble maps of facts and confirm things such as statements, as part of their field. They don't all do it but the ones who work for NYT or CNN certainly do.

[105]. "the necessity of verifying information and sources. Indeed, it appears that this is a very rigorous and precise practice"

“The Elements of Journalism” Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach write that “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification." That discipline is described as “a scientific-like approach to getting the facts and also the right facts.”[106][107] Andre🚐 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again you take one issue and then slather on tons of irrelevant material, "if you still don't believe me that this is just Journalism 101" -- who said I believe or disbelieve you? Who said I care about journalism? You cited a source, in context, and the source had nothing to do with that context, and I am calling you out on it. That's all I am doing. No politics, no greater agenda (other than pointing out that I and others have had to do this exact dance with you many many times already in this thread alone). Again, in context: Journalists do have a responsibility to confirm statements[84], especially if they represent those statements as fact or give them a lot of weight. The source details how a sampling of journalists verify quotations in interviews they did themselves (and notably strongly implies that those quotes might only ever be cross-checked outside the journalist's own materials when there is a legal concern or a recording error), but never addresses some ethical normative or legal concept of "responsibility" regarding verifying quotes, and with regards to journalism principles in general the crux on the article is on the lack of strong norms regarding verification. Simply noting "this is how these journalists verify" is exactly what the authors criticize as a "strategic ritual" rather than a matter of ethics. So even if you read the article, you clearly missed the entire freaking point. As for applying the source to the second part of your statement: "especially if ... represent fact or ... a lot of weight", that is simply said or reflected nowhere in the article, so it is just your own assertion based on nothing. My issue is not whether or not any of your assertions from nothing are true (you never claim to have done journalism after all), but that when you asserted something based on a source you did so completely ignorant of that source's meaning. And since most people in the thread won't check those links, that's worse than if you hadn't cited a source at all. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an article, so not every one of my sentences needs citations. You say you don't challenge the truth, but the exactness of the sourcing. You say my source says that journalists verify, strategically, but not that it is an ethical responsibility. Splitting hairs, and pedantic. I didn't say what the nature of their responsibility was: ethical, or professional. It could just be what their job demands because that is what is a standard in the field to do good journalism, for reasons enumerated and reasonably inferred in what I posted. And I guess we agree there are journalistic ethics as well in good RS.[108][109] Andre🚐 01:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with SamuelRiv, adding (as others have mentioned) to keep in mind that throughout the entire Trump-Russian collusion theory, reputable left-leaning news sources published misinformation, and those journalists used unidentified informants, including WaPo and NYTimes. Those views were echoed in the liberal media bubble and resulted in articles such as the following: Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story. Where are the protests by WP editors about the validity of those anonymous sources when misinformation cited to those sources was being including in our articles, and editors were being t-banned for opposing? It was determined there was no collusion, and Fox turned out to be correct; therefore without Fox as a source, we would not have known. I am 100% in agreement with what Jimbo said, and even quoted him on my UTP. What concerns me most is that media has failed to do their job: UNODC: The media, and in particular investigative journalism, plays a crucial role in exposing corruption to public scrutiny and fighting against impunity. They should not be or become the propaganda arm for the government that we see in communist countries. The media's omission of the Hunter Biden laptop story is an example of media protecting government. Remember this NYT article? The sources that have been downgraded are the ones that correctly reported the Hunter Biden story, and they are the ones that have been denigrated and scourged for doing so. It wasn't until recently that the left-leaning sources, including NYTimes, and WaPo, among others in the left wing media bubble that finally admitted there was an issue.
Note to closer:Based on the supported material I have provided above, do we want WP to become the voice of leftwing media by downgrading and eliminating all conservative sources, or do we want to maintain our diversity in compliance with NPOV? Atsme 💬 📧 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

1. News outlets use unidentified informants all the time. If a source chooses to remain anonymous, the press has no obligation to (and in fact should not) identify them. And news from unidentified informants is just as valid; was the Watergate story invalid just because it came from an anonymous source?
2. News outlets report on what information they have, and some information turns out to be incorrect later. Every news source falls victim to this, and a responsible source issues corrections and makes sure to set the record straight. (Fox News generally does not issue corrections, as pointed out by Andrevan multiple times.) What outlets should not do is jump the gun and, say, publish "findings" before an actual forensic investigation.
3. Related to the point above, news outlets don't have a responsibility to report on every story out there. They report on the ones that are up to their standards. Just because an outlet does not report on stories unfit to print does not mean they are protecting the government.
4. NPOV is subordinate to factual accuracy. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. We will not use sources that repeatedly publish disinformation, political leanings aside.

{{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
- you got pranked by Kilmeade, of all people. Enjoy the weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC) It is...informative that you think this is a fucking joke. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC) A reminder that Atsme previously advocated deprecating the New York Times (a Pulitzer Prize-winning paper of record for the entire United States), while simultaneously calling Breitbart News a "[truly] reliable source" that we should be using more often, until (like InfoWars) it was unanimously deprecated by the community for the myriad far-right conspiracy theories that it regularly spread. This isn't really the place to discuss it, but I'm honestly wondering whether her topic ban from American Politics should be reinstated. At least as far as politics goes, she seems completely unable to determine whether a source is reliable. Her flippant attitude about this, when the magistrate's life (and the lives of his children) have been threatened, and Anti-Semitic attacks are being heaped on him (in part because of this doctored image), is likewise worrisome. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Can you back that up with diffs? (I'm not doubting your claim, I'm just genuinely curious about the context) {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 06:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Jiminy Cricket, here we go again! This is a classic example of Brandolini's law. I was going to ignore the statement by SA, and I regret that I acted spontaneously and placed a warning on their UTP that I subsequently deleted because I don't want to argue, but SA reverted my deletion claiming an ec. The fact that SA was even aware of my unjust t-ban, and a comment I made back in 2014 that was taken out of context then, as it is now, has me scratching my head, considering they did not become an editor until 2019. I would probably support an investigation into sock puppetry if someone wanted to go to such lengths, but I will AGF in hopes that my explanation and comments in response to SA's attempt to discredit me will bring a better understanding as to the use of RSN, and will help return this noticeboard to its useful purpose. If I don't respond, I will likely find myself dealing with Godwin's Law, so here it is in context: Making an intelligent decision about a RS in the sense that CONTEXTMATTERS is not about rooting for your favorite football team or political party. Editors need to accept that fact, and why we must stop ill-conceived attempts to deprecate or downgrade sources based on political ideologies and opinions. And that is all I have to say about this matter. Atsme 💬 📧 13:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Again, this RFC is not for political purposes. It is about the factual accuracy of Fox News. If CNN had photoshopped a picture, we would hold an RFC on CNN. There is ample evidence presented here that Fox News is unfit as a source, so if you want to make the case that Fox News is trusty and reliable, refute that evidence directly instead of making unfounded accusations of bias. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Speaking of the prized Pulitzer... Jayson Blair Times Should Lose Pulitzer From 30's, Consultant Says [110] Pulitzer Board Rescinds New York Times’s ‘Caliphate’ Citation [111] Times Should Lose Pulitzer [112] Why the Left Can’t Stand The New York Times [113] The New York Times Used to Be a Model of Diverse Opinion. What Happened? [114] The New York Times' can't shake the cloud over a 90-year-old Pulitzer Prize [115] I'm speaking as a retired journalist and television producer – our media landscape is not the same. The high ethical standards and neutrality that was once the very core of journalism when I was a field producer at CNN has all but disappeared. Today's clickbait media demands that we return our beloved noticeboard to its original intent because if we continue on this path, we will be left with no online news sources to cite. We've all heard that hindsight is 20-20 vision. Let's wait for the historians to present these current events with retrospective, and adhere more closely to NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM. WP:RSN should not become a sounding board for left vs right political opinions, and certainly not for the deprecation of entire sources because we disapprove/disagree with the opinions of the talking head segments of cable news. The biggest differences in media is determined by our own perspectives, and unless one is trained to not let bias enter into the picture, it is impossible to see when bias is at play, and that probably accounts for 80% of today's online media because opinions are often melded into news reporting whenever politics is involved, or when there are opposing views in science and medicine. It is here, we have all experienced it, and we see the division. Those who get along despite the opposing views are obviously capable of leaving their biases at login. Just an observation, but notice those who refuse to stand down will typically resort to PAs and POV pushing, and are obviously strongly opinionated. It is best to simply ignore them. See the following article in The Conversation, which links to this article. Online media even knows that journalism is opinion-based: [116], [117]. It is a highly covered topic by all of media. Atsme 💬 📧 10:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Copied from my reply to Atsme's 'warning' on my talk page: "Since when is pointing out something that you yourself said in the past “a personal attack”? You continue variations of that same line of faulty reasoning, even within that particular section of RSN itself. Likewise, questioning your ability to edit neutrally in this specific topic area is not a personal attack. The entire community has questioned it before, more than once, and I felt it was aprons to raise the issue again, as it is nearly every time by someone else whenever you wade into this topic area. Was I brusk? Sure. But there’s no need for the warning. I am aware that you are a real person. You appear in the media often enough that I know you’re real, usually ready to grind an axe against the supposed “liberal creep” and supposed censorship of conservative voices on Wikipedia. Or rather, you refer to this theory of yours indirectly. But it’s never actually about that. It’s about battling misinformation, and it seems like you have a hard time parsing that from reliable information." Lastly, I'll add that science and medicine should never be subject to "opposing views" when deciding how to critically report such information on Wikipedia. Fringe is fringe. Usually, editors who want to insert fringe material on things like climate change or COVID-19 make similar arguments. But we go with the scientific consensus, as you well know. I'm always struck by the dichotomy of someone who does so much good work in AfC and NPP, ventures you undertook when topic-banned, versus the thinly veiled attempts to undermine cornerstone policies in topic areas where your personal beliefs conflict with academic and journalistic consensus. Please, just stop. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC) (Note: Atsme graciously deleted her inappropriate warning, but I opted for my response in the edit conflict). Atsme, it's perfectly acceptable to broach the issue of editor behavior on a noticeboard. I realize this isn't the proper forum, which is why I said so. I'll stop responding to comments whenever you stop addressing them to me, and choose to do so. But I stand by what I said. And also... I have to ask, why are you brining up a 90 year old Pulitzer as a rebuttal? It's an outlier. What about all the Pulitzers the New York Times has won in the last several years? You don't have to answer, but the argument seems reminiscent of whataboutism. There will always be outliers. The New York Times is still considered one of the best newspapers in the entire world. It seems absurd that you'd advocate to deprecate it entirely as before, or downgrade it, even. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC) No, your line of comments was not perfectly acceptable. First, you are not discussing her arguments here, you instead are discussing arguments made in another discussion thus other editors can't see the context in which they were made. That is not to far off of selectively quoting someone to make it seem they said something that isn't true to their original statements. You compounded the inappropriateness by mentioning prior sanctions (an attempt to undermine her arguments? suggesting she is a trouble maker?) and doubling down by suggesting she should be sanctioned again! Sanctions are meant to deal with problematic behavior, not silence editors with whom you disagree. Finally, copying over comments made on your talk page (ie not meant for the whole noticeboard to read) is yet another action that can be seen as bad faith behavior. I would hope you can think of a way to rephrase any legitimate core of your argument against Atsme's comment and then graciously strike the off topic material. Springee (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Disagree. Once again, posting a reply from my talk page, which I think pre-emptively addressed what you said (can we keep the conversation centralized?): "Springee, I've known you to be amenable to reason in some of our past discussions, which was always appreciated. So I have to ask, do you really think that her potentially disruptive comments would hold up on the more visible noticeboards? I disagree with her assessment of the sources, and you know perfectly well that my view of the situation would hold up under any scrutiny. I'm saying this to Atsme for her own personal benefit as well, despite my being blunt with her. It's better to back away from a topic area where she can't be reasonably neutral. That's my opinion, and I'm free to broach the issue. As I said, this comes up perennially. I have nothing against Atsme. But we either accept the consensus view of reliable sources, or if we can't, we back away. That's what you do when you truly accept the core policies we're based upon." I'll also add that the ability to question sources, and other editor's assessment of those sources, is all perfectly kosher here. I stand by what I said. I've seen outright denial of the most reliable sources (NYT, WaPo, CNN), at least according to community consensus on Wikipedia. Needling at our core policies, like with the "science" and "medicine" comment, is not helpful. Springee, there's a point where this is not appropriate. The reasoning used here is specious, at best. If you can tell me an actual policy I've violated here in bringing this up, that'd be helpful. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Also, talk page comments, both article and user, are brought up on notice boards all the time. All of them. How is it "inappropriate"? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) BS bad faith sums it up. The comment SA referred to which included their own garnishment of things I actually said, dates back 8+/- years to 2014. It was one of many innocuous diffs used against me to get me t-banned when there was no smoking gun, but I will let sleeping dogs lie, and not relitigate that t-ban. SA's purpose has me scratching my head, considering they were even aware of an event that took place in 2014, 5 years before they become an editor in 2019. Springee made some valid comments relative to SA's motives. I would probably support an investigation into sock puppetry if someone wanted to go to such lengths, or perhaps this is a case of a different identity for the same editor who showed me ill-will in the past and subsequently retired. In the interim, I will AGF in hopes that my explanation and comments in response to SA's misleading comments and wp:civil POV pushing will bring a better understanding as to the proper use of RSN, and will help return this noticeboard to its useful purpose. I'm concerned that if I don't respond, I will likely find myself the target of not only Saul Alinsky's Rule #11, but Godwin's Law, and future attacks. Following is the context: About 8 years ago (pre-Trump), back when we were using RSN for it's intended purpose to discuss citing a specific source for specific material for inclusion, an editor posted a question about including an opinion by Ben Shapiro. Sorry, but I'm not a member of cancel culture or what some refer to as WOKE because (a) I'm a mature adult who has traveled the globe, (b) I have always been fascinated by, responsive to, and respectful of various cultures, and (c) I was never asleep in the sense that I needed to be WOKE. As for my opinion relative to WP, see User talk:Atsme#Woke. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion...and that is, quite frankly, my opinion – and I'm damn sure entitled to it. A statement of fact, on the other hand, must come from a RS that responsibly fact-checks. Unfortunately, even the latter has gone awry in today's online media. We are allowed to use intext attribution for a widely publicized opinion by a notable person, whether we like it or agree with it or not, particularly from a source that, at the time, ranked 500 in the former Alexa ratings. If an editor is unable to keep such things in perspective and choose instead to present comments out of context to polarize their opponents, they are part of the problem. I used the right vs left media comparisons to demonstrate, yet again, that no online media is foolproof. As for the NYTimes, I included the following diffs to demonstrate that even a top quality Pulitzer Prize-winning publisher can get it wrong and be unreliable for certain statements of fact: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122].}} Editors need to accept that fact, and why we must stop ill-conceived attempts to deprecate or downgrade sources based on political ideologies and opinions. And that is all I have to say about this matter. Atsme 💬 📧 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Jesus Christ, Atsme. 1) I've never socked. Way out of line. I document my first and second account clearly on my user page. People forget passwords. 2) Your use of WOKE here is not helping you. At all. 3) You keep confusing ratings for reliability. 4) It's still almost a century old example, and isn't applicable now. 5) Do you actually think this is helping you? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Then WTF are you doing digging into my past that you know absolutely nothing about, weren't even here at the time, and are bringing up irrelevant crap you took out of context from 8 years ago while continuing your BATTLEGROUND position to discredit me? Keep making these ill-willed statements, and see what happens...someone somewhere is collecting diffs. You might be advised that some of the editors pushing this attempt to downgrade/deprecate Fox News have big-time skeletons in their closet that make my non-issues pale in comparison. None of the opposition stooped so low as to dig up their past to discredit them as you just did to me. You obviously ran out of valid arguments to support your position here, and have resorted to below-the-belt tactics in an ill-willed attempt to bait and discredit me. It's appalling behavior, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Clarifying: SA has a legit alt account which is explains the 2019 date. 19:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Atsme, first: I was there. I've been editing for over a decade. Once again, as I documented. I'm starting to think you just didn't dig too deeply here. Secondly, I've rarely interacted with you, but I can't exactly ignore everything related to you that's popped up on my watchlist over the years. I mainly edit in areas related to pseudoscience and fringe topics, as well as classics, history, and culture. Even then, most of my contributions are either copy-editing, or defending core policies on fringe pages. This also includes post 2000s politics. I'm not "spying on you", as you seem to insinuate here. And I'm not presenting anything out of context. I'm raising a valid concern, which is easily discernible just by reading this page. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC) This really is not the correct place for this current pissing match, but you cannot seriously say that making an argument like Bezos hates Trump so that "would most likely trickle down to political news staff; therefore, whenever Trump is involved, WaPo as a source is unquestionably unreliable." or that (same diff) it is "too willing to accept unverified material from anonymous sources, and will publish it without further investigation" when that is essentially the raison d'etre of foxnews.com. I really wish people would remember that the internet is written in ink when they start flipping their positions entirely based on do I like it or do I hate it. And yes, that goes for nearly all sides here. nableezy - 14:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC) You should read what I wrote, and maybe learn something. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC) I did, the problem was I felt dumber having done so. nableezy - 15:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC) nableezy, I don't think this is a "pissing match". You obviously have some of the same concerns. It's just that I think we've become so circumspect in our reluctance to assume bad faith that I think many in the community refrain from calling out the glaring elephant in the room. Does anyone seriously think these are weighty arguments she's making, or even really appropriate arguments for determining reliable sources? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Its a pissing match here because it is not relevant to a discussion on the reliability of Fox News (or anything else). If you feel an editors conduct fails some required standard then make a report to that effect in the appropriate place. Here, like talk pages or any other content related area, play the ball, not the (wo)man. I shouldnt have said my bit either tbh, but seeing kB of manure added to my watchlist over and over makes me want to grab a shovel at least. nableezy - 15:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC) I said as much early on, but naturally, people take up positions when challenged. I expected that; I just didn't expect it to go on this long. Apologies for the clutter. I've said my piece, and there's really no point in piling on. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The question asked was "Should Fox News (the news website, not the TV shows)...?" thus this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Point of order

I am not understanding the limitation of the !votes and discussion, basically to ignore all the false narratives, polemic commentators, and conspiracy theories that comprise most of Fox cable news airtime. The RfC is defined as evaluating the Fox News website, but if this means Foxnews.com, it presents the full range of nonsense that's on the cable shows every day and night. It may also include some of the journalistic coverage that is on the tv, but by far most of the website's content is unquestionably in the fiction category. Could we get clarity on this? Several comments and !votes seem to be fuzzy on the distinction. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox News' televised talking head programs like Hannity are already deemed unreliable. That would extend to content on Fox website that is basically the talking head stuff in print form. We are looking at any actual news broadcast on televusion, or any article otherwise not titled opinion or analysis on the website. --Masem (t) 21:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But most of the bad stuff on the website is not labeled or otherwise differentiated from factual reportage, right? SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Its op-ed style opinion (what comes from the non talking heads part of the newsroom) is labeled opinion eg [foxnews.com/opinion/doj-redacted-trump-raid-affidavit-revealed-precious-little]. Without checking too deeply, unless its a video clip, Fox may report what its talking heads say on the website, claiming it news but clearly identifying the source as the show to [foxnews.com/media/sean-hannity-no-legal-basis-for-unprecedented-warrant-trump-raid]. Here it should be common sense that the filtering through Fox News does make the Hannity show repacked comment reliable. Masem (t) 22:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

But this RSNP is a practical tool that is intended to enhance the editing process. In the case of American Politics, we have a very devoted minority of editors who do not make the distinctions you or I make when we enjoy our visits to the Fox cable and websites. The effort it takes to produce valid article content under those circumstances is diverted from other productive applications on WP. As Jimbo has said, if it's significant there will be many RS from which to choose. That, I think, is a reason to deprecate Fox and similar sources, notwithstanding the relatively small amount of OK reporting they present. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We have established that talking head shows on Fix dont count as reliable. If editors are unwilling to under this provision in RSP, that isn't Fix News's fault. (Same situation with editors assuming any Newsweek article is good without looking at the dates and period identified by RSP). If there was completely opaque distinction between news and opinion and its talk shows, then you might have something. But Fox does label things, so it's not Fox's fault if editors are ignoring those signs and the RSP instructions. Masem (t) 22:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And i have described above that i fully agree to replace a reasonably objective Fox news article with on from a better source, but i stand firm that degrading or deprecating Fox is going to lead to problems later when editors apply the same logic to more left leaning sites. Fox is a poorer quality source but it is not at the level of unreliable or worse, unless you want other editors to use bias on otter Rses Masem (t) 22:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If your suggestion is to replace a Fox News citation, regardless of its merits or context, simply by virtue of it coming from Fox News, that seems to me to be a very poor practice with a very bad precedent. The precedent in action may be employed by some editors in replacing a local newspaper with New York Times coverage (regardless of whether the local paper broke the story first, or even if the NYT cites the local paper) -- editors have expressed sentiments that this would be appropriate practice on this board on multiple occasions. I'm not normally active on politics articles, so I don't know whether editors do this already, but it should be discouraged. Another reason such practice is wrongheaded, and why the argument in general of "we have better sources, so we can deprecate this one" is on the same vein, is that the narrowing of source publications lowers the robustness of WP article reliability, and WP reputability, to sudden changes in a publication's reputation.

The most illustrative example would be if our politics articles' sourcing were heavily concentrated (50% or more, say -- I don't know the current number, but a script on a random sample could find out) on NYT articles, and then Jayson Blair strikes. For those editors for whom that was before their time, that scandal shocked the foundations of how people saw the NYT's supposed gold-standard fact-checking and editorial process, it made them a joke (I'm talking among academics and newspaper nerds) for several months, and it took many more months for them and the newspapers of their style to get back much of their old prestige for rigor (which was already shakier than usual by the way over other political issues of recent years and a growing acceptance of looser writing tone, but that's secondary to this point). Suddenly the quality of verification of half of citations in most politics articles in this hypothetical becomes questionable for the several months that this scandal is at its worst. Other scandals, such as those that interlink multiple newspapers in liability, can be potentially far more damaging. Scandals are of course just quick changes in the perception of reliability, but quality declines of major papers within a decade or less are far from unheard of. Encouraging a variety of sources (in this case of journalism) based primarily on merit and context, with a very limited blacklist, increases the robustness of the site to these types of institutional failures (among many others). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I would, for example, prefer to use links from NYTimes or WaPost in writing up cover of SCOTUS cases than, say USA Today, Ap/Reuters, CNN, or LA times, only as those sources have more in depth coverage. But if the only sources were available were USA today, I'd still use it. In the same vien, in terms of covering something from a purely objective point, I'd have no problem using Fox in a pinch (being careful to avoid subjective lqndmines) if no other coverage of the same objective material fails to ecist. Masem (t) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But that begs the question as to whether a marginal or weak source can be assumed to cover fact fully and in proper context. Fox has honed many techniques of propaganda and misdirection, and one of them is stating facts in such misleading context as to lead the reader/viewer to a false factual inference. Another is to couch false assertion of fact as opinion or speculation, the repetition of which ends up presenting such speculation as fact. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Both which happen in other reliable sources. Left leaning sources may omit objective facts that would be seen favorable to the right, which is not misinformation, just a poor journalistic style. The left is trying to catch up to the successful model or retaining viewer ship that Fox has done. And other sources, in adapting accountability journalism from the AP, have also blurred the lines of including opinion in what appears as news reports. Fox just this in a larger volume than most other sources (MSNBC is catching up to Fox on the left) Masem (t) 14:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to add, repeatedly speculating about or discussing factors that are known to be irrelevant or false -- a technique common among contemporary Trump loyalists -- so as to elevate such false narratives. The Foxnews website is a WP:RANDY magnet for a very small but obstinate minority of WP editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Fox does coat rack and this doesn't happen much in other media. But in terms of that becoming a RANDY issue, that is definitely not limited to Fox being the problem source. That is an editor issue, not a source one Masem (t) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that dichotomy between behavior and sourcing addresses the problem. Most editors would not cite Foxnews to begin with. But to deal with those few who do so, we can eliminate the problem by downgrading or deprecating use of this bad source rather than by wasting tens of thousands of hours of our increasingly scarce politics editor time and attention, not to mention ANI and AE resources. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That is absolutely a terrible reason to deprecate a source. If we have too many editors misusing sources (even if Fox is the most common misuse), the answer is not to block the source but to provide education to the editors. It us really easy to pin so many editing issues on Fix and seek to remove it, buts not solving the underlying probkem. Masem (t) 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

the answer is not to block the source but to provide education to the editors Please give three examples of this approach working with regards to a seriously questionable source - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's deflecting the point, that while it may be easy to eliminate a questionable ( but still factually correct at most times) as to reduce the amount of disruption from newer editors wanting to use that type of source, it does not change anything about the underlying problem, the newer editors not getting instructed. Another just a questionable source will come a!ong and the problem will repeat. I completely sympathize how much of a boon it would be to ekiminate Fox as a source in this respect, but that's really not going to change anything. Masem (t) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That's deflecting the point You made a claim that instead of deprecating, we should educate editors. I asked for three examples of this approach actually working. Your response appears evasive. I submit that your approach is actually to do nothing, and that this is not an adequate response; and that instead you have proposed doing something that you are literally unable to provide evidence of being an effective course of action, and appear to evade when called on this - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

But they're not newer editors, they are poorly-informed, partisan, WP:RGW types. Most unreliable sources are factually correct at most times. That's what's dangerous about them. SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO that's an excellent point -- I agree that there are a significant number of experienced (and new) editors who tick all those boxes. I don't see how Fox is an operative issue in that problem however when most editors I see doing that are taking a variety of political positions different from that of Fox's bias. I'm not sure what Masem and others have in mind by education -- there are certainly things to improve in the guidelines and in the dispute resolution process that would help generally -- but the most direct short-term impact on a specific behavior might be a community-wide push to say something like "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is among a set of important neglected explanatory guidelines that we want to start emphasizing more across the board in discussions, etc." That kind of thing's happened before. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If most of these sources are factually correct most of the time it seems we should allow them most of the time and reject them only when the claims are reasonably shown to be false. Zooming out to the question of disruptions, I've seen a number of examples of editors tagging something cited to Fox with a better source needed tag. In the case of a controversial claim I can understand that but often it's simply because Fox is the source for something like a direct quote. In the early part of this RfC an example was given where a Fox article was replaced with one from NPR. What makes that silly was the context needing a citation was a direct quote of someone interviewed on a Fox network show. NPR cited the Fox interview as their source! So we can't cite Fox for a direct quote but we can cite NPR citing Fox for the same direct quote. Springee (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If a goal of this is eliminate one source thst in otherwise fine 90% of the time because you don't want to deal with the disruption that a group of editors frequently use, that's absolutely not going to stop the disruption because the problem lies with the group of editors engaging in disruption, and their are other means to resolve that issue (eg if we are talking Fox and politics, AP2 applies). We should not be seeking depreciation to resolve behavior issues, that's absolutely abusing the process.

And this is without touching the larger issue of how we approach recent events, NOTNEWS, RECENTUSM, and other factors that affect the way most post 2014 political article have been written. Masem (t) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 90%. As said elsewhere in this section, Fox New devotes little time news programming. The website looks like a hate site. It's just as bad as the NewsMax and OAN sites. And it still says gas is $6.29 O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say gas is $6.29. That has already been explained. Springee (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It has not been explained in any manner. You made up some odd excuses that make no sense, including that they have a software error that has existed for five months that grossly exaggerates the actual prices updated on a daily basis. If they are high and low numbers (it says that nowhere), then they are higher than any state and the numbers do not exist anywhere that I can find on the stated source. The numbers are flat out wrong clearly showing gas prices wildly out of control instead of steadily dropping for months. This is a terrible source for an encyclopedia. The NYT quickly documents errors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

at the end of the day, things like infograophs in any publication that is not the point of origin for that data (particularly in news sources) falls under HEADLINE, in that we should not make any assumption about editorial oversight of these graphs and thus not use them for WP:V. Of course, if the information us reproduced in the article, that would be different, but this case the figue appears distinct from how Fox has covered gas prices in news articles. Masem (t) 22:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If the NYT had a chart on the front page with an important number that changes every day for five months grossly exaggerating a problem faced by over 100 million Americans; heads would roll. At the end of the day, either this is purposeful, or an error that, serendipitously, favors their view of Biden to such an extent to show the unreliability of Fox as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, due to NYTimes' reputation that such an error would be admonished. but at the same time, when looking for reliable information we would not directly use the NYTimes graphic but the source it came from for our purposes, as again, that graphic falls under HEADLINE, even when from the NYTimes. Masem (t) 22:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how an infographic would be considered a HEADLINE? I saw an earlier argument where someone tried to argue that an Instagram post is a headline, or that the lead section of an article body is a headline, and in my view, a headline is a headline, and other things are what they are. I guess someone said that a caption of an image is considered a headline, which I kind of get, was there a prior discussion on that that we could review? Why wouldn't an infographic from a reliable source, be just as reliable as a table of data or election results whatnot? Andre🚐 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

pictures,captions,and all parts of articles that are not part of the prose are nearly always made by layout artists and designers to attract eyes not by the author or editor. and if UT is not data created by the work, no assurance f data accuracy. so just as we discount headlines and subtiltes which are also not selected by the writer or copyeditor. Masem (t) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the case at outlets such as NYT, Wapo, CNN, RCP, 538, Economist, Guardian, Propublica, some of which win awards for their statistical tables and graphs, especially around election time. Editorial has a lot of input into graphics at a reliable outlet, and they're also checked for accuracy and not to be misleading due to the common Stat 101 problems with graphs (like scales that have big gaps or when it's not labeled right) and for data consistency. Even HuffPost used to have a very good election polling and graphing department, though I don't think they do anymore. I think even Business Insider and Politico have some good graphs and visualizations from time to time. O3000 and SPECIFICO are spot on that if NYT or CNN posted something negative about Republicans in a graphic, on their homepage, people would be out with pitchforks, but we just expect it from Faux News. Andre🚐 00:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. Fox News has been updating an extremely important number that is wildly incorrectly on their main page near the top for five months. Either they are careless beyond belief, or liars. This is not one error. It is an error for over 150 daily updates. I don’t really understand the difference between a graphic or text – but this is a prominently displayed number not displayed at the cited source, not a point on a chart. And I’m not just saying we shouldn’t use this one (well, 150 numbers) in WP because of the format. Why would we use anything from such a careless and/or dishonest source in an encyclopedia? What it comes down to; is that we should never use Fox News as a source without corroboration from an RS. If we have corroboration from an RS, why not use the corroborating source known for using multiple sources and quick correction of errors? Or to put it another way, let us use a source with 132 Pulitzer Prizes and ignore Atsme’s argument that one was withdrawn 90 years ago invalidating the NYT as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how but Masem managed to completely miss my point above. If NYT and WaPo are the only good SCOTUS sources for you, then that's what I mean by lack of robustness (and I have no idea what you mean when you say their coverage is more in-depth -- that depends entirely on how much the paper cares about the case and how experienced their legal reporter is). I laughed at SPECIFICO's "wasting thousands of hours of our increasingly scarce politics editor time and attention", as if it's going to good use currently given the state of our politics articles. Every single one I've spot-checked this Summer has failed multiple verifications. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Samuel, this is a volunteer website. Volunteer organizations are messy business. Please review the talk pages of our most active American Politics articles, and you will see the amount of work it's taken to get the articles to however good they are at the moment and how many editors have stepped away after burnout from the repetitive discussions I described. You blame the imperfections on those who try to improve the articles? I'm not seeing anything constructive in that. Maybe you'll also laugh at the small fraction of our Admin horde who volunteer at AE and ANI. I think we should see to it that resources are properly valued, wisely deployed, and not ridiculed. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Whenever a spot check fails I change it, and whenever I have done this to politics articles it gets reverted and goes to Talk, as you have seen in a few cases. Which would be fine if it didn't inevitably become a repetitive discussion or even an excuse for passionate political defense that I might indulge in for a bit before stepping away, as you allude to. I laugh because of the constant resistance to such changes for sake of being able to explicitly present political (or moral) coverage of choice, which in at least two cases has been the explicit goal of experienced editors in a dispute. Proper value and wise deployment of resources in general is pretty good on WP as a whole, but zoom in and you see stratification and tribalism over a range of political topics. It's natural behavior that's scales with general political polarization in a given region (or niche topic -- ugh labor), but there's no reason we can't both laugh at it while we pursue ways to improve the situation (mockery of partisanship may or may not be helpful in that, I don't know). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you're doing it wrong, but at any rate it's off-topic here. Glad to continue in user space if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Didnt say they were only sources, but would be the sources id prefer to have present in those types of article...but would clearly fall back on other sources as needed. Just that my experience finds those two have typically the best coverage. Masem (t) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

SamuelRiv, you argued that we should not downgrade or deprecate, because it introduces downside risk in the case of a Jayson Blair situation - i.e., WP:RIG. But a Blair situation is a black swan. If Fox improves their standing in the future, we can upgrade them at that time. Remember that a downgrade is not a deprecation, despite the easy conflation of the two, and a downgrade would still leave open some usage of the source. Otherwise, why bother having a scale where downgrade and deprecation are separate rungs on the ladder? Downgrade reflects accurately a consensus of editors that the source is often unreliable, I haven't really heard a rebuttal that this is the case, and stops short of a total deprecation. Andre🚐 00:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This is about Fox news Dave, What about CNN? Dave it is about Fox news. What about MSBN? This is about Fox News Dave, Dave it is about Fox news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing time

When the RFC tag expires. It would be good if someone makes a closure request at the Wikipedia:Closure requests page. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the extreme volume of comments, this might require a panel to close and it might take a few days, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). 134.6.57.27 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on how the MKUCR discussion was closed, I imagine this one will also be closed as no consensus with no changes implemented, since there seems to be no agreement regarding Fox's reliability. As such, this entire discussion was likely a massive waste of time. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's really not proper to opine on how the discussion will be closed while the discussion is still open, especially when one has participated and expressed a view in the discussion. Nor will it have been a waste of time if the result is no consensus. Many important discussions do not reach a consensus. Andre🚐 21:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

but we've had RFC on Fox too frequentky and just recently, issues that were cautioned before yet another RFC was started. yet you rushed ahead with it. If this leaves status quo, you just wasted a lot if editors' time with a poorly thought thru RFC. There were reasons why caution about a new RFC were made. Masem (t) 21:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. A number of editors offered new arguments and new evidence. The last RFC was 2 years ago. There were recent occurrences of discussions on the substance. The RFC was in-order. Andre🚐 21:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The last RFC I started took about a month of drafting go make sure the right question was being asked, the right responses provided, a statement of neutral intent, and more. you were cautioned on all of that before starting the RFC here [123] but you rushed ahead as as one likely result, nothing gets changed at all. There was advice given about making the RFC more specific to the concerns of Fox that would have given better progress on it. Masem (t) 22:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The form of the RFC was largely determined through consultation with other editors, and it was not the form I had proposed or would have chosen, but editors have argued that this is the proper neutral RFC format for RSN. I took the advice and consultation, contrary to your assertion that I rushed it or that I did it unilaterally. It is not proper to gatekeep an RFC discussion, nor is it a waste of time to have an RFC about a complex and contentious topic that may end in a failure to reach a consensus. Many, many discussions on Wikipedia end that way. Regardless, it is over. I believe a reasonable discussion was elicited, and I hope the closers weigh it carefully. Andre🚐 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If nothing came of a carefully considered RFC asking all the right questions then I fail to see what point there is to moaning about how rushed and close on the heels of the last this one was. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem about how this entire RfC was not properly prepared – it was a major time sink, incredibly exhaustive, and what I consider a misuse of WP:RSN, yet here we are, same song–second verse. Nothing new has been brought forward that warrants another downgrade beyond politically biased opinions sourced to competitive media, with a splash of DONTLIKEIT or DIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm not saying mistakes were not made because they all make mistakes. And they all either publish or do not publish retractions in the same manner across the board. Having a different political opinion is not fake news, or a mistake but that is what it appears the downgraders want us to believe. And oh, the irony, that the leading talking head in prime time is on Fox (who I do not watch), and is the most watched by Democrats per The Wrap: Carlson’s 9 p.m. ET program was the top cable news show among Democrats in the advertiser-coveted age range of 25-54. Carlson is a favorite target for criticism and scorn by the left while we watched Chris Cuomo's journalistic ethics get flushed down the toilet, and read articles by left wing media that "pulled at our heart strings" for poor Chris Cuomo, such as Politico's headline: Please let me help’: How Chris Cuomo fought to save his embattled brother, and the BBC report of what CNN said about letting him go: "But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second." The actual scandals took a hind seat, and that is the media we consider "generally reliable" Oh, and let's keep overlooking the New York Times for their screw-ups, including the biggest one of all time, turning away from the holocaust. Burying news is par for left wing media, whereas over-indulgence is par for right wing media. Neither side is flawless. The bottomline about this RfC is that there has not been a convincing argument to downgrade FOX beyond I disagree with the biased opinions of right-wing media. It's fine to disagree, but censorship via downgrading is just plain wrong. Atsme 💬 📧 02:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but just what in god's name is this nonsense? Protonk (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Protonk that this is a biased "argument" (censorship?) from a conservative point of view, and I'm sure most participants would disagree with this "argument". But ultimately everything is up for the closer to decide, so I won't comment further (to post a lengthy rebuttal is absolutely not necessary). Still, thanks for this interesting opinion, even though I vehemently disagree, as already raised above by most other editors. VickKiang (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's just baffling to see whatever that is above vomited out in a section about how we should close this thing up, like some sort of un-asked-for rebuttal. Furthermore it is frustrating to see someone who engaged so heavily in the sort of debate typified by the comment above complain about how the RFC was unfocused and consensus difficult to reach. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

But, but, but, the NYTimes made a mistake 81 years ago by not publishing about the Final Solution a year before the Wannssee Convention planned it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fox's talk shows aren't relevant to this RfC whatsoever. We've already established that they are unreliable, just like all talk shows. X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop expanding this discussion further? Someone, probably a few someones, has to read all of this, and making it longer and longer by the day isn't going to help get this closed any quicker. You don't have to go home, but please, just stop discussing here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to provide some context, this discussion weighs in at about a The Great Gatsby with a side order of The Old Man and the Sea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been more than 30 days. Why hasn't an admin closed the discussion yet? X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Be patient. It's likely a big job to close it, especially if a panel is going to do it, and people also keep adding to the discussion. If you notice from WP:CR, discussions don't close like clockwork on day 31. Sometimes I've seen discussions stay open for a very long time past the 30-day mark since it isn't a hard deadline. There are some discussions there that are 70+ days old, so they should probably be attended to first. Also, it should go without saying that anyone who commented here, should not close. Andre🚐 18:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

By closed, I mean closing the discussion from further comments and beginning the final closing process and decision. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. X-Editor (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That may or may not happen in a timely way, so be patient. Andre🚐 21:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

They may also be reading the spate of comments you left after declaring the whole thing a waste of time. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've said what I wanted to say and I will not make any further comments. X-Editor (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It will take the average person nearly five hours to read the thread. Then it has to be digested, analyzed, weighed, reviewed, etc. It's going to take a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone takes up the unwelcome task of closing this; they can mark it closing to stop discussion. It's more than reading. They will likely need to create a spreadsheet to rate each !vote, examine cites, deal with repeated arguments....just glad it ain't me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should hat this section. I will also make a request on WP:AN to get this closed from comments while a formal closure can be formulated. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the section should be hatted or that you should post to AN. RFCs don't have hard deadlines. People are still commenting and participating, which shouldn't be halted. It will be closed in due time. Andre🚐 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

True, but we do not need to reply to every vote now, we have had all the arguments made, now let just have people say Yay or nay, and leave it at that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry , but I haven't had time to read all of the comments above, but I think that Fox News should be downgraded along with all other news sources. They are in general primary sources and should be used with extreme caution per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Phil - would you mind moving your comment into the "Survey" section at the bottom? I'd do it for you but probably better if you do it. If you do so, please feel free to delete or strike out my comment asking you to. Andre🚐 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• If nobody else volunteers I can look into closing this RfC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Sydney Zatz on Royal Central

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.

Closing per a request at WP:CR. In this well-attended month-long RfC, there is a clear consensus to deprecate the entire Royal Central website à la the 2017 Daily Mail RfC; editors conclude that it hosts plagiarism/copyright violations and lacks serious editorial oversight. I'll do my best to complete all the necessary paperwork; feel free to take care of anything I miss. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Should any article written by Sydney Zatz on Royal Central be depreciated? The reason why I ask was because I found this article by the author on Royal Central which appeared to have directly copied a paragraph from our Queen of Rhodesia article. When I raised the initial discussion at RSN, @Mhawk10: made the point that WP:EARWIG shows that a number of her other articles also seem to copy from Wikipedia without attribution (example here but rest on RSN link). I sent an email through Royal Central's "Contact Us" page telling them of it about a month ago and had no reply and little advice from RSN on followup. But given this history of this author for seeming to use Wikipedia content without attribution, I would like to ask the community for their comments on this proposal or if it should be extended to all of Royal Central.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Sydney Zatz's articles on Royal Central?

• 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 The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey/Discussion: Royal Central

• The problem isn't Sydney Zatz its Royal Central... They're basically a royalty fan-site which accepts submissions from the public without effective editorial controls. Its effectively a personal blog which anyone can submit an entry to. I would move to deprecate Royalty Central as we do other open submission celebrity sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Either option 3 or 4 on the fence, but it should be depreciated or at least listed as a questionable source. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 for either option. The fact there has been plagiarism from Wikipedia and the site has done nothing to sort it when alerted to it, makes me inclined to support depreciation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Seems persuasive that at least option 3 if not 4. Andre🚐 04:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Taking no action about plagiarism (and they are probably plagiarizing from other sites also) renders the site unacceptable. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the whole site: ironically enough, articles that copy from Wikipedia without attribution i.e. contain copyright violations must not be used as external links, including in references (WP:ELNEVER#1). If one author is publishing plagiarism then the editorial process and thus the whole site is unreliable (except SPS usage). Usage is substantial enough that I think it's worth listing at RSP, but not enough that I think it's worth formally deprecating. — Bilorv (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: Any source should be deprecated that doesn't have academic integrity and that has been found to continually plagiarize. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• You said you contact them about removal. What happened with that? Did they respond to you? As I noted before, there may be considerations and you should have taken this to the Copyright Noticeboard if you haven't already. Clearly we shouldn't deprecate a source due to a single author violating copyright. Obviously articles that light up Earwig should be removed immediately. I checked a few other authors and they're not lighting up Earwig.
  • @SamuelRiv: As you can see from my opening statement, they did not respond. I did list it on the Copyright page suggested, but it was said this was not the place for it by @Ovinus:. That's why I suggested depreciating only Zatz's articles and not the whole thing but consensus seems to be swinging towards outright depreciation of the whole site. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, they're jerks and should review their policy, because WP:DCV says you can post to WP:CP. It's reasonable to deprecate Zatz's articles on RC, but it may not be reasonable to deprecate Zatz everywhere, because the copyvio could have conceivably had more to do with the editorial process -- Zatz could have been told incorrect information about WP coopyrights and encouraged to crib parts of articles by the editor, for example. I think given there's been no response from RC (and maybe as suggested previously the form submission you used was the wrong one?) you should also try to contact Zatz directly about the vios and removal. The thing is, let's say we vote to deprecate the whole thing. Great, that showed 'em, and we remove maybe a dozen or so citations that we would have removed anyway for copying us. The RC site will still have the copyvios and likely Zatz will continue to publish articles with copyvios. Apart from simply appealing to Zatz and the editors being journalists (which does actually work, which is why I'm suspicious that the editors may not have gotten the message yet or decided what to do), we have no real power to make them comply unless you want to try your luck at getting a Twitter mob together. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4. Royal Central has no editorial oversight, engages in plagiarism, and even has copyright violations. AKK700 01:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. Plagiarism, WP:ELNEVER and even possibility of WP:UGC -- this in no way resembles a RS. Might want to contact WMF Legal regarding the copyvios, although TBF, plagiarising copywriters are a dime a dozen in today's underemployed world. Daß Wölf 21:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Daß Wölf: That's a good idea, I hadn't thought of that. I have just sent information about this to WMF as suggested. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Strangely, I've had no response from WMF either. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
      • The C of E, the WMF doesn't hold the copyrights, so there's not much they can do about it. While editors agree to release their content under CC-BY-SA, they do still retain the copyright to what they wrote; copyright is not assigned to WMF. If any of the articles in question were substantially written by someone who's still active, they could, if they were so inclined, take action upon it, so you might want to make anyone like that aware of what you found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
        • @Seraphimblade: I just did what was suggested above. I was the one who wrote that paragraph in the Queen of Rhodesia article so what should I do then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm in no way qualified to give legal advice, so certainly don't take it as such. Probably the thing most likely would be a DMCA request. But that is a legal process and there are potential penalties for filing a bad one, so make sure you're either very comfortable with that process and certain of what you're doing, or have help from a lawyer. An actual lawsuit would almost certainly cost you more than you'd ever recover. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 A circular source that routinely plagiarises WP, has copyvios, and then brands as its own is misleading and unreliable. VickKiang (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 for the whole site. This is essentially a group blog by non-experts with (apparently) very little oversight on content. While we're at it, I'd invite people to clean out all the other royaltycruft sites that get cited on Wikipedia regularly. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 For the whole site, clearly cannot be trusted. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4, if they're engaged in plagiarism and copyright violations, we should not be directing anyone there or considering them in any way reliable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per above. 134.6.57.27 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 The persistent copyright violations also qualify this site for the spam blacklist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Deprecate the entire site. It's not a reliable source at all, but a bunch of plagiarism and hearsay. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• 4 - Deprecate entire site per above casualdejekyll 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Sky News Australia

Which of the following best describes the reliability of factual reporting in articles published on-line by Sky News Australia?

• 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

FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Sky News Australia)

• Option 1 Publications and hosts are completely different. The publication has reported reliably. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - generally unreliable, (2nd choice deprecate if that has sufficient consensus Andre🚐 19:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)) any outlet that promotes covid and climate misinformation should be considered generally unreliable. Andre🚐 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Adding note - while I don't have a ton of evidence that the actual writing on Sky News Australia's website is as bad as their TV channel, their website seems to be mostly just composed of their TV links and very little original reporting (unlike American news TV channels). Therefore I am still of the mind that we should downgrade or potentially deprecate it because we don't really need it, there are plenty of good sources, and any risk of misinformation, which was promulgated through the website, is a risk I don't wish to take. Also, I assume there are some similarities between the NY Post, WSJ Editorial Board, Fox News, and Sky News Australia for politics due to their similar model of low-fact content. Thus I maintain my position although less firmly than in other situations. Andre🚐 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate - climate pseudoscience and COVID pseudoscience are reasons for deprecation. Anything else the source publishes, in any medium, is profoundly Generally Unreliable at absolute best. The purpose of Sky News Australia is to promote an extreme political viewpoint, and they're just fine with deliberate disinformation to achieve that - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We should make clear that Sky News UK is completely separate from Sky News Australia - they share a name and logo for historical reasons, but Sky News UK is a perfectly normal NEWSORG owned by Comcast, and has openly made fun of Sky News Australia to distance themselves from them previously - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - additional considerations apply. Of course, this is where I would place EVERY news outlet. No news outlet is 100% reliable. They ALL contain errors from time to time. And when they do, I have no problem with saying that a specific erroneous report is unreliable for a specific statement.

As for Sky News Australia… I am concerned that the nay-sayer’s are not separating the opinion journalism of Sky’s talk show hosts from its basic news reporting. Please remember that we already say that talk show opinion journalism is generally not reliable for statements of fact in WP’s voice (and that UNDUE limits when it is appropriate to use them as primary sources for statements of opinion, attributed to the host).

Finally, I would like to see some discussion of actual WP articles where we cite Sky News Australia. I want to see how and when we are currently using it, in order to see whether we are using it appropriately or inappropriately. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment - if the goal is to have this outlet listed at WP:RSP - I would oppose that. RSP is not supposed to be a general list of “good” or “bad” sources. RSP is for listing sources that have been perennially discussed here on the RS noticeboard - ie sources that have been discussed repeatedly - the point is so that we don’t have the same debate over and over again. Sky News Australia, however, does not meet that criteria. We have not had much discussion about it prior to this RFC. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not is it listed at RSP, if this leads to a consensus one way or another, that can be used to support or oppose specific uses of the source in the future. Andre🚐 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 unless examples of inaccurate reporting are provided. The BBC article provided as evidence says that the "videos had showed network hosts including Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean expressing views that have been rejected by global medical authorities." We should never ever use TV hosts for medical information per WP:MEDRS, no matter if it's Sky News or any other channel. Alaexis_¿question? 19:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - they have a Corrections section which is an indication of RS. Just because a news source doesn't align with one's political opinion doesn't make the source any more or less reliable than when it doesn't. Please stop misusing RSN to deprecate/downgrade RS that don't align with a particular POV - that is not its intended use. If the OP has a question about material published by that source, where is it? This forum is for helping to make determinations when deciding if a source is reliable for material proposed for inclusion in an article. Atsme 💬 📧 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Source, as a website, is used 129 times on wikipedia. Looking at the first 20, there appears to be no issue of source being used to present a POV outside the norms, only factually statements. Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 I would like to point you to a publication by Ad Fontes Media, which gave it a 45.32 reliability rating (anything above 40 is "generally good"). So with a study done by a media watch dog and no evidence of widespread unreliability I think it's usable and should be labeled "generally reliable". With the BBC article talking about concerns with health misinformation, maybe it should be used with caution with medical claim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand and don't disagree with your rating too much, but sadly I strongly disagree with your evaluation. I won't vote on the site's reliability, but a) Ad Fontes is clearly unreliable, see here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for details. secondly, do you know that the Sky News one in Australia is different compared to the UK one? Note it evaluates that Sky News is a British news organization available on TV, radio and online. Studios are located in Westminster and London, with 13 bureaus around the world, but the AU one is owned by the News Corp with ties to the Murdoch, see Sky News Australia. As it's appallingly right-wing, I'd like to vote option 3, and prefer deprecation for its opinion pieces, which is right-wing, horrible, anti-climate change, anti-vax, and so on. But there isn't much failed fact checks for its news sections, so I'm torn (maybe option 2 for news?) I'm not really too active on WP now, so I probably wouldn't reply until tomorrow, but I believe that I strongly disagree with your evaluation. VickKiang (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  yes, Sky News UK is an entirely separate organisation from Sky News Australia, since Comcast bought it in 2016. Sky News UK is a normal centrist NEWSORG, Sky News Australia is the one that really isn't - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that it's unreliable because it's biased? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ADFONTES is not an RS. Andre🚐 04:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding of the RSP entry. Adfontes is a self published site thus, per the RSP entry and the supporting discussions, it can't be considered a RS for content in the article space. That does not exclude it's use in this sort of discussion. Springee (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we ignoring that the linked page is from the UK Sky News? VickKiang (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 As previously stated it is important to be able to distinguish statements made by talk show hosts and what is made by the publication itself. Basedosaurus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, pending rebuttal Having read the !votes and comments, I've not seen any evidence given that supports misinformation by the actual reporting aspects of the website, while defences have been made of its general reliability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/Oppose Option 1 – a quick Google search turns up some mixed/worrying results. For example, the BBC has reported that Sky News Australia "has been criticised for promoting conspiracies and questioning public health orders in its broadcasts" and took down videos containing COVID-19 misinformation from its website "without explanation or making corrections" (the lack of a correction is a big red flag in terms of transparency/accountability). It also suggests to me there is limited editorial difference between the TV channel and website (referring back to the original question asked here). I encourage others to read the BBC article in full. Conversely, The Guardian reported a more recent case where Sky News Australia was found by the Australian media regulator not to have breached codes of practise and also apologised (a good sign). There's a more extensive scoop in The Guardian from Feb 2021 detailing how Sky News Australia's late-night broadcasts have contained commentators echoing conspiracy theories such as the Great Reset, which have then been uploaded onto its website (bad). I would oppose treating it as generally reliable; at the very least extra caution seems warranted. Jr8825 • Talk 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, the source may be generally reliable, but there may be some misinformation too. AKK700 01:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 – Clear promotion of misinformation, such as claims we'll soon see global "cooling" and a new ice age – to the point of being singled out as "a global hub for climate misinformation" – as well as attempts to undermine the deadliness of the COVID-19, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to promote unproven treatments like ivermectin. A senior research fellow of the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne describes it as engaging in "unconstrained peddling of extreme right-wing propaganda, lies, disinformation, crude distortion of fact and baseless assertions", on topics such as voter fraud in the 2020 US election, mask-wearing, and opponents of its owner, Rupert Murdoch, with one commentator being forced to apologise in a defamation case. Not convinced opinion and news content are sufficiently separated to overlook all that. We can do better. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, with a caveat that talk shows/opinion+commentary shows are unreliable. The more and more that I look into Sky, the more and more that there appears to be a fundamental issue with accuracy on its evening and late-night talk shows. The BBC piece cited by Jr8825 specifically calls out Alan Jones host of talk show Jones + Co, Andrew Bolt (host of talk show The Bolt Report), and Rowan Dean (host of talk show Outsiders), while the op-ed in The Conversation a co-host of Jones + Co as well as a bunch of labeled opinion pieces. The reportage from The Guardian, Climate Feedback, Health Feedback, Health Feedback (again), and BBC (again) all more or less agree that the late night programming is full of errors or fringe medical information. The only exception is this report from The Guardian, which criticizes Rita Panahi but omits the fact that she's an opinion journalist. Sky News produces highly partisan opinion videos that would very clearly fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL and should not be used for substantiating facts. But I see no evidence that the commentary side of Sky News is anything but segregated from its news reporting (in particular its news articles published online). As WP:NEWSORG states, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (internal links omitted). As the criticism of Sky News seems that its editorial commentary and analysis seems to be unreliable w.r.t. climate and COVID-19, but I can't find anything negative that has written about its straight news reporting, this appears to be a well-established news organization that is generally reliable for statements of fact in its news reportage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your analysis. Straight news reporting, which are probably articles per the filter when searching, are generally reliable but biased, whereas IMHO the videos, talk shows, and opinion pieces are unreliable or worthy of deprecation. VickKiang (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think more caution is needed than this. It's not just that the talk shows exist, it's the fact that clips from them are integrated into its news section and the vast majority of news "articles" are actually just clips from live broadcast coverage, accompanied by a couple of sentences summarising what either an interviewee or the host is saying. These are brief summaries of what is said on live television, published as news and without bylines; it looks as though they're often selected because they're controversial. Therefore the claims of most articles are being made solely on the authority of the speaker. Given the other red flags, it's difficult to imagine claims are robustly checked before they're typed up verbatim and filed as "news, according to Mr. XYZ". There's no way of telling whether a clip is a fair reflection of an overall interview, or whether interviewees on the non-talk show programs are genuine experts. Here's an "article" classified as "news" that's actually an opinion clip; yes, the summary text is attributed to the speaker, but in any serious outlet it would be labelled as opinion/analysis instead of "world news". Also, opinion videos from the highly criticised talk shows are listed in the news sections, even if the pages themselves are classified as opinion. For example, this Andrew Bolt clip is currently listed at World News/China. This is misleading. There does seem to be some actual journalism in the Australian section, although it's mostly tabloid journalism and again heavily outnumbered by news clip "articles" (I counted 24 video articles to 6 non-video articles in Australian politics). As most articles are based on live broadcasts, WP:RSBREAKING applies. I'm failing to see what this website offers an encyclopedia, other than the risk of contaminating it with misinformation. At a minimum I'd say "additional considerations apply", i.e. only non-video articles with a named journalist should be considered (which appears to immediately disqualify 9/10ths of the site's output). Jr8825 • Talk 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Andrew Bolt clip that you're describing is a labeled opinion piece. I'm entirely confused as to how that this would not clearly be WP:RSEDITORIAL rather than news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  My point was to show that commentary and news reporting isn't fully segregated. There's no section of "just" news, the news sections also aggregate and mix in content from the conspiracy peddling talk show hosts. Crap practices such as this seriously tarnish the source as a whole and while it might not fool an experienced Wiki editor, it will certainly mislead plenty of others. While the talk show clips are classed as "opinion", clips from 24/7 TV news of questionable interviewees and news hosts talking live on air are classified as "news" in the same way that journalist-written articles are (and there's a lot more of them). Jr8825 • Talk 05:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 Sky lies, dangerously. It lies about climate science. It lies about the policies of non-right wing parties, especially the Greens. It lies about issues related to the above, such as what causes bushfires in Australia. It lies about irrigation water theft. There is another aspect to bias that Wikipedia doesn't properly address. That is selective reporting, the failure to report negative news about those on the side of politics it supports. Sky is massively guilty of that. It could be entirely truthful (it's not) but fail to tell its customers some very important adverse news. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 1 for news, Option 3/4 for talk shows/opinion/videos. Sky News Australia is a right-wing website, that's true even for its news sections, which, through selection and wording bias, are probably centre-right to right. I don't see serious doubts about its reliability, but have several additional considerations: first it could be difficult to distinguish news and opinion. Per discussion later, a lot of videos, which are blatant misinformation in my POV (yes, some might quote from another person, but that person is from a conspiracy fringe group, and Sky News is giving undue weight to deliberately mislead), other editors might disagree, but IMHO the videos should not be used for WP, instead, as they are annotations for talk shows and opinion pieces, which are dangerously right wing and promote conspiracy theories they should be treated as generally unreliable or even worthy of deprecation (the latter is of course moot, as no one cites these anyway). Instead, the articles, which are usually quite long and could be filtered per the search tool, are all right to be considered Option 1/2, IMO. Second, I'd say that if this is closed and listed at RSP (which I support, as that only needs 1 RfC), IMO I support a quick mention that some editors consider Sky News Australia to be biased or similarly to that, just like the wording with CNN, but not as strong as that for Fox News, as it might be just slightly more biased that CNN or The Daily Telegraph, but that's still worthy of caution. Thirdly, Australia has far better news sources (ABC News (Australia), SBS News, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald... with no questions on their reliability, so IMO they should be preferred over Sky News Australia when possible, especially for more contentious claims, but I understand this is optional. Otherwise, IMO these are just minor caveats for straight news, that put the reliability of this between generally and marginally reliable (my POV leans a bit towards the latter because of the caveats, but an Option 1 closure, as long as there's caution on the talk shows as outright unreliable instead of marginally reliable, the latter like The Guardian blogs and opinion pieces per WP:RSP). I agree with Red-tailed hawk strongly in criticising the talk shows, which are unambiguous misinformation that failed a lot of fact checks, previous Option 1 votes defending against its failed fact checks by BBC (BBC is not scholarly peer-reviewed, but for such a simple fact check when the consensus is very, very clear medically). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 for all Murdoch media. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for their news channel/video content, option 2 for their written, digital news articles (caution should be exercised when it comes to political matters). Something that people seem to be missing here is that Sky News Australia is primarily a television channel. As discussed below, a lot of what might appear to be "articles" are just captions for those videos from their television channel, which should inherit the same reliability. Sky News Australia is probably the worst offender of the Murdoch press, and you can see in the discussion section below numerous examples of flagrant and egregious misinformation and fabrications. For another example, their host Rowan Dean had a whole prime-time segment dedicated to climate change misinformation, titled "Outsiders Weather and Ice Age Watch": here's a random example segment. Their digital news articles, which they started making a few years ago and I should stress is a comparatively small part of what Sky News Australia does, is heavily partisan, though nowhere near as bad as their video content. There's certainly plenty of information you can use from routine reporting, but I would exercise caution for such a partisan source when it comes to politics. For political matters, there are plenty of other reliable news orgs in Australia which report on politics, so there really isn't much of a need to use Sky. Endwise (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for video and written content wrt politics and science. They do seem to have a good deal of high quality content in other spheres (e.g. reporting crimes, events). I don't see much reason why we should treat the video and written content differently, though, as I see quite a bit of overlap in their editorializing and bias. Per their editorial policy page, the editors who oversee written and video content are the same at the highest levels: [124]. We should not forget these gems of hard hitting journalism pushing highly biased covid-19 content: [125] [126] [127] and who could overlook the time when Sky News got banned from Youtube for sharing COVID misinformation: [128]. This piece in The Conversation includes many many examples of biased and unreliable misinformation-ridden reporting in their TV segments, summarized best as 'Sky News is quickly becoming the Fox News of Australia, with a large focus on American politics.' — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Promoting the COVID-19 lab leak theory isn't "COVID misinformation". Guess we better describe the Wall Street Journal [129] and Vanity Fair [130] as unreliable based on that standard. Your summarize your position well though; your gripe with Sky News is based on your perception of it being equivalent to Fox News. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. No arguments of any substance have been made against its reliability (!); on the contrary, arguments have been made that it is reliable, including the corrections area. Self-evidently, the opinions by the anchors and others (including writers) are opinions. Are we going to include the following clarifications on the Perennial Sources pages: The New York Times is reliable for factual reporting, but not for opinions expressed by its Editorial Page, nor for unattributed opinions expressed by its writers on its books or restaurant reviews? Of course not: that would be ridiculous. So let's not be. XavierItzm (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact, we do. The current RSP summary for The NY Times is that [there] is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. I don't really disagree with you too much, as I too voted option 2/1, just that the part about RSP summary is a bit misleading. Thanks for your comments! VickKiang (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose option 1 or Option 3, there's more than ample secondary sources including those with expertise (as shown by Jr8825 and ReconditeRodent) which demonstrate that Sky News Australia has a reputation for widespread misinformation and not that of accuracy. These sources don't make a distinction between their news and opinion content and neither does Sky News itself when they place these supposed opinions in their news section. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Generally Reliable I agree with the arguments presented by Atsme that existence of a correction section is an indication of reliability. Overall, I am convinced that Sky News Australia is a highly reputable source that everyone should rely on to get trustworthy information and I believe a significant minority of those who vote unreliable use a politically loaded language with low quality arguments.--Madame Necker (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. There is substantial coverage indicating that it has published deliberate disinformation and only removed it when forced to do so by YouTube. Notably, contrary to the assertions above that it published corrections or retractions, BBC coverage of the event emphasizes that In recent days it has taken down about 30 videos without explanation or making corrections. (emphasis mine.) This seems to clearly negate the argument, above, that the presence of a corrections section somehow renders them reliable - they have one, but when they find it ideologically inconvenient, they aren't using it. That is actually worse than not having one at all, because it means that their omissions from it can only be reasonably interpreted as deliberate, rendering all their other efforts to present themselves as having editorial controls or separation between news and opinion suspect. One peer-reviewed paper says that Both of these videos were uploaded to YouTube by Sky News Australia, a right-wing 24-hour news channel that, at the moment of writing, has 1.47 million subscribers on YouTube. Despite this channel being favorable to COVID-19 conspiracy theories and encouraging anti-vaccination sentiment, its videos remain online as of May 2021. ... The channel’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the ensuing crisis has been to double down on their digital strategy: they frequently post videos that deny the existence of COVID-19, insinuate that the virus was man-made, demonize scientific institutions, and encourage anti-vaccination sentiment. But the problems aren't just limited to COVID; another paper, from the The 22nd Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, is far more broadly damning, saying Previously a little-watched pay-TV news operation, Sky News Australia has recently pivoted towards an aggressive and highly successful digital influence strategy that has now positioned it as an important source of alt-right propaganda and conspiracy theories, well beyond (and no longer predominantly focussing on) a domestic Australian audience. This is not how sources talk about WP:RSes, and there's no evidence in any of these sources, contrary to some of the assertions made above, that the problems are limited to "talk and opinion." --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion, who shows that they do not "engage in factchecking" as WP:NEWSORG suggests. casualdejekyll 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate for being a misinformation enterprise that secondary sources mention in the same context as political extremists. Sky News exploited the compound mass paranoia of COVID-19 and race riots by falsely linking COVID infections to Black Lives Matter. There are enough reputable news sources out there that we don't need to include the "respectable version of Infowars"-type sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

references

References

Discussion: Sky News Australia

• Bad RfC and a flagrant failure of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If you want to make arguments about the source's reliability, it is absolutely inappropriate to do so in the RfC prompt. As such, this RfC should be procedurally closed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• If we move the nominator’s non-neutral commentary into this discussion section… does that fix the issue? Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  That would also fix the issue, provided that nobody !votes in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment has there been any prior discussion or issue related to this source prior to this RfC? I think we should use RfC's as something that comes up after we have had clear discussions with examples of use/disputes etc. We shouldn't start with a cold RfC with no other discussion. Suggest close as malformed and start a discussion first. Springee (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmm… Valid concern… no objection from me. We can always reopen an RFC later. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't think gatekeeping this kind of RFC is a good idea. Just my 2c. Andre🚐 19:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Nominator: Sky News Australia is a news organization based in Australia and owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Its television broadcasting is generally seen as heavily biased and conservative. The channel also spreads climate crisis disinformation. It's also known for its promotion of covid disinformation. FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I may be a bit confused but it seems to me that the above comment is due to a movement by Blueboar from its original position which strikes me as WP:INTERPOLATE making it harder for late-coming readers to follow that there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL problem. Anyway, fixed-formula RfCs with no mention of a dispute affecting a Wikipedia article are bad regardless of the attempts to salvage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  If it makes any difference… no one had !voted prior to my “fix”… in fact, there wasn’t even a “survey” section for them to !vote IN (I added it with my fix). The only discussion was from RTH and Springee. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I endorse the Blueboar Fix of 2022. Andre🚐 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I also endorse the great Blueboar finger in the dam of 2022 — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  People can place !votes in discussion sections when the RfC only has one section (which, by the way, is a perfectly valid RfC form). I personally don't appreciate the creation of a survey section that precedes the discussion section, since in the case of a two-section RfC I would have firmly placed my comment in the survey section. There's an WP:INTERPOLATE and WP:TPO issue here, albeit one that was very clearly created in good-faith. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  So move your comment. {{Sofixit}} IMHO. No offense. Andre🚐 20:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Should I also move all of the comments that were made in response to it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, IMHO. Andre🚐 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that we (Wikipedians) are deciding on which news sites are reliable & which aren't. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  We should downgrade all sites, left or right, any country, any publisher, that publishes mis- or dis-info, like Occupy Democrats or Raw Story on the left end. Andre🚐 20:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The sources provided by the nominator are about statements made by talk show hosts and their guests, not news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable sources no matter who broadcasts them. The sources complain about the platform Sky News gives to climate change deniers. However, a 2019 study by the University of California showed that American media in general misinforms the public by providing an equal balance between climate scientists and climate change sceptics.[131] CNN once had both Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, who later moved to Fox, hosting shows every night. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC recently won a defamation case by saying that her statements should be seen as opinion rather than fact. If you want to ban U.S. media as rs, I am willing to entertain it. But singling out one source makes no sense. TFD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Even less evidence provided than Fox News RfC. Just scare words of they lie about Climate Change and COVID. Both of which are topics with ample scholastic writing that newspapers should be the source of last resort, if at all. If someone wants to reduce the reliability of all MSM coverage of COVID and Climate Change, that's a position I would support. Besides, fringe positions are already covered by policy. Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

*Here is the evidence I found for failed fact checks of Sky News Australia.[132][133] [134] [135] [136] [137][138] Andre🚐 03:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Those failed fact checks are about its talk shows... every single one of them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My mistake. Andre🚐 04:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: @Andrevan: I am confused, but how is this a talk show? It says that he speaks to the Sky News host, with a video, but note it's labelled as Australia News, despite it being blatant misinformation. IMHO, there needs to be much more caution, since it fails to separate news and opinion. VickKiang (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree @VickKiang and I think that's a really good catch. Andre🚐 22:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  @VickKiang and Andrevan: That is an excerpt of Jones + Co, a late-night talk show hosted by Alan Jones. If you watch the full video clip, this is extremely clear. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  But the link has text. I don't even see the clip because I have it ad-blocked. But the text around it contains the issues as well. Andre🚐 21:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  1) A video caption is not an article, which is what this RfC is asking about.

  2) The video caption accurately describes the video. In the video, Nils-Axel Morner does say that a a cooling period for the Earth is ‘not far off’ and is driven by the sun. He does say that the IPCC is misleading people. And Mr. Mornerdoes share his work and beliefs with Alan Jones. Saying that the video caption is inaccurate would be like saying that this article from the Austin-American Statesman is inaccurate because it describes that Alex Jones called the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax on his radio show "Infowars," claiming it was "staged" by the government so they could "go after our guns" and "start a civil war" without putting it in their newsroom's voice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this, Red-tailed hawk, I absolutely missed the filters. Would you agree that the articles on Sky News Australia, per the filtering when searching are generally reliable but highly biased, but the videos, opinion pieces, and talk shows are either generally unreliable or worthy of deprecation? This seems to be of a view I concur now, after seeing your very detailed argument. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd say its extent of bias in its news reporting is probably the same as something like The Telegraph or The Guardian. I think that it makes sense to treat as WP:BIASED for this source within the scope of anglophone politics (whether that's "highly biased" or merely "biased" seems irrelevant use-wise, and I'm honestly not sure where the line is). The opinion pieces, talk shows, etc. are generally unreliable, which is what WP:RSEDITORIAL notes anyway. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is probably my POV, but The Guardian and The Telegraph is IMHO less biased that the news for Sky News Australia. But on RSP, The Guardian blogs are marginally reliable instead of generally unreliable, though the talk shows for Sky is so bad I'd like deprecation (of course, this is moot, since no one cites videos/opinion anyway). VickKiang (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I still find it confusing because it's a 3 line "video caption," most sources I use only have a 1-2 sentence caption under the clip. Andre🚐 23:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree it's mildly confusing, but if you have a look at the filter Red-tailed hawk mentioned latter, it's a bit clearer. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble even researching this one. Everything I click on on the Sky News Australia website basically seems to be something from a talk show. Do they really have a newsroom that's writing articles? Can anyone share some articles that show significant reporting besides just a clip with a tiny blurb from TV? Andre🚐 23:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is primarily opinion, then it is already covered by RSOPINION. Usage is limited, and there is no need to formally label it or list it at RSP. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I did not start this RFC. I don't really know if it needs to be listed as RSP. The fact checks posted were pretty significant, but they all ultimately pertained to something from the talk shows. Andre🚐 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

They have a filter on their search function that lets you look for "articles" rather than "videos". The articles appear to be primarily (if not exclusively) written by digital reporters, while the "video" filter is somewhat mixed (i.e. there are clips from shows with summaries as well as digital news reports that also have autoplaying video in them). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Mary Sue

There is currently a dispute over whether allegations against the streamer Destiny should be included on his page (see Talk:Destiny (streamer)#Irresponsible edits). During that discussion, this Mary Sue article was cited as a source to support the statement "trans activist streamer Keffals alleged in a livestream that Bonnell had weaponized his audience and users on the forum Kiwi Farms to harass her." The source is currently listed at WP:RSP as no consensus, but some in the discussion were surprised it isn't regarded as generally reliable. I'm listing here to see whether there is any consensus as to the reliability of the Mary Sue since the last discussions (listed on RSP as here and here). In particular, if the site is seen as reliable, comments on whether it reaches the bar for use as a source on controversial claims in BLPs would be useful. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a read through the past discussions and have some thoughts. I'm going to start with the past discussions, before moving to the current day.

The 2015 discussion. Straight off, the disclaimer that was used previously no longer exists. In the seven years since that discussion, The Mary Sue has added a comment moderation policy, a fact checking policy, and a corrections policy. The corrections policy in particular implies some degree of reliability per the last bullet point of WP:NEWSORG. As such I would be minded to discount the perspectives from that discussion that the site is unreliable, due to it's former disclaimer.

The 2016 discussion. This one is messy. Really messy. The Mary Sue is directly mentioned only five times in that discussion, in three comments; [139], [140], [141], and does not appear to be the central focus of that discussion. With regards to the first comment, I would be minded to discount it, as despite what the proponents said, Gamergate was not about ethics in video game journalism. The second and third comments address an inaccuracy in the first, with regards to how many times The Mary Sue had been cited on the Gamergate article, and neither directly address the site's reliability.

Bringing this back to the current day. The Mary Sue was acquired by the GAMURS Group in November 2021, and shortly thereafter published a corrections policy. Since the acquisition, I've been unable to find any egregious or obviously false content on their site, or criticism of them by others for publishing falsehoods or misleading statements. While I cannot attest to their older content, their current content is subject to their corrections policy, and they clearly tag corrections articles, and any inline corrections made post publication are given bold text; [142], [143], [144].

Based on their current practices, the existence of their corrections and fact checking policies, and that they actually make it clear when they make or publish a correction, I would say that The Mary Sue is a reliable source. I'd also say, based on their about us page, they are also a biased source, in this case pro feminist and LGBT inclusive, but a biased source is not inherently an unreliable one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I concur with biased, yet reliable. Many of their authors who are clearly identified have journalistic backgrounds, and on case by case basis, we can identify less journalistic pieces and weigh them accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Sideswipe9th and Shushugah that, given the change in management, the Mary Sue appears to have improved in its reliability. Andre🚐 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of those recent changes to the site. They've clearly upped their game and laying out explicit editorial policies like that makes it quite clear to me that they are, at least with their current articles, a reliable source. Silverseren^C 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally Unreliable Much of the analysis here focuses on that the website has changed its design rather than whether it has statistically improved its content accuracy. Madame Necker (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Except that's just a blatant lie? The analysis above is that they've changed their editorial policy and now have review and correction policies, which are a required hallmark of a reliable source. And there's no evidence of there being anything wrong with their content accuracy. Silverseren^C 20:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll respond as I'm the person who posted the analysis. I've not discussed or formed any of my analysis on a redesign of the website. In fact, looking at the site on the Wayback Machine, the design has been pretty consistent for the last two years.

What I have addressed however is the addition of a fact checking, and a corrections policy, sometime after their acquisition in November 2021. Those policies, as far as I can tell, did not exist prior to the acquisition, and as Silver seren has said, are a hallmark of what we consider a reliable source. I've also linked examples of their corrections articles category, as well as inline corrections made to articles published from circa the date of their acquisition to present.

In the time since my last reply, I've also attempted to search if there are any examples of content for which they have been criticised for publishing, by other reliable sources, post acquisition, or content that is otherwise demonstrably false and has not been corrected, and have not found any results. Of course, that is also not to say that such content doesn't exist, only that I've been otherwise unable to find it. If you or any other editor knows of false or misleading content published post acquisition, or of content critical of the website again published post acquisition, then I'd encourage linking it here to it can be analysed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is not "is this a reliable source generally" for uncontentious stuff like entertainment news, but "is this source reliable and/or DUE for a highly contentious BLP claim". In my opinion, the answer is no. GAMURS group websites are generally low quality entertainment outlets. Basic stuff like having a corrections policy and making corrections doesn't make something a reliable source per se, this are simply basic expected standards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Except the "highly contentious BLP claim" is about a person making the claim, which is already attributed. Mary Sue is a fine source on that the person made that claim. Silverseren^C 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Maybe except that that's just a blatant lie? Madame Necker (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement presented by Alduin above to be included in the article is attributed to Keffals directly. Meaning that the source reference is being used only to support that she made that statement. Which is not the same as presenting a claim in Wikivoice. Silverseren^C 20:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is, is Keffals claim DUE weight in to include in a BLP, when we don't have a preponderance of clearly reliable sources like the Washington Post that mention it. Washpo's article on the topic makes no mention of Keffal's claim that Destiny collaborated with Kiwi Farms, only stating that [Keffals] has openly clashed with Destiny, another politics-focused streamer who was recently banned from Twitch.... Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why are you here? WP:DUE has nothing to do with this board. Mary Sue is a reliable source, especially for an attributed statement. So there's nothing else to do here. Silverseren^C 21:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC

Why are you here? Read the noticeboard header: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. Emphasis mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And it is reliable in context. Whether that meets due weight or not is an entirely separate discussion, which has nothing to do with this board. Silverseren^C 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Silver seren Are you getting these flimsy ideas by reading Redong Sinmun? Madame Necker (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Why haven't you been banned as a disruptive SPA? Protonk (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet, @Protonk:, they also just forumshopped your reply to them in another thread on this board over to ANI in the Nightscream discussion. Silverseren^C 21:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what that has anything to do with source's unreliability. Madame Necker (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

True that is not the question, however given what I've lain out above with regards to a corrections and fact checking policy, and the overall weakness of the two prior discussions on the site, I would be minded to say that it is WP:GREL for content published post acquisition, and that older content should continue to be assessed on a case by case basis per WP:MREL. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Its generally reliable in the same sort of way the Huffington Post is - you've got to keep in mind that much of their work may have a sort slant, but they still meet our standards. (Editorial oversight, credentialed writers, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with Sergecross73 Andre🚐 21:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on Sideswipe9th's helpful rundown I think the source should be considered reliable for the claims and context in question. Specifically this kind of thing is their beat, they are unlikely to misrepresent the facts at hand, and the application here is incredibly narrow--we are being asked whether or not we can use them to corroborate and interpret a claim which can be verified via publicly available info. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• generally reliable since it appears that they have updated their review processes recently. Although it probably could have been used as a source for the whole Destiny/Keffals harassment drama thing anyway, but whatever. Nothing wrong with an RfC. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the reliability, as the article linked presents a wrong statement "Destiny has been since banned". A short google search tells us that Destiny has been banned on [145] March 23rd 2022 . I suggest contacting Mary Sue and seeing how well their review process works. Until then, it is a very strange suggestion to reinstate them on an wrongful article 2003:F3:1732:400:F5EC:3E8C:4327:5955 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that contradicts the Mary Sue story, was he banned prior to Keffal's ban rather than since? Either way, sportskeeda is not a very reliable source itself. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is saying he was banned after he supposedly lied about her and weaponized Kiwifarms against her. Which I assume is correct since the Kiwifarms stuff has been going on for awhile now and he was banned in March. What the article is not saying is that he was banned after she was. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, hopefully the IP editor comes back to this page and sees this so they can clarify. In the absence of any clarification, the Mary Sue article doesn't seem to conflict with Bonnell's ban date. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was getting at the fact that despite being heavily editorialized, the article does have a few facts in it. Along the fact that Keffals was banned, another fact mentioned is that "Destiny has been since banned". What time does "has since" refer to in your opinion? At first glance it would appear to the Keffals ban, as that it what the article is about. Which would be obviously false, as the ban happened in July. If it indeed does refer to "weaponized a hate forum" it would also be false, as the ban happened before the forum thread Keffals is refering to was created.

But even the falsehood aside, as we are discussing the reliability of this publication, doesn't it kind of stand out to see some of the few facts actually mentioned in the article to be without any sourcing? That doesn't exactly scream reliability to me. 2003:F3:1732:400:2C70:BE69:B596:DB2B (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do people contributing to the discussion think the Mary Sue is reliable for contentious statements of fact in BLPs? I understand most here seem to think it is reliable for attributed statements such as "X said Y did [accusation]", but would the Mary Sue be a good source for something like "X did do [accusation]" too? This isn't in connection to the statement being disputed on the Destiny page as views on that are pretty clear, but moreso because this conversation will probably change the consensus on RSP which is widely used to gauge reliability. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel like it's a none issue because contentious statements of fact can't usually be put in BLPs unless they are referenced to multiple sources anyway. So is Mary Sue a good source for something like "X did do [accusation]"? On it's own no, but then nothing is. If it's being used as backup for other references? sure, but then why does it even matter? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is that there are some sources which are reliable enough for certain uses but we generally wouldn't use as a source for contentious BLP claims. I know that contentious claims require multiple sources, my question was would it be acceptable as one of those multiple sources. Sorry, thought that was clear but should have made it explicit I guess. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say The Mary Sue in general is "additional considerations apply": it's often good for reviews and for some types of basic information, but I wouldn't use it in any kind of topic bordering on gossip, speculation, or internet culture minutiae. This is in line with the other GAMURS publications like Dot Esports that I am familiar with, although I'd rank The Mary Sue above that. However, we'd need a full RfC to properly re-evaluate the RSP summary.

In this concrete case, I said on the talk page: Though I'm generally in favour of The Mary Sue, this particular article seems to exaggerate their worst tabloid-style aspects and is not good enough for highly BLP sensitive claims, which accusing a living person of serious misconduct (possibly even illegal activity) counts as, even for attributed opinion. And I stand by this. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally unreliable [146] analyzing their content shows that it is heavily opinionated to the point where it distorts the facts. An example of extremely biased articles is from today alone, [147] with the title "John Oliver Points Out New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss Has Gotten a Bit of a Free Pass on Her BS This Week." The source is simply an unreliable blog. Bill Williams 23:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Bald and Bankrupt

Hello. There's been some discussion on the talk page of Bald and Bankrupt regarding the reliability of sources. I'd like to get some opinions as to whether the following are generally reliable

• [148]
• [149]
• [150]

Thank you OrgoneBox (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The first citation is not reliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The second source "falls under the umbrella of ANO TV-Novosti" according to its about page. ANO TV-Novosti is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP as it is seen as a mouthpiece of the Russian government. Alduin2000 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Military fansites

I need help mowing the weeds of military fansites, currently identified are:

• navysite.de [151] with 300+ uses [152]
• navsource.org [153] with 500+ uses
• maritimequest.com [154]] with 100+ uses
• helis.com [155]] with 500+ uses
• gonavy.jp [156]] with dozens of uses
• uscarriers.net [157] with dozens of uses
• Weaponsystems.net [158] with dozens of uses
• designation-systems.net [159]] with 500+ uses
• joebaugher.com [160] with 100+ uses
• f-16.net [161]] with dozens of uses
• aerialvisuals.ca [162] with 100+ uses

Any help is much obliged, feel free to name more as well. Also wondering whether blacklisting these wouldn't keep the weeds down once mown. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blacklisting is generally limited to spam, but it would be appropriate to have these sites deprecated, like the many self-published peerage sites. In addition to those you've listed, here are dozens, if not hundreds of other military-related fansites that are used as sources, each with their own focus; ships, aircraft, weapons, this or that war or combatants, medals...etc. It's a nearly inexhaustible list. But,your list is a start I propose that they all be deprecated.Banks Irk (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think in some cases they are spam as well, people make a fansite and then add it to wikipedia to drive traffic to their site or to steal legitimacy. In any case we need a RFC to deprecate so I will open one below. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Redjacket3827: care to give your two cents here? Your most recent edits are all related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually I wrote the page in question and those references have been there for some time. If you have better references, by all means use them, but for now that is all we have. Redjacket3827 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes it worse not better... No reliable sources means we don't cover it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Previous discussions from RSN: (1) f-16.net, (2) aviation fansites, including aerialvisuals.ca
• I'd go with assume they are unreliable WP:SPS unless proven otherwise. Cleaning up after these is supremely annoying, as demonstrated by the extremely slow progress in User:Ljleppan/Aerodrome cleanup. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've notified WP:MILHIST, WP:AVIATION and WP:SHIPS of this discussion, as these sources appear related to articles within the scopes of said WikiProjects. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would add to this list Military Factory - see here and here as previously discussed on WP:RSN. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We've already started the RFC so I'm not sure if its kosher to just add more, we can make a second list though. I would add www.hdekker.info which for some bizarre reason was actually added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources as a preferred source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The OP wrote, "feel free to name more as well." I'm not sure it's kosher to open an RFC while that process is still live. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I like the cheek but that is actually how it works RFC wise. I apologize for the sloppiness of the whole thing, I was not originally intending to open an RFC but a request was made for deprecation to be on the table and thats not possible without opening one. Do you think it would be helpful to make a dedicated page for cataloguing such fan sites? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A dedicated list of fan sites? Not in general, there are far too many of them and few have established any notability in themselves. However, as I mention somewhere, the Aviation Wiki project maintains a short list of the most persistently cited offenders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. Other projects might wish to do the same. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (Military fansites)

What best describes the 11 listed military fansite's reliability?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the claim and the sources provided for the specific article Boynamedsue (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate. All of the eleven listed are self-published fansites. They should all be deprecated, similar to the deprecation of the various self-published peerage sites. Cf.WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Self-published_peerage_websites I see no need to go through a dozen separate RFCs on this, as it is so clear-cut. Banks Irk (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:DEPSOURCES currently only lists 46 sites. I think we'd need to find a better case before adding these relatively little-used sources to the automated deprecation system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3:. Not a lot to say, unless they are published by aknowleged experts they are not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 These are typically self published or user generated sources and are typically considered not reliable. However, a SPS exception could be made for acknowledged experts on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 [changed]. All are self-published and are not peer reviewed. Therefore, by default they fail the policy on WP:Reliable sources. But WP:DEPRECATE lists only 46 sites, so these are clearly not on that scale of problem. The Aviation wiki project maintains a shortlist of the worst offenders it comes across at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources, but frankly there are so many such sites everywhere that military fandom is nothing unusual and, for most of them, simple recognition of WP:RS should be enough to police the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [Vote changed 16:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]

• Option 3 for the main body of an article but exceptions might be made for the external links section per WP:ELMAYBE. Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - I've only encountered the naval-themed sites, and I wouldn't ever use them as references. But maritimequest and navsource are generally good repositories of images, so those at least are fine for external link sections (which is where I generally see them used in any event). Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously self-published and/or user-generated sources should not be used. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC).
• Option 2 - I can't comment on this particular site list as I am not familiar with all the sites in question. However, my understanding has been that there is a long-established consensus that sites of this type are acceptable as sources so long as they themselves include a list of reliable sources from which their information was derived. Perhaps the foremost example would be uboat.net, which is used on literally hundreds of U-boat articles on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of others. I might add that generally speaking, I have found such "fansites" to be considerably better than many supposedly reliable sources, which are in fact often riddled with errors in my experience. Well maintained fansites which list their sources are not only typically highly accurate, but also usually reflect the most up-to-date scholarship, which reliable sources frequently do not. In short, I think it would be a mistake to reflexively purge such sources if that's what is being proposed; rather they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Gatoclass (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: a review of this noticeboard's history suggests that either we have no consensus on uboat.net or we have a consensus that it is unreliable, there is not way to interpret those prior discussions as resulting in a consensus that uboat.net is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but then there is no clear consensus that they are unreliable either. In practice, however, they clearly have been widely accepted as reliable - there are 23 uboat GAs, for example, that appear to rely on uboat.net as their primary source, and there are probably also numerous GAs for merchant ships and other surface vessels that reference the site. But I think the bottom line here is that the website clearly is a highly reliable resource for information about uboats and the vessels they interacted with. If the information on a website is demonstrably reliable, what purpose is served by excluding it? If better sources can be found, by all means substitute them, but failing that, there seems no compelling reason to me to remove such references and the information derived from them. Gatoclass (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be an issue with the competence of those GA evaluators. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC Sources should be evaluated individually, without prejudicial framing. And if they truly are "fansites," RSP doesn't need to be populated with them unless they've been especially problematic. GretLomborg (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Is a (or this) musesum exhibition a reliable source?

here where the citation says "Modern researchers have failed to find any record of this event in Parish records, though an accident involving the death of three miners may have been the origins of this story. Same citation here In both cases there's a source for the original claim for the deaths. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

oooooooh, good question. Like, they're going to be pretty good in almost all cases - but then, that's also true of Wikipedia, and we can't use that for much the same reasons. Museum exhibition texts tend to be tertiary sources. Written by experts, though. Often cribbed from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to generally categorise them - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How reliable is a given museum? Some are set up to curate a particular PoV. For example it's no good asking the Smithsonian Institution who first flew a powered and controlled airplane, because they appear to be legally contracted to say that it was the Wrights. But that does not stop them from being among the best independent RS for pretty much everything else aeronautical. We have to take each museum on its merits; are its staff academically qualified or just a random collection of enthusiasts, does it spout a lot of hyperbole, etc. etc. In other words, take each case on its merits and look for corroborating sources. For example way the majority of experts do support the Wrights' primacy. On the other hand I once found a museum displaying a replica of a wrongly-identified German WWII aircraft project; they have now updated their information to identify it correctly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

Discussion (globalsecurity.org)

• Resulting from Talk:Nuclear-powered cruisers of the United States Navy. See previous discussions at [163]. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

--Not to be confused with globalresearch.ca, an unrelated site.--

Globalsecurity has been mentioned on this board several times, and is listed as "no consensus" at RSP, but it is currently being removed en masse, along with the "fansites" listed just above at "#Military fansites" (by the same editor), though the site is not part of that list. Looking among the previous discussions regarding this site, it has been noted that it is cited here over 8000 times. Several editors have noted that despite some issues with other subjects, this site should be considered reliable for military-related subjects, as the content is written by subject matter experts and military historians. Several times when this site was brought up here, is was grouped with other sites and the focus ended up on those other sites instead. As noted above, this site has been confused for globalreseaech.ca.

Lastly, I would of course encourage anyone responding here to read those previous discussions for yourself, and also review the site, to help determine if it should be considered reliable. Thanks - wolf 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Care to comment on this unattributed and apparently original unhinged rant about the United States waging "WWIV" on the world[164]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

LOL. Can it be for real? Reads like Sino-Russian hacktivists at work. But the fact that the lack of attribution is typical of the site says it all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC (globalsecurity.org)

What best describes globalsecurity.org's reliability?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate, the vast majority of the site is scraped from elsewhere without attribution. For example their headlining page for their major topic area "Taiwan"[[165]] is ripped without attribution from Radio Free Asia[166]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "As has been noted in the previous discussions[167] they also hawk conspiracy theories about 9/11, HARP, and chemtrails." ([168]) - that was globalresearch.ca. - wolf 21:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• DeprecateBanks Irk (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate as the site's material is full of unattributed WP:COPYVIO. Typical scraping operation. - Amigao (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3, by their own admission (my emphasis): "This website is compiled by human beings, mostly by compiling or summarizing what other human beings have written. Therefore, it most likely contains some mistakes and/or potential misinterpretations and should be used primarily as a way to search quickly for basic information and information sources. It should not be viewed as an exhaustive, "last-word" source for critical applications (such as those requiring legally defensible information)."[169]. Note that WP:DEPSOURCES currently only lists 46 sites. I think we'd need to find a better case for adding a relatively narrowly-focused source to the automated deprecation system. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) [Updated 16:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)]
• Option 3 - No evidence of reliability. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - In the distant past I have used globalsecurity.org as an External link for articles like 5-ton 6x6 (I got carried away) with pages like M939. I felt that it was accurate and I had plenty of other good sources to compare it to. It has no sources and I wouldn't use it as RS (edit add: I apparently did here, sorry) but in my specific example it isn't false or fabricated. I don't care if it goes myself, just pointing out that at my level it isn't Option 4. Sammy D III (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Baby with the bathwater? Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning Option 3. There aren't any real good reasons to use it. I sometimes resort to using it as a placeholder until I can get to the library and verify with Janes. Schierbecker (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning 3 as well; if you look at the staff page, it's sort of a mixed bag between people who are established experts in their field and those who aren't. If the individual articles told you who wrote them, there'd be a case to put this in option 2, but as far as I've seen, they don't credit authors. And I can't imagine a situation where they would have information on a topic in the area I edit where a better source isn't readily available. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I spot checked a name I knew (Joseph Trevithick) to be more broadly a reliable writer in this space and their linkedin suggests that their listed position is only honorary and was only retained as a form of compensation: "Conducted independent research to update sections of the website and led the internship program as an interviewer and first point of contact. Was furloughed due to a funding crisis between January and May 2010. Left the organization in 2013, again due to funding issues, but retained the unpaid title of Fellow." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. At least for Chinese military topics, many GS articles are seemingly running aggregations of anything and everything said on the subject, rumors and all. Lack of attribution makes it difficult - if not impossible - to separate out the reliable bits (which negates the need to reference GS anyway.) It doesn't help that there are pages that look like they were Google translated, presumably from (unidentified) Chinese-language sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate and let's begin the slow, agonizing work of removing most of the nearly 9,000 citations to this site. The examples above show the site plagiarizes routinely, and we can't (per good sense and WP:V#Copyright and plagiarism) link to sites that violate copyright. I can mention more examples if they're needed to convince others of the major issues this source presents. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You (or someone, at least) might want to set up something similar to User:Ljleppan/Aerodrome cleanup for tracking purposes. Ljleppan (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 this was once a better albeit borderline site, but it's only gotten worse over time even as our citation standards have increased. Also per Parsecboy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate the website is a well-known rumor mill. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin, RfC closing review

I was curious why I didn't notice that Jacobin was moved from yellow to green. The fall 2021 RfC certainly looked like a "considerations apply" closing but it was closed as an upgrade from yellow to green [170]. Does this seem like a reasonable close? I think even the closing editor, Joe Roe closed it in a way that suggested a "considerations apply" close while saying generally reliable. I think the several month gap between the expiration of the RfC in Aug 2021 vs the closing in Feb 2022 made it easy to miss the closing. Looking for additional input. Springee (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

6 months is too long to wait to challenge a close. If there were a problem with this close, it would have been raised much earlier. You should open an new RFC if you have new evidence that would change the result. Andre🚐 23:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd also suggest talking to the closer beforehand, if clarification on their statement is what you want. To me, it seems quite clear that, while the source is WP:BIASED, it is no less reliable than other "green" sources. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree Andre🚐 00:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The close changed the source from a reasonable "considerations apply" to green even though the majority of editors said 2 or 3 (generally unreliable). Springee (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. My reading of this thread was that you wanted some clarification, but my recommendation is still valid. If you think their close was erroneous, you might be able to persuade them to amend or undo it (though that seems difficult considering how long it's been), or they might be able to better explain how they reached their conclusion. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Isabelle, thanks for the suggestion. I think clarification might be the right path. My read is Joe's closing is what I would think of as a "be careful" source. Going on what ScottishFinnishRadish said below, the problem with the 3 color system is we don't leave much room for the nuance that can come from the discussion. As an example, a local small town paper might always get the facts right but just because they mention it doesn't make it DUE in a article. Thus they are reliable but a source of limited weight. Conversely, a source like Jacobin might start with a reasonably reliable set of fact but their method to select "important" vs "unimportant" details may be heavily skewed thus their analysis may be problematic. If it is balanced against an alternative analysis of a given set of facts it may be useful but if it's the only analysis we should be careful least we treat that analysis/opinion as "true". If they say "Mr Smith wanted his company to fail.[primary claim] He was unable to pay his state taxes.[supporting fact 1] He also didn't pay a subcontractor.[supporting fact 2]" We would have to treat the "wanted his company to fail" claim as their opinion, not as fact since it doesn't inherently fall out of the supporting facts. We can treat the supporting facts as true but we can't assume full context is included. Yeah, yet again I think the RSP list would be better if we didn't try to rank but did include the descriptive summaries. Springee (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the tone limit for a close review? My concern here is the close was done well after the RfC ended. This is especially problematic if the RfC was archived then revived Springee (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what your concerns are, it's out of order. You haven't even contacted the closer or notified them of this noticeboard post. If you have some evidence that Jacobin isn't reliable, start an RFC. Andre🚐 00:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I pinged them here and asked how to handle things. Springee (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You've gotten the right advice already, but no one has yet linked you to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Step one is discussion at the closer's user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's more a problem with RSP, and looking at the color rather than the actual discussion and close. Any time something is reduced to a three color system some context and subtlety will be lost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. I agree with much of the closing but I would interpret that closing as a "other considerations apply" because of the comments included. Springee (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You can interpet it however you want, I suppose, but considering I included the words "Jacobin is [...] generally reliable" at the top of my close, that clearly wasn't my intent. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, in looking at the closing I do have a concern about how this was handled. The RfC was archived 2 Sept 2021 [171]. The RfC was never restored for closing. Instead it was closed in the archive itself [172]. This would make it much harder for people who might follow RSN but not bother following the closing review pages or the archive page to see a close or close review was initiated. If nothing else shouldn't we have a rule that you don't mess with archives, you need to restore something to the active noticeboard page before reviewing the close? Springee (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Funnily, I just recently closed an archived RfC. I didn't think much about it, but now I wonder if it would be worth to create a topic here or at the talk page to announce the closure to the broader community that watches this noticeboard. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to update WP:RSP or other FAQ pages with the diff of the closure, it doesn't need to be announced on the noticeboard as well, IMHO. There's also nothing wrong with closing an archived RFC, AFAIK. There is, however, something wrong with contesting a closure this long after it took place. Though I'm not sure if that's written down in policy anywhere. Andre🚐 02:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As Isabelle noted, I think going to Joe's talk page will be the first step. I see the logic in their closing but there is also the issue that they identified in the RfC that the "other considerations apply" category isn't always clear in intent. For that matter, green isn't always clear. Does green mean, generally reliable and due or just generally reliable but weight is still a case by case problem? Springee (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Green means generally reliable, but in this case, Jacobin was considered reliable for facts but with the caveat that it is biased and partisan, and should be used attributed for opinions. Similar to a few other biased sources on the board, like Reason, Mother Jones, and New Republic, it's a magazine that publishes a lot of op-eds and thinkpieces. It was not shown to have an issue with reporting of facts. Yellow, or WP:MREL, marginally reliable depending on the context, may be questionable, some considerations apply, or no consensus that it is generally reliable or unreliable. As far as weight, reliable sources matter for weight. Unreliable sources don't count toward weight. In cases where there is a context-dependent decision that must be made, it depends on the situation. But your question "Does green mean, generally reliable and due" appears to be missing the understanding mark by a considerable margin. Andre🚐 03:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

But again we get into the gray areas. For example a generally good news source may have more retractions/corrections etc yet because it has high impact we give it more weight than we might give to a small town paper with zero errors but minimal circulation. This is why we shouldn't confuse the simplistic color scheme with weight, only with how generally reliable we consider the source to be. It is interesting btw, when our ratings differ significantly from other rating sites. Springee (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being many discretionary gray areas. You're the only one confusing the color scheme with weight. Weight has to do with how much a specific piece of information appears in the source record as a whole for that topic. Articles only reflect the weight of reliable sources. More prominent and distinguished sources, like academic papers, are given more weight. Unreliable sources don't count toward weight. If marginally reliable sources are determined to be reliable in a specific case, they would count toward weight in that case, but maybe not as much if editors have a consensus that it should be given less weight. Some marginally reliable sources in some contexts might be determined to be unreliable in that context, and wouldn't count toward weight. Opinions, even from RS, should be attributed appropriately. And it's been said before that AdFontes Media, MBFC, Newsguard, etc and so on are not considered RS and should not be used to gauge reliability on Wikipedia. Remember, reliability is not a measure of partisan lean or bias or political position. It's a measure of factual accuracy and integrity as a source for information. Andre🚐 04:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I think you have decided that if a source isn't green it can't have weight hence why editors my think that some people view color as an indication of weight as well. Also, there is the issue that yellow sources can be RSs and thus can have weight in an article. Also, you are confusing RS for use in articles with sources that can help establish the reliability/weight of a source when having a talk page discussion. AdFontes shouldn't be used as a RS even if their method is sound as they are a primary source. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't consider them in discussions like this. What it means is we should not include their ratings or findings in an article about a source. Thus the NYT article shouldn't say "According to MBFC the NYT is a strong source for news with a rating of X". Nothing says they shouldn't be used to help gauge reliability on Wikipedia. Also, reliability and partisan lean is rarely independent of reliability as our most reliable sources typically only report, not interpret facts. The scores for last weekend's ball games are very factual and also very bias free. A source that has a strong spin on the facts may use "true" facts but the bias may still make them a poor source as they can be "factually true" yet avoid important context. Anyway, I understand your position on the subject. Springee (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As I just said in my previous message, contrary to your mischaracterization of my position, If marginally reliable sources are determined to be reliable in a specific case, they would count toward weight in that case. The AdFontes and MBFC stuff is not usable for determining whether a source is reliable on these discussion pages, by community consensus. Andre🚐 04:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Where is this community consensus you claim exists regarding using external rating sites to help establish the reliability of sources for Wikipedia? That may have some impact on the Fox News discussion as Newsguard's rating is mentioned as a reason to downgrade Fox News. Springee (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Newsguard was discussed recently on the board, but not perennially, and it's not a significant argument in the Fox RFC. Both WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES have been added to WP:RSP. There's even a warning on Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard "Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), as it is not a reliable source." Andre🚐 04:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it says don't based a RSN rating solely on MBFC or presumably on any other external rating site. It does not say such information can not be considered. If we take it literally it only says MBFC can't be the only basis for a rating. I saw you just added a WP:ADFONTES link[173]. It is worth noting that that entry says not reliable for article level content, not for talk pages. The discussions basically say because it's a primary source we can't use it's ratings in the article space. Talk pages allow OR and the use of those sources to help editors understand various sources certainly is allowed. Basically you are taking something that is true but applying it in a way that isn't true to the actual consensus. Springee (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an RS, it's a self-published source, and the methodology is opaque or dubious. You're allowed to bring it up, and I'm allowed to say that it doesn't count for much if anything. It's a weak argument for reason editors generally agree on. If you had reliable information in reliable sources like Politifact that would be worth bringing up. Andre🚐 05:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, per wp:RS it is not a RS because it is self published. That is what I've already said. Politifact is an interesting source, I recall you were very enthusiastic about it even though it is often flawed. I can think of several cases where they have argued to a conclusion rather than exploring what range of outcomes the facts support. Thus while I would be OK using Politifact as a RS for say a statement by a politician, I would be concerned if we used it to say or even imply the claim was true or false. I have considered opening a RSN discussion about using the "true/false" opinions expressed by sources like PF [174]. Anyway, this back and forth is becoming very repetitive. Springee (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Politifact has a Pulitzer and is backed by the most reliable name in modern journalism, MBFC is an internet blog with no credibility or backing. Those things are not the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones got a Pulitzer for Pinto Madness yet time has found that the article was mostly crap. PF had to play games when they claimed things like "it was legal for Rittenhouse to have the gun" was false only to have the judge say it was true. A number of articles, including academic ones, have come out criticizing the whole concept of fact checking because so often the fact checkers take a complex issue or set of facts that could support a range of conclusions then state "X is false" as if it were the only possible outcome. But that really is a topic for another thread. Springee (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And this makes a shit tier political blog relevant how? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin was considered reliable for facts but with the caveat that it is biased and partisan, and should be used attributed for opinions. Except in practice, what happens with all green RSP sources is that their opinions then get latched onto and claimed as fact by some editors because they appeared in a green source. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Re. process: I don't follow RSN so I probably looked at this because someone requested a close/reclose at AN. There is nothing special about archive pages, they're just a technical workaround to stop talk pages getting too long, and there's nothing stopping anyone editing them. Similarly we're not a legal system and there's nothing special about closing a discussion that means it would have to happen at a particular time or place, or be seen by X number of people. If a discussion has reached a consensus, that consensus doesn't change because it's moved to an archive page.

Re. the close: it's been six months so I don't remember the details of this discussion. I can see I left a fairly lengthy summary so please refer to that if anything's unclear. Since it's been so long, I'd recommend starting a new discussion on the reliability of Jacobin if you're not satisfied with the outcome. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't care as much about the content of the close myself, but closing in an archive seems like a bad idea for the simple reason that closures (especially consequential ones) should be performed where the participants [or anyone, really] will see it. A simple unarchive or even a note saying "I closed it over there" would suffice, I guess. Is this actually common? Yikes. Guess it's a discussion for WP:RFC more than here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would've thought that the important thing is that people see the result of the discussion, not the particular edit that closed it. In this case I updated WP:RSP, presumably a highly-watched page, with a link to the discussion. I also left a note on the (unarchived) RSP talk page where the original close had been discussed. And of course it was visible on AN, where a new close had been requested. I think Springee is rather overstating how 'hidden' this was. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We used to have a clear statement on WP:AATP: "Given that talk pages are immutable, archiving a discussion ends that particular discussion." Unfortunately Jay removed it on 6 February 2022, see the thread Editing archives. A suggestion was made that something should be explicit in the guideline, see "Editing talk page guidelines", but that was not successful. Of course the top of WP:RSN archive pages says "Do not edit the contents of this page" due to the talk page navigation template of the automatic archive navigator, but again, alas, it is not a guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now THAT I don't like... But thats a behavioral not an RS issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a RS issue if the closing avoids review because it was done out of sight. Note that I do not think this was an intentional action, rather an unfortunate side effect of an expedient edit. Springee (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually have an issue with closing discussions post-archive, but thats a separate discussion which doesn't specifically apply to RS but to all pages which are archived. I do have a big issue with someone appearing to tailor our community standards to fit their own editing patterns, now maybe thats not what happened here but if there is problematic behavior thats where I see it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see how this can be viewed as separate issues. I think you are saying if the closing were uncontroversial there still is a possible concern related to editing an archive. The other part sounds like something that perhaps should be raised on a user talk page rather than here. Springee (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can't find any real grounds to take issue with the close itself beyond that it happened in an archive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I've looked back through the archives, I can see that I noted my re-close in the summary of my edit to WP:RSP, at the discussion about the first close at WT:RSP, and at WP:AN (where the first close had just been overturned). So I think "done out of sight" is a bit of an exaggeration. – Joe (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a fair comment about "out of site" though this noticeboard is where the discussion occurred and it wasn't notified. Normally there is no need to notify editors here since the change would occur here. Springee (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: When you say "unfortunately", does it mean you are in favour of talk page archives being immutable? WP:AATP is a how-to guide. With regards to what can and cannot be done to talk pages, the guideline would be WP:TALK. Establishing at WP:AATP an idea that talk archives are immutable, using the words Given that, when there was no such mention at WP:TALK or anywhere else, was out of place, and there was no basis found for it. Jay 💬 08:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Jay Yes I am in favour of talk pages being immutable, although after re-reading the WP:AN thread Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments I think there would be proposals about possible exceptions. I agree that the guideline should be WP:TALK, which is why I referred to the earlier thread about changing it, but I see that instead Rhododendrites has started a thread on the WP:RFC talk page RfC closures after archiving. Does anyone else think changing WP:TALK would be more appropriate? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Along with the questions in my subsection below, I think this is an important question. I think it makes more sense to address this at WP:TALK vs RFC because a TALK based solution could apply to RfCs as well as other cases where edits are needed. Springee (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is appropriate at the RFC talk. RFC is one kind of talk page, and what is applicable to RFC may or may not be applicable to other kinds of talk pages. My opinion is that any discussion that has been closed officially (by an admin or non-admin) and archived, should not be modified. However, changing the outcome of the close using a new thread by providing a reference should be possible. Jay 💬 09:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion about that also points out that the current (green) listing for Reason does not remotely reflect the most recent discussion. (You yourself opined for option 2 there, which usually corresponds to yellow - as did basically everyone except one person!) We should probably update it to yellow or hold a proper RFC; there's definitely no consensus there to list Reason as green right now. I think the comparison between the two made there is reasonable, beyond that; they're both strident sources for their respective view points, though I would argue that Jacobin clearly has a stronger reputation in the sense of "if you're going to cite someone to represent this perspective, cite them." Certainly I don't think it's credible to argue that we could list Reason as green and Jacobin as yellow given their respective reputations and prominence; either we go by that standard of "if you're going to use a source for this opinion, use them" appropriate to high-quality WP:BIASED publications and list both as green, or we focus on the lack of distinction between reporting and opinion, and list both as yellow. But the arguments made in the two discussions don't seem compatible. (Especially since, at a glance, the one person who argued outright that Reason was reliable in the previous RFC on it was the one who originally tried to close the Jacobin discussion? Someone who is clearly WP:INVOLVED in the reliability of AP2 publications shouldn't be making NACs. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you wish to argue around Reason then perhaps a separate thread about it makes sense. The question here relates to the closing of the Jacobin RfC. There is some merit to your argument that both are partisan though Adfontes suggests the level of bias is different. Reason is mildly into the Skews Right category while Jacobin is listed as hyper-partisan left. Jacobin is just 12 years old while Reason is over 50. But they are similar in that both use a lot of fact+analysis articles rather than strict fact reporting. Perhaps in both cases we need to clarify what yellow and green really should mean. While Jacobin doesn't have a strong history like Reason has, they both are producing a similar type, if not quality, content. Springee (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps I can turn this question back on you. How do you think we should rate a source has a lot of analysis based on factually correct information? Should we generally call those "reliable" or "considerations apply"? How would we decide when to include or what to include in an article? Even if I don't agree that Reason and Jacobin are left right mirrors of each other, let's assume they are for the moment. How should they be rated in general? Springee (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we could do with less reliance on strident opinion-based or overt-ideological-advocacy sources in general, so I would be fine with both being yellow. (Since you !voted for #2 on Reason's last RFC, I suspect you roughly agree, even if we disagree about the relative reputations and partisanship of each; and obviously I wouldn't have raised the question of their similarity if I felt otherwise.) The purpose of such sources is to let us cite relevant opinions within a broad strand of thought via publications that are clearly-established, respected advocates for their respective ideologies. (And I do think that Jacobin is well-established in at least that respect, though that argument should probably wait for / when if we have another RFC.) I don't put much weight in AdFonte's opinion of them because to me that is just AdFonte weighing the positions of socialism vs. right-libertarianism in terms of "radicalness", which isn't meaningful to us and isn't really what we mean by "bias" - if we were to assess them for "biased-ness" both would score 100% bias because they exist entirely to advocate a particular political position. That is to say, Jacobin being further left than Reason is right (already a complicated topic to discuss, but something we could reasonably concede for certain definitions of "left" and "right") doesn't mean that one is more biased than the other. Neither should ever be cited without attribution, ideally with attribution that makes their bias clear (although for Jacobin it's, well, in the name.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Aquillion, but if you're going to cast aspersions with respect to involvement this far after the fact you might as well ping me to let me know this is being discussed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What? You were notified of the discussion at the time; you declined to respond there then, and your closure was overturned without your input - near-unanimously, in part because of your involvement, with the one objection being procedural due to its age. Not a single person who weighed in believed your close was appropriate. This isn't WP:ANI; no one is seeking any sanctions against you here. I considered poking you but decided that constantly bothering someone about their past mistakes every time it comes up is rude. But you can't bow out of a discussion on a closure you made, then take objection after the fact when someone summarizes it in a way you don't like - your closure was a mistake, and I was merely stating the conclusion reached when your closure was overturned - I assumed you accepted and recognized that after it was closed, and wouldn't be closing such RFCs going forwards. If you refuse to accept the near-unanimous ANI conclusion at the time that it was a bad close, or if you somehow still hold to the belief that you could close similar RFCs in a similar fashion in the future, then yes, that's a problem and we ought to take it to ANI to hash it out more thoroughly. Obviously someone knee-deep in controversial disputes in a topic area and a clearly-defined opinion about it should not be closing RFCs related to that topic area, that goes without saying - editors are allowed to hold strong opinions, but the standard for a WP:NAC is higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad close - Option 1 got a minority, and not even a plurality, of votes, all well-reasoned, but it gets listed as green? Really?
  This whole thing is evidence the whole RSN/RSP popularity contest, ahem, system needs massive reform. Is there no left-wing magazine too tendentious to slap a shiny green label on it? Meanwhile, any right-leaning (or perceived right-leaning like Reason) outlets that even allow a tiny bit of opinion to sneak in get slammed for it. Pushing academically marginal views in economics is totally fine for "attributed opinion", but other outlets better not dare say a single word against Covid- or gender-related policy. I wouldn't even care that right-wing opinionated outlets get junked if RSP was fair to all sides about it, but the double-standards are beyond obvious at this point. Sometimes mixing fact and opinion and being out of step with academic consensus is okay and sometimes it isn't I guess. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• What are you basing "minority" on? By my count there are 14 votes that endorse option 1 as an option, which is a majority of all votes cast. Normally 1/2 style votes mean 'either is acceptable' and are counted towards whichever would get to a majority that way, but either way, unless I drastically miscounted somehow, there's no plausible way to argue that it failed to get a plurality. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Since several people !voted at 1/2 I double counted those !votes which as a total of 5. I also only counted bold !votes. I got 18, 19 and 5 for options 1, 2 and 3 respectively which includes 5 of the 1/2 votes counted for both option 1 and 2 tallies. Even if you counted all the 1/2 !votes as 1 the "not 1" combination of 2/3 has a slight majority. However, I think it would be better to ask how we should generally handle questions like this where we feel a source providing commentary with a bias but no evidence that the facts that support that analysis are wrong. Do we say "reliable" but be careful to separate reported facts from the "analysis/commentary"? If yes then call it green and the closing is OK. Springee (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad close. The fact of the matter is that there was no consensus in that discussion, and there was certainly not consensus that the source was WP:GREL. That being said, the proper place to appeal a bad close is WP:AN, not WP:RSN, so it may be best for an admin to move this conversation there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I do apologize for bugging you about this when we just hashed it out above, but feel that it needs to be said: Unless I am completely mixing up the timeline of events, you previously closed this precise RFC with a strong consensus that it was marginally reliable, which is the opposite of there being no consensus. Has your opinion changed? Do you feel your previous close was in error? Were you simply misinterpreted? --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The rationale for the previous close (i.e. "strong consensus") was in error and was not an accurate description of that discussion, and it is a close I regret making for that reason. That is quite different than your comment in that close challenge accusing me of being some sort of ideological agent hell-bent on deprecating sources only with a particular political lean, which is something I take umbrage with, as well as the characterization that my editing about Uyghur genocide is somehow right-wing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close, FWIW. The numerical tilt of !votes comes into play when arguments are of similar strength; in this case they were not. When a source meets our basic guidelines for reliability (independence, editorial oversight, reputation for fact-checking) then those calling for an "unreliable" classification need to provide empirical evidence for unreliability, and lacking this a lot of such !votes can and should be set aside. The close was quite correct. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad close it did not get enough support to consider this controversial source as reliable. They are beyond simply "opinionated" in terms of their socialist leanings, and there was not consensus to overcome that and consider them "generally reliable". Bill Williams 23:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad Close. Based on the close, both the numerical majority of participants and the balance of arguments agreed that it is generally trustworthy and factually accurate, despite option 1 got a minority, and numerically a generally reliable close isn't the best. The option 1 side IMHO seems to be slightly stronger than the option 2 or option 3 votes, the latter are also perfectly reasonable, pointing out that Jacobin frequently cite refs we designate generally unreliable, are mostly ignored. IMHO, the close, while decently nuanced overall, ignores the Option 3 votes. This should be overturned as no consensus, IMHO. I also feel the RSP entry's wording is also more inaccurate, stating that there's consensus that Jacobin is reliable with bias as just a caveat (not an additional consideraiton) that will turn the entry into marginally reliable: Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others' in the close. VickKiang (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close without prejudice against another RFC (which is probably the correct way to handle this.) By my reading, option 1 was supported by a majority of the people there. Furthermore, most of the arguments for options 2 or 3 are weak - people argued that it should be downgraded because it is WP:BIASED or because it expresses views they consider fringe. But (at least currently) bias alone is not a reason to downgrade a source; you have to demonstrate that that bias actually impacts their reliability. That's the whole reason why eg. when discussing Fox News above I went to such great lengths to detail the fact that their bias has actually led to them regularly publishing misinformation. Similarly, while some editors may personally consider Jacobin to be on the fringes of political discourse, the extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS demonstrated in that discussion shows that it is not as fringe as they believe. Regional bias also plays a role; socialism might not be a mainstream political force in America (although its influence in recent Democratic politics makes it hard to call it fully WP:FRINGE even in that context), but it is treated as a fully-respectable viewpoint worldwide and in much of academia. It is often a minority opinion, which has to be considered when evaluating WP:DUE weight, but there is a huge gap between an opinion being minority and it being so clearly rejected by mainstream sources that it can be considered WP:FRINGE and any source that advocates for it summarily dismissed. The arguments against it were both weak and in the numerical minority, while the arguments for it were strong. As I implied in that discussion and stated more unambiguously here, I would be willing to agree that sufficiently WP:BIASED sources should be downgraded to yellow, but this would have to be applied evenhandedly; currently it is clearly-established that a source that is broadly accurate but clearly WP:BIASED gets a green rating. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Please stop the bolded !votes, because this is not the venue for a close challenge. It's not too late to take this to WP:AN, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This isn't useless bureaucracy either: putting it in the right place means uninvolved editors/admin with experience in evaluating closure and close reviews can participate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

How should we handle sources that are heavy on commentary?

Looking at the discussion above something that seems to have come out is that we aren't sure how to handle sources that are commentary based on facts vs factual reporting. This is partially a RS issue and I think it's made worse by the bucketing that's been applied at RSP. I see several issues mixing.

1. When does RSOPINION apply? Does it apply to the whole article or just subjective claims in the article? I think it's well established article labeled "opinion" are treated as unreliable but I believe that was based on a presumption that opinion articles are not subject to editorial review the way a traditional news paper story would be. Does that apply with sources that are heavy on commentary/analysis? I think the presumption is the editors at such sources still make sure the article's are subject to editorial quality standard.

2. How should these sources be generally rated in RSP? Are they green because they are generally reliable for the facts they include or yellow to warn editors to be careful to separate the reporting of facts from the commentary/analysis mixed in the same article. Is this a case of "marginally reliable" for all content or "reliable for the facts, attribute the analysis/commentary"? I think this is part of the confusion with the closing above. A plurality of editors seemed to feel this mixed fact+analysis model would fall into a "considerations apply" bucket. Presumably as a warning to others to be careful when using the source to separate analysis from basic factual claims. The closing editor, not without reason, interpreted that as, "is reliable for facts and thus should be green" (my apologies to Joe for a gross simplification of a much longer close).

3. Should the sources be treated differently in terms of weight based on that color coding? If the source makes a factual claim ("The Example Group released a statement refuting the proposal") would editors assign more or less weight to the statement based on the RSP color coding? Should they?

I think answering the above questions is probably a more effective way of addressing both a closing that, on its surface, doesn't reflect the consensus/non-consensus of the group but perhaps does point to where we should be going with sources as well as highlighting the issues that caused the confusion in the first place. Hopefully answers to the above questions will result in the closing and subsequent use of the source falling nicely into place. I think the RfC closing inside of the archive as a general practice is probably not a RSN topic. Springee (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mixing fact and opinion in sources is bit of a trend, I think, not just Jacobin. I voted 2 in the RFC because of that although I really want to vote 1 and 1/2. It can be taken care of with commentary in the final listing but still leaves a decision whether it is closer to 1 or to 2. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of the trend is RS mixing fact and opinion more or just being more honest/transparent about what is a fact and what is an opinion. Journalism has always contained a dash of opinion, perfect objectivity is not something mortals are actually capable of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the sources need to be more clear or we as editors need to be more clear? I personally think editors should be more clear. We should also be careful not to conflate an opinion within a analysis article with an OpEd. The difference as I see it is the analysis article is still subject to editorial review and represents "the views of the source" while an OpEd implies it is the opinion of it's author alone. So an OpEd in a RS would generally be treated like a self published claim (factual or otherwise). Commentary/analysis in a source not called "OpEd/opinion" is presumed to have gone through an editorial process that verifies factual claims and that the analysis/subjective claims reasonably fall from the facts presented. A subjective statement inside of a analysis article would be treated to RSOPINION but does not make the whole of the article OpEd/opinion. If Reason said, "it was a mistake to remove this amendment from a bill that passed 60:40" then we can treat that the amendment was removed and the bill passed as fact. That is was a mistake to remove the amendment would be a RSopinion. If we have another source that says "it was good to remove this amendment" then, per NPOV, we might want to include something like "Reason said the removal was a mistake". I think such a clarification would help deal with some of the debate/arguments around if a source should be yellow or green. It also might help to break some of the implied linkage between source color and assumed weight (yet another open topic). Springee (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing that wall of text, whats the single sentence version? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Attribute opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I like that and its my understanding thats what we already do. For example from the sentence "He killed eight people in the span of a decade, each crime was more heinous than the last" (Source: CNN) I could pull out how many people and over what span without in-text attribution but if I was pulling the second part I would say According to CNN "each crime was more heinous than the last" because its an opinion not a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we generally do it when dealing with generally factual sources but many times people will claim undisputed facts within a commentary source are not due because the source is "opinion". Springee (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, you should not be using the facts contained in a commentary piece. It doesn't go both ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I do not agree with that. We don't use facts in OpEd articles because they are presumed to have not been subjected to an editorial fact checking standard. However, an article that contains both facts and commentary should be presumed good for facts if the parent source is good. The problem with saying "commentary article"=not OK for facts is where is the line between commentary and factual reporting? Do we automatically assume a Washington Post article is "factual reporting" even if its mix of commentary/fact is the same as an article in The Atlantic or Reason? What is the appropriate mix? Is 50% the cut off? Do we say an article with 49% commentary is good for facts but 51% commentary is not? Springee (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you repeatedly want to excise the gray areas and insert bright lines. This isn't a bright line thing. It's not a slippery slope. It's by its nature a discretionary, case-by-case, context dependent situation. A NY Times op-ed comes from a reliable source but if it's an opinion piece, it may not be reliable or appropriate to include for controversial statements. Reason is a source with some caveats, and by all means start a new RFC for Jacobin. I'd probably be totally fine with a yellow for Jacobin and Reason alike. That's not the point though. The point is we need to use our judgment for sources, and the policies and guidelines intentionally outline statements in a way that must be interpreted by a consensus of editors depending on the specific situation. Andre🚐 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to avoid the bright lines others try to selectively apply. So I ask again, if we are going to say commentary articles are not good for facts but reporting articles are, how would you suggest we decide if an article is commentary or reporting if it has a mix of both? Springee (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're selectively applying it, it's not a bright line! A bright line means it's a line in the sand. A clear-cut thing. What I'm saying is that it depends on the situation. The criteria are varied. Any given article may or may not be, we have to look at it, and describe how it looks, and use our judgment. Andre🚐 21:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is getting confused. You are arguing for a line in the sand "commentary=opinion" but you can't tell us how to tell the difference. Springee (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you are confused. I am saying it is not a line. It depends. Andre🚐 23:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But above you agreed that we should use facts from a commentary article. That is a line in the sand. So how do we decide when something is a commentary article other that "it presents a letter I don't want in the article thus it's commentary"? Springee (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Edit: I think a "n't" got left out of my phone based entry, "...that we shouldn't use...", see my comment below. Springee (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

To which statement of mine did you attribute that misapprehension, that I made any sort of a categorical generalization? And given there may exist some situations where it is perfectly acceptable to cite a fact to an outlet such as Reason or Jacobin, what part of use discretion for controversial statements and attribute opinions is a line in the sand? Here's an example of a fact to cite to a reliable, but biased source: Joey Schmo was 38 years old and consumed 635 blueberries per day. Here is an example of something that you should not cite: Joey Schmo's out of control blueberry habit is fiscally irresponsible. If it's controversial or something that only appears in opinion sources, consider whether it is simple information, or something with political import. Andre🚐 00:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a phone entry and I think I meant "shouldn't use" which would align with the position you have taken with respect to Reason in this discussion [175]. But it looks like we do have an area of agreement. I would agree that if a "commentary article" that goes through a source's normal editorial process talks about Mr Schmo's diet then the statements of fact should be treated as reliable while the statements of commentary would be case by case and would need attribution. My argument is this basically should be true for most sources. It shouldn't matter if it's the NYT or Reason or Jacobin. Presumably a NYT article is going to have a greater percentage of factual information or is more likely to quote a 3rd party expert for additional information but if it includes a mix we should handle each information type consistently. The follow up RSP question is do we take "yellow - considerations apply" to be a sort of warning to be careful of the relatively high level of commentary vs facts or do we say "green" because we trust the facts even though there is a lot of commentary. I don't know but that was one of the things I was hoping we would answer here. Springee (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an WP: IMPARTIAL problem. Overemphasis on facts from commentary sources skews articles into being part of the dispute instead of describing disputes. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Op-eds and partisan sources shouldn't count as much toward the balance of whether something is reflected in weight. Andre🚐 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

When you say facts are not due in this context, Springee, I think you are eluding two different things. We have two separate principles here: editorial content is not reliable for facts, and editorial content does not contribute to DUE inclusion of anything (only the standing of the publication or expert authoring an editorial can make its content DUE).

Personally, I have some reservations about the second thing - I would rather some ed and op-ed content be allowed to contribute to the WEIGHT of various arguments and points. But the idea that essentially polemical content can be relied on to document factual claims seems implausible under any circumstances. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that editorials should convey more that zero weight. If many editorials from major sources call for the same thing we should probably consider that some measure of weight. Springee (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree on that last bit, respectfully, and I don't think that's how it works right now. I believe Newimpartial is correct that editorial content does not contribute to DUE inclusion of anything (only the standing of the publication or expert authoring an editorial can make its content DUE Andre🚐 21:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Take another look at what I said, I was agreeing with Newimpartial with respect to what we think it should be, not what it is now. Springee (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, recognize and attribute opinion that appears outside of "opinion/editorial" articles/sources. Unless the article is marked as "opinion/editorial" assume factual claims are reliable as the source publication. Don't assume factually reliable = DUE for inclusion. Do not assume that RSP_green = DUE for inclusion or that RSP_yellow = UNDUE. Springee (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether something is an opinion piece is not solely determined by whether it is marked "op-ed" clearly. Some things are apparently opinion pieces when written by a biased outlet and when they make claims that are extravagant or particularly untethered to any kind of gravity. A consensus of editors may determine that some sources are essentially advocacy magazines which also write some news and meaningful factual journalism pieces. You have to tell the difference. Andre🚐 21:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that outlets of this exact sort are treated differently based on political POV. It is very common for editors to use left-wing advocacy magazines to support even contentious WP:LABELs, while right-wing advocacy magazines are typically marked GUNREL or worse and systematically removed from articles because of their bias. If it was up to me all advocacy magazines would be purged, but at the very least treatment must be politically neutral (and not in the sense of 'my own political beliefs are correct therefore sources that agree with it are reliable and others are not'). Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to provide an example as to this usage of left-wing advocacy magazines. I don't think I've ever used Jacobin to cite something on Wikipedia though I do read it occasionally. Andre🚐 00:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I find it ironic to say that an OpEd does not have editorial oversight when an OpEds are written by the very people who would be in charge of editorial oversight… ie editors.

Anyway… the key to any opinion journalism is attribution. Who wrote the piece (whether an Editor, a columnist, or a staff journalist) is vital to determining its reliability. If it contains analysis, we (and the reader) need to know who the analyst was. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's really not true. The contributing editors or the op-ed page writers are different people from the newsroom in most WP:NEWSORGs. Andre🚐 21:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but the current system isn't working. Up this very page in the Fox News RfC, we have people arguing to downgrade on the basis that its strong bias leads it to engage in selective choice of facts to push a partisan narrative. This is separate from the arguments over reliability of facts themselves. The same points came up over and over again in discussions to mark as red or deprecate other right-wing opinionated sources. Well, is it okay for a source to have a strong political bias and possibly selectively use only certain facts to push a political POV or not? Jacobin is at least as committed to socialism as Fox News to conservatism (the latter still tries to claim it's neutral while the former outright says their purpose is to promote socialism). Is it okay to promote views marginal in academia or not? Economics and public health are both academic fields involving human well-being. A socialist would say that mainstream economics is corrupted by political bias of its researchers, which is exactly what a conservative would say about public health. Is a source valuable for attribution of a significant political philosophy or not? Socialism and conservatism are both major political philosophies (arguably the latter is much more popular, but anyway). So far it looks to me like the de facto approach is "if left wing yes, if right wing no", which is simply not acceptable. So Wikipedia needs to answer, in a politically neutral way, whether explicitly serving a political POV is or is not a problem, among other related questions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Somehow, Crossroads, I had formed the impression that you were opposed to WP:OR on WP Talk pages. Clearly I was mistaken. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I oppose attempts on article talk pages to add OR to articles; the whole purpose of this board is evaluating sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently evaluating for you means make entirely unsubstantiated assertions and generalizations about. It seems that I'll have to expand my glossary. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can show, on the level of the evidence for Fox News, that Jacobin has distorted and intentionally misled their readers with false statements to support their politics, I will gladly !vote to downgrade or deprecate Jacobin. I'm probably a little more moderate than Jacobin and I tend to regard them as a bit hysterical at times, but I agree with a good portion of their politics on certain issues. Still, it doesn't matter what their lean is, if they had such a horrendous and atrocious record for fact-checking as the Daily Mail, I'd deprecate them in a heartbeat regardless of how their politics are. But it's always been whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without any evidence. Andre🚐 21:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• As numerous people explained above, the issue with Fox is not that it is WP:BIASED (although I do think that, as a separate issue, people tend to use it without attribution that makes its bias clear, as WP:BIASED requires.) The issue is that it consistently publishes outright misinformation in the direction of that bias, and has significant amounts of high-quality secondary coverage supporting that. Additionally, while you argue that Fox's attempts to claim it is neutral are to its favor, the opposite is true - one key aspect of a WP:RS is that it maintains a clear separation between fact and opinion. When a source like Fox publishes opinions disguised as fact, that is a much more serious problem (and poses far more problems for its overall reliability) than a source like Reason or Jacobin that tells you where it is coming from openly. Anyway, there's no purpose to re-hashing the entire Fox RFC here, but you can see citations for Fox's history of publishing misinformation in my comment in that RFC above, as well as many others. You can, if you want, disagree with numerous citations that describe the constant misinformation produced by Fox, but it isn't appropriate to misrepresent the arguments people are making for its deprecation - people believe it should be deprecated not simply because it is biased but because it regularly publishes deliberate lies in the service of its bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Some could make the argument that claiming to be unbiased motivates them to keep from being so biased that it's undeniable, but I myself am more sympathetic to what you say here - better to be upfront about bias and (hopefully) still be reliable about facts.

Yes, I know the factual accuracy and bias are separate matters, but at least some people are arguing against Fox on the basis of the latter. For example: "If [X] is saying something other sources aren't, I believe it's almost always because it's trying to push the public conversation in a partisan, non-expert led direction." Well, is this a reason to downgrade a source or not? Currently the Wikipedia community is politically inconsistent about this, which is a huge problem. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A larger puzzle that we need to solve, nothing related to even the liberal/conservative axis of thought, is that we tend to write articles using a lot of commentary drawn from sources near an event, with WP editors being the ones to piecemeal individual and distinct thoughts should be written about. Now, if we were talking something like movie reviews, where there is a fixed number of sources respected for their reviews every time and its just a matter of trying to assemble that narrative from those well-established sources, that's fine. An equivalent idea would be the SPLC which we have deemed as an expert source regarding hate speech but still require their classifications to be attributed as opinion. But the problem that commentary comes up in is when we art trying to construct a reactions or analysis section for a topic based on so many different points of view from a wide array of sources, some which may be typical for that topic and others atypical. And this is where when we get caught up in looking at too many individual viewpoints and trying to decide who are suddenly experts in this topic area, rather than doing the work of WEIGHT and DUE as to try to find what viewpoints are the most prevalent, who are recognized as past experts in the topic area, and present selected commentary on those, and leaving aside the individual thoughts from other articles barring when secondary sources bring those opinions into play. So we end up with editors nit-picking individual sources rather than doing the WEIGHT work to figure out the bigger trends.

That's why commentary is a very tricky thing to try to add when RECENTISM is present. It becomes far easier in time to be able to use other sources to establish what commentary at the time things happened was the most dominant, and avoids a lot of the hassle and disruption between WP editors when trying to figure out what commentary to use when the event is still fresh. Masem (t) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to gauging of sources for Wp:Ver purposes, IMO the "grand unified fix" has two parts:

• The more controversial or questioned the article text is, the stronger the sourcing that is required. And vice versa.
• The strength of the sourcing is measured by expertise and objectivity with respect to the text/item which cited it

This leaves things that require discussion, but we already have that anyway on wiki-lawyering angles and at least the discussion would shift to actual relevant reliability areas.

So the above is for wp:ver purposes for sources. I don't yet have the "grand unified fix" for source use in Wp:NPOV especially in wp:weight.  :-)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Grimdark Magazine

Is Grimdark Magazine an RS? Link here, seems to have an about us page, and review guidelines (is this editorial policies?) I couldn't find previous RSN entries discussing this, a specific WikiProject might classified this, though I'm unsure. I've came across this ref twice while patrolling The Fiends of Nightmaria and The God is Not Willing. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a quite well run fanzine. I think it would be reliable for the opinions of the writers, but wouldn't be useful for establishing notability. I'm not sure whether any of the writers' opinions should be included in any given article either, if any of them are regularly published in better sources, then maybe. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That's certainly helpful, I'll assume that this doesn't help with notability. VickKiang (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just some guy, but I wouldn't use it in a notability discussion personally.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is NYT report reliable for feminist support to chemical castration in Pakistan

Journalist Zia ur-Rehman in NYT March 6, 2022 writes:

".. The Aurat (women) marchers have claimed victories. .. .. The government has also passed a measure allowing the chemical castration of convicted rapists, another demand of the marchers. .."

To best of my knowledge, actually feminist opinion in Pakistan on chemical castration was exactly opposite.

For example leading Pakistan English Dawn (newspaper) March 8, 2022 reports ".. The Lahore chapter also advocates structural reforms that prevent patriarchal violence rather than short-term solutions such as capital punishment and chemical castration. .."

So can above mentioned statement in NYT report be used to suggest feminist support to chemical castration in Pakistan?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, example, stating that the Lahore chapter does not approve of cc as a remedy. I did not find anything relating to cc in the demands of the other two chapters so it is possible that the NYT report refers to demands from them. What I would do in the absence of further evidence that NYT is wrong, is cite the NYT as saying what they say but also cite the sources saying that is not the position of the Lahore chapter. Chasing down the positions of the other two chapters if that is possible, would resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this the right venue for this question? The New York Times is accepted as a reliable source. The question appears to be either about the interpretation of the report or the accuracy of what is reported. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm confused by how we get from marchers to feminists in general, there may be a lot of generalized overlap between those two categories but NYT attributing something to the marchers is not the same as attributing them to feminists writ large unless theres something I'm missing here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

False statements in WP:Patents

"Government patent authorities, however, do not fact-check, edit or endorse any material in the patent application. "

The priority (at least in the country of patent office) was fact checked, and after that the patent was granted. Sometimes a patent was granted by US. patent office only after long-long years passed. MAybe it changed in recent years, but many decades ago, itself the fact-checking caused many, many years of delay between submission and patent granting. Old patents were fact-checked and priority checked at least in the country of the patent office. It is especially important info regarding older inventions--Peddigsten (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what that means is that (say) the patent office does not check that a patent will actually work, or be founded upon sound principles. Or (now I know what this is about) for statements not actually in the patent (such as claims of what it shows). Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Here’s one of many patents for a perpetual motion machine, which has been published (the fancy term for "if you infringe after that date I can sue you"). Apparently things got so out of hand that the UK patent office specifically added a clause stating that perpetual motion machines would not be patented without a working prototype. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note as well wp:v, a source has to actually say it, with words. How you interpret it is not wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, interpreting patents should be left to experts. They are complex legal documents written in a specific form of technical language, for a specific purpose, and easily misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Religious fansites

Building on the above efforts in the military history space this is a collection of problematic fansites in the religion space

• Catholic.org [176](generally mistaken as being the Church itself, it is not [177]) with 500+ uses
• Newadvent.org [178] with 500+ uses
• Catholic-Hierarchy.org [179] with 500+ uses
• OrthodoxWiki.org [180] with 500+ uses
• catholicsaints.info [181] with 500+ uses
• sacred-texts.com [182] with 500+ uses

Certainly more but no reason we can't batch it out. All of these are clear and unambiguous fansites with a single person behind them except for OrthodoxWiki which is an open wiki although also a bit of a fansite. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

RFC (Religious fansites)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

How would you evaluate the reliability of the religious fansites above?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 for all* — I’m familiar with most of these, and there’s nothing reliable about them. They’re not reporting news or facts, and I’m pretty sure that’s not their goal. They are simply proselytizing. The insight they provide when they do mention real-world events is better reported from other sites that are reliable. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Do we really need RfCs for this kind of thing? Even more obviously than the military stuff: do not use. Ever. Bishonen | tålk 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC).

• The fact they are used so much, maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Admins have near zero willingness to block those who use these sorts of sources so unfortunately this is what we have to do, if they did their job properly we wouldn't have to but they don't and apparently never have. Thousands upon thousands of these were added by some shockingly old and well respected editors. (edit: I meant for this to come out light and cheeky but it comes out bitter and angry, and thats ok because I am bitter and angry about this... I'm happy to help clean the mess up, but I just can't shake the feeling that the mess should never have existed in the first place) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3:, They should not be used as they are SPS, but might be useable for a few facts (such as about themselves). Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will not reply regarding the substance because I run one of the sites in question. However, I did want to reference a previous RS discussion on Catholic-Hierarchy.org in hopes that it may aid the current discussion. Also I would be more than happy to answer any questions about my site. Dcheney (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix your ****ing links. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option Bishonen Why is this even a RfC? Do we really have to have a RfC for something like this? Springee (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• per Springee. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The websites above vary in quality and in the scope of their usability, so any single option for all of them is doomed to oversimplify things. In particular, New Advent serves as a repository of public domain editions of The Catholic Encyclopedia, contains the full text of the Summa Theologica, and otherwise is largely a verbatim compilation of public domain sources relating to saints and Church Fathers (including public domain translations of their writings). There is absolutely nothing problematic about using the source to point to these sorts of documents; we should strive to provide a weblink to the content that would otherwise need to be found in a print book. Framing New Advent as a mere "religious fansite" is misleading and would lead to around 8000 accessible links to public domain works (many of which have been incorporated into articles) being inappropriately deleted. This site is quite different than Orthodox Wiki (a clear case of WP:USERG), so I think that lumping all of these together leads to an incoherent and non-neutral RfC prompt. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"There is absolutely nothing problematic about using the source to point to these sorts of documents;" yes there is... You can't use documents which are held by unreliable sources the same way you would use those documents presented by a reliable source. There is no reason to use a fansite for a public domain document. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

University resources, including that of UC Santa Barbara's library and Oxford University's department of continuing education seem to give credence to the authenticity of the materials hosted on the website. And given that we are fully empowered to include links in our citations to that user-generated open wiki that is cite WikiSource, I'm not really sure where you're going with any sort of SPS-like argument. When citing primary source documents (or secondary source commentaries by Church fathers), we care about whether (1) the original source that we're citing is reliable and (2) whether or not the text that we're viewing is a faithful reproduction of the original source's content. It seems that New Advent has a reputation for faithfully reproducing public domain works, so I don't see why it's unreliable for the purposes it's used for. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are directories, they aren't endorsements from the universities of the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're particular about that, Concordia seems to include it on its theological studies research guide (multiple times actually). It's generally well-respected for faithfully reproducing public domain works and for serving as a basic reference work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

They do a lot more than host public domain works, all of those works are also held by actual WP:RS... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been able to gain access to a scholarly review of New Advent. With respect to the resource's suitability as a reference work, the source notes that its articles are straightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals with hyperlinks added and original citations maintained, though many images in the original encyclopedia are not online on the New Advent website. There were a few minor typographical errors in the website, but I don't think that the occasional typo in a massive transcription project is anywhere close to fatal here.

If you would like a copy, I'd be more than willing to email you one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the forest for the trees, amateur transcription projects are not WP:RS no matter their scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Does amateur transcription projects are not WP:RS no matter their scale apply to Wikisource as well? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, but keep in mind "Inclusion of text in Wikisource does not automatically justify mentioning of it in Wikipedia" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC (edit conflict) NewAdvent.org hosts public-domain material such as a transcription of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (link). In the early days of Wikipedia, editors imported material from the Catholic Encyclopedia en masse. It might be preferable to replace NewAdvent links with the corresponding Wikisource entries, but obviously we shouldn't deprecate the site. gnu57 15:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the problematic mass importing of material from a 1913 Encyclopedia supports your argument... Unless of course you meant to support my argument that competence was sorely lacking at one point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• What Springee says. The validity of sources needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and not because a Wikipedia contributor has decided to arbitrarily lump a few together with the label 'religious fansites'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI Springee's argument is "Option Bishonen" which is "Even more obviously than the military stuff: do not use. Ever." not "The validity of sources needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis" (its actually the exact opposite) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't 'the opposite'. It's a statement that we already have policies which assess sources on a case-by-case basis, and we don't need to create lists here, with arbitrary labels, to reject the obviously inappropriate. At least, I hope that is what Bishonen is suggesting - that we don't need RfCs to apply existing policy. If policy rejects the above sites (it may well do), the list achieves nothing, and if it doesn't, we shouldn't be lumping them together arbitrarily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, if the divine truth has been revealed the whole time what is the point of RSN? I don't mind breaking this into multiple RfCs, but it seems you would object to that as well. Also note that the reaction to this list has been a bit different from the reaction to the last list... Why do you think that is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My argument is that policy already exists. We don't need RfCs over whether to apply existing policy. As for the point of RSN, it is explained at the top of the noticeboard: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. An arbitrary list isn't a 'context'. I am well aware lately that there has been a trend recently towards using this noticeboard for the purpose of enacting blanket bans, but if we are going to do that, we at least need a discussion first over what the heck it is we are supposed to be banning. Which certainly shouldn't be based around a single contributors unexplained personal selection. What were the criteria for inclusion on this list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean this with all due respect, but I am not sure lumping these all together really helps. While I tend to agree that for me, they would all clearly fall into the unreliable category, that could in theory change, and I don't think the grouping has any particular utility. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The question being asked is whether they are reliable in any context except WP:ABOUTSELF... Isn't that generally the underlying question? If people didn't think they were reliable they wouldn't be using them, so their unreliability can't be *that* obvious Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If people are finding unreliability of these websites less than obvious, maybe we should be asking the question as to why, rather than trying to rectify the problem by concocting lists. We certainly aren't going to compile an exhaustive list of 'bad sources', and attempting to do so would be a humongous time-sink. Maybe we should instead think about what it is that Wikipedia does that encourages such poor sourcing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of what happens here that is a community conversation we need to have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC, as above - even calling them "fansites" is misguided and prejudiced. StAnselm (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend or misguide anyone... Besides for OrthodoxWiki.org which isn't unambiguously a fansite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad idea RFC Regarding actual reliability, any "result" here would be an overgeneralization. And to add to that, the "no such overgeneralization" option is not listed and thus slanted away from in the RFC. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Is an RfC warranted? Typically something being in use thousands of times indicates some people don't agree that they're obviously unreliable. That's typically a scenario where a discussion like this can be useful. Indeed, I've seen these sites argued for inclusion by experienced editors multiple times over the years, so it's hardly settled. Should they be combined? No, probably not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per above. Sources need to be evaluated individually, without prejudicial framing. And if they truly are "fansites," RSP doesn't need to be populated with them unless they've been especially problematic. GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per all of the above. The characterization of all of these as collectively "religious fansites" is highly problematic. --Jayron32 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Amateur sites like factsanddetails.com or TV sites like history.com

Surely a website written by one guy who occasionally uses Wikipedia and eyewitness accounts as sources is unacceptable for history articles here. [183]

Or the History channel? [184]

Someone can point out a higher standard than that right? 171.66.135.118 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• The two edits you link to were from the same editor (Danial Bass) on very different articles. I would also note that the first edit was reverted, and DB apologized for the sloppy sourcing in a subsequent edit summary (see that page history).

What do you want to achieve here? RSN is for determining whether sources are reliable, but you seem to already have an idea here. If you want to convince DB to change their ways of editing, asking them nicely on the talk page seems more likely to work than an oblique reference on a noticeboard where you did not ping them. If you want them sanctioned, you will have to make your case at the appropriate place and with much more evidence than a couple of small-mistake edits. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Heiko Krüger

Can The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis by Heiko Krüger be considered an unreliable and pro-Azerbaijani (and anti-Armenian) source?

Here are some issues with the source I've identified:

• Promotes Azerbaijani historical negationism theories about Caucasian Albania: "Leaving aside Karabakh’s affiliation in terms of sovereignty in the early centuries AD, there can be no doubt about the presence of ethnic Albanians in the region. After all the Albanian people also form the fulcrum around which the dispute over Karabakh’s early settlement history revolves. According to the Armenian perception of history, the Albanians were converted to Christianity and "Armenianized" at a very early stage, meaning that the Albanian settlement became part of Armenian settlement history. From the Azerbaijani perspective, the Albanians made up part of the Islamicized and “Turkicized” ancestors of the Azerbaijani people." (pg. 5) (Do I need to point out the disdainful tone Kruger has for Armenians? He uses it throughout the book.)
• (cont.): "Pro-Armenian sources nonetheless view all Christian historical architecture in Nagorno-Karabakh as evidence of the prevalence of the Armenian ethnic group. Viewed in the light of historic events alone, this interpretation appears to be untenable. The Albanian Church and culture must have played a distinctive role in Karabakh until the 19th century, otherwise there is no explanation as to why its dissolution and forced integration into the Armenian church was an important factor in Russia's power politics." (page 10)
• Justifying the Hamidian massacres: "...in the 1890s after the Armenian minority in Eastern Anatolia had attempted to attain independence via violent means. The consequence was mutual attacks by Armenians and Kurds." (pg. 10)
• One-sided account of the Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907: "Nourished by preferential Russian treatment and radicalisation amongst Armenians, as well as the emergence of a state of social underdevelopment and an exaggerated sense of threat amongst Azerbaijanis, the first significant interethnic acts of violence erupted in the Transcaucasian region. Some 100 Armenians and 200 Azerbaijanis died in violent skirmishes in Shusha and Gyandzha." (pg. 10-11)
• Trivializes the Sumgait pogrom as "events" and tries to justify it, promotes Azerbaijani conspiracy theories ("The KGB obviously organised acts of provocation within local conflicts across the Soviet Union to weaken the Gorbachev Administration"), and seems more interested in those darn Armenians getting the idea they are victims ("The events in Sumgait explosively kindled hatred amongst the Armenians who were already mobilised at mass demonstrations in Armenia and Karabakh") (pg. 19)
• Refers to the Armenian genocide as "events of 1915" (pg. 81), which is usually done by genocide deniers.[185][186]

I would think it's fairly obvious the source is very biased because the whole premise is that Armenians don't deserve the right to self-determination, but given the use of historical negationism and justifying massacre, it should also be considered unreliable. Krüger is apparently "a Berlin-based attorney-at-law specializing in the areas of European Union law, international transactions and German corporate law"[187] with no qualifications to write about Nagorno-Karabakh. Dallavid (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing out official Azerbaijani historical perspectives (whether correct or incorrect) is "promoting" it, nor do I see the "disdainful tone" he employs toward Armenians. Same applies for the point about Sumgait and the majority of the other points. All of this appears to be you disagreeing with or misinterpreting Krüger's points. One doesn't need special "qualifications" to write about Nagorno-Karabakh. Krüger is an established attorney/lawyer whose book analysing the legal aspects of a conflict has been published by a reputable publisher (Springer). — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Right now it may meet WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"), since you linked to what appears to be a copy of the paper (self?)hosted on some dubious website (https://beckassets.blob.core.windows.net/product/readingsample/792163/9783642117879_excerpt_001.pdf) But regardless of the url, the book appears to be published by Springer, so it is seems like an RS. PS. Your criticism of her book is ORish for us. Was her book criticized by any reliable sources? If you think the book is bad, you should try to write a review of it and publish it in a reliable outlet. Enough critica reviews can be used to show that a book, even one published by a reliable publisher, is controversial and should be used with caution. But, again, your own critique of it is, unfortunatley, not very relevant, we generally don't judge sources baesd on their contents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Springer seems to have a controversies section, including multiple instances of fraudulent peer review. That alone would make it WP:QS, but the biggest red flag is the the source treats the incredible WP:UNDUE Caucasian Albanian negationism as fact, when it is actually overwhelmingly discredited pseudo-science. The source also accuses all sources that discredit the Albanian theory as being "Pro-Armenian", when in truth it is discredited by all reliable sources.

And I'm pretty sure Heiko is a man. --Dallavid (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dallavid If you are trying to argue that Spinger is a QS, you have a long and stony road ahead of you. In either case, does the controversy section includes a critique of that book or author? Has any such sources been found? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Here is a source accusing Kruger of being pro-Azeri and having falsifications in his book. --Dallavid (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

relax.nast.pl

At Talk:The Gods from Outer Space/GA1 we need a 3O on whether this minor webpage is reliable. I argue that it meets WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"). The source is used to reference a minor and uncontroversial claim about the comic book having been translated to several languages. The page author is one Leszek Kaczanowski, who has published a book on Polish comics, owns a comic book publishing company (so is an "industry insider"), and according to his own webpage, was a founder of a classic Polish comic book magazine pl:Relax (magazyn komiksowy) (I couldn't independenty verify this last claim yet). This (reliable - pl:Money.pl) newspaper article in Polish describes him as a "comic book researcher" [188]. His webpage (which may contain reprints of articles he published in some non-digitized Polish magazines about comics, but doesn't do a good job attributing original source if this is the case) has been cited by reliable sources a few times (ex. here, academic paper on Polish comics, or here, a Polish portal about comics). Note that the page is now dead (last archived version at IA is from early 2018).

Ping User:Mike Christie, the GA reviewer who may offer his counterpoint on why they don't think this source is reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My concern with the evidence Piotrus has provided is that the academic paper is not citing relax.nast.pl for the sort of information that would imply it's treated as reliable, it's only indicating that it contains material from the comic in question that the reader can look at -- in other words it is not Kaczanowski's writing that is being cited. I think there is not enough information to distinguish the site from that of any other fan who might post unreliable information. The book he has published is helpful but doesn't automatically establish his website as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie The point is, that by the virtue of publishing a book and being involved with the indistry as a professional, he meets the definition of "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

OK -- after thinking about it, for the non-controversial information being cited here I am willing to go along with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Solar panel

Leftover PV panels can contaminate soil, as it happened in 2013 when US-based Solyndra solar farm bankrupted leaving broken panels on site.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

I suggest Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow is listed as perennially unreliable as our article says "The organization rejects the scientific consensus on climate change." Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a lobbying group. I think the general concern related to panels causing ground level pollution had been reported by a number of sources such as Discover, Wired and IEEE Spectrum. Springee (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If the claim about the use of solar panels causing toxic waste is valid, it should be possible to find a better source. We don't need to cite partisan sources for things these sources themselves suggest has already been reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

Is this Australian tabloid a reliable source? A poll conducted by Essential Research found that the Telegraph was Australia's least-trusted major newspaper.Jack Upland (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the poll? Public trust =/= reliability and much of the research in the subject actually suggests that the most trusted sources are rarely the most reliable ones and vice versa. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want an answer. We Australian editors have been arguing about this for years. Take for example this:[189].Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say they're either generally unreliable or barely reliable (additional considerations apply), most seem to take an issue with their bias but in my experience the bias is manageable (its certainly not the only News Corp publication in the world with that bias)... Its the accuracy of the reporting that just isn't what we expect from a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable. Obvious tabloid, our WP article at The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) shows continued Breaches of media ethics in coverage of LGBTI people and other controversies. Example: It was critiqued by refs per the WP page for this, which is news, not opinion. This was another article so bad it had to be retracted by the The Press Council. Also failed fact check per Snopes, which was deleted without apologies or correction. One of its opinion piece was so atrocious that Press Release wrote a this long complaint. Here's another failed fact check for its front page: see here. Further, as expected, the newspaper is very biased towards the Liberals Coalition, its 2013 endorsement is Finally, you now have the chance to kick this mob out. Obviously, this is a horrible tabloid, we don't even need to go into public opinion polls to see its repeatedly failed fact checks and misleading info. VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @Jack Upland: @Horse Eye's Back: I'd be interested to know do you agree with these failed fact checks (of course, there are many more)? VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yep, totally agree. Sorry, don't have sources handy, but well documented for example by the ABC's Media Watch. See [190]. Personally I never — or hardly ever — use the Terror. I go to the Sydney Morning Herald because if it's in the Terror it's almost certainly going to feature in the SMH if it is a big story.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean what if a naive person living on a houseboat decided to write a Wikipedia page about Macron's tour Down Under, and based it on 3 articles from the Terror about Pepé Le Pew???--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Basically, the Terror is a cross between the Daily Mail and Mad Magazine.Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• The Murdoch tabloids across Australia share content and would I think reasonably be assumed to be Generally Unreliable. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Herald_Sun_and_Andrew_Bolt for discussion of its Melbourne sister paper. There's quite a few of these papers, and the internet site news.com.au, that share content - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that there are Murdoch papers like The Australian, which has similar political leanings and is weird on climate science but otherwise comports itself like an RS - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

References

talkeducation.com

I cannot see a previous discussion of this source and would welcome editors' views.

talkeducation.com

Used by the same editor in several school and education articles, most of which I have reverted for promotional wording, but would still like views on the source itself.

• Repton School reverted by me
• Marlborough College reverted by me
• Gordonstoun reverted by me
• Educational stage not reverted as text does not appear promotional

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor who linked to this was blocked for advertising and promotion just around the time I posted this, but I would still be interested in views on the source. Tacyarg (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing more than SEO spam. It's not reliable and shouldn't be used. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

They appear to have a very robust and experienced team of reviewers. There is an attempt at transparency in their reviews at this page. I wouldn't write off this source completely. Lots of publications review things and also have sponsors and advertisers. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Coinmarketcap.com

Is Coinmarketcap a reliable source for this [191]? I couldn't find any previous discussions of its reliability. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) says "More broadly, there is strong consensus that cryptocurrency-focused sources (such as CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine) should generally not be used on Wikipedia articles." so I'm inclined to remove it. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely unreliable, particularly for such a WP:BLP use. I reverted immediately for the BLP concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Not reliable for a BLP --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Apart from being a cryptocurrency source, even people in the crypto industry have noted how (a) CMC's data was bad when it was a standalone site (b) CMC's coverage suddenly got worse when Binance bought them. (I'd link, but the example I had is on the spam blacklist! "Has The Binance Effect Been Good or Bad For CoinMarketCap?" in CryptoPotato.) So I would strongly suggest it never be used for anything - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

https://noahlangphotography.com/blog/native-hawaiian-plant-guide

I want to use my observations from my work within this field as a reliable source. For some reason, Wikipedia will accept my photos from my work of various species as reliable, but won't let the article be linked as a source. It doesn't make any sense.

My educational background in Natural Resources and Environmental Management should be noted along with further studying underway for extremely rare and endangered Hawaiian plants. Most of these observations are from out within the field in natural landscapes, which is where I have gained much of my experience beyond education.

I personally can't see any reason why this information isn't reliable, and everything can be verified through alternative sources, even Wikipedia searches much of the time. If there's any other information that I need to add please let me know! Noahawaii (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

All editors on Wikipedia are nominally anonymous. We do not recognize any editor as an expert on content. The project was publically burned many years ago by an editor who convinced a lot of other editors that he was an expert in a particular subject area, until his story fell apart under a spotlight in the national news. Your knowledge of a subject area should make it easier for you to find reliable published sources that can be used for citations. However, it you want to cite sources you have written, or have a significant connection to, please be aware of and follow the the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, including the section at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External roles and relationships. Donald Albury 20:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't see how an area of native Hawaiian plants would attract the same kind of story, but I know what you're saying. To your suggestions, I've already tried using my work as a source and it has been removed multiple times with the answer that exceptions can be made, which is why I was referred to here. I need to know how these exceptions can be made.

As for the most recent reply, every source that I used beyond my own were readily accepted. I hope that would help my case. On top of that for the verifiability in the link below, my source falls under none of what described on that page that I think would deny other unreliable sources, like the Questionable sources section or Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. My source is not for self-gain or gossip, etc. that was talked about on that page. I invite you to click on the source and scroll half way down and read about one of the species observations. Read about ʻakolea on that page, which is the article I wrote. You'll see what I mean. Noahawaii (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the WP:SPS policy, are you an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? That's more or less the exceptional circumstances for considering a self-published blog to be potentially reliable, and there's no guarantee there. I'll note that the relevant field would be botany, not photography. And that even if not for your own personal gain, it still gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for the author of a source to add it to articles. This applies even to PhD scientists citing otherwise reliable peer-reviewed research, and with few exceptions the procedure is typically to make a request on the Talk page and allow an independent editor to make the determination. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The above response covers most of it (and I think the COI disclosure and note that you're likely an excellent source for identifying reliable sources on the topic are important). I'll just add to check the WP:SPS policy section that this page would fall under for further expansion on why. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews and BLP

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.

---

In this article, PinkNews claims that Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, suggested it is “entirely reasonable” to question trans people’s gender identity. Here is what she actually said, Someone can believe that people who self identify as a different sex are not the different sex that they self identify. A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief. [192]

PinkNews' claim was false on two counts:

1. She said "someone can believe" and "a lot of people" would find it reasonable, not that she herself believed it was reasonable.

2. She restricted her statement to sex and said nothing about gender identity; sex and gender are distinct.

Nevertheless, this source was being used to support a claim matching that of PinkNews in the article Maya Forstater, resulting in attempts to revert it back in on the grounds that PinkNews is reliable and an eventual discussion at the BLP noticeboard (permalink), finally resulting in a rewrite. Between this, the well-sourced problems named at PinkNews#Libel claims, and previous issues named in previous discussions linked at RSP, there are clear reliability issues with using this outlet as a source for BLPs it disagrees with. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, the Baroness used weasel wording and Pink News just pointed out what she was actually saying with that weasel wording taken out. She very clearly was saying that said belief was entirely reasonable and was just trying the "a lot of people say" nonsense deflection. Pink News seems perfectly fine and reasonable in their coverage here. Silverseren^C 22:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What source, beyond your own opinion, do you have for describing her statement as 'weasel wording'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Me stating it via the quote given by OP. She used the "a lot of people say" defense, which is always a statement of oneself supporting said claim, but trying to defend the statement by including a nebulous additional amount of people in the statement. Silverseren^C 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"A lot of people think controversial view X" is pretty standard weaselspeak for "I think X myself, but I'm not going to state it directly in case it comes back to bite me on the arse some time in the future". Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, the examples at PinkNews#Libel claims don't really support your claim on their reliability. They have one issue of libel, which they issued a correction for, as a reliable news source would. The other example in the section isn't even libel or about their article being wrong, just someone complaining that the wording of the article makes it possible to identify whom is being referred to. They also took the article down anyways, which again, is what a proper reliable source would do. So, these are two examples that are actually positive for Pink News as an RS. Silverseren^C 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They issued that correction only after the person took legal action and did so as part of the settlement. Most people aren't going to go that far. 'They'll finally issue a correction when sued by one of the people they tossed around claims of -phobia about' isn't at all to their credit. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

She was commenting on a legal matter of what beliefs a person can be fired for - the Maya Forstater case. So, no, it is entirely sensible for her to be commenting on what "a lot of people" think and about what is or is not beyond the pale in a democratic society. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The Pink News article includes the full quote you added here from The Times. And included the judge's statement from that case:

"The judge said that her anti-trans views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that they conflict with the fundamental human rights of others."

So, the Baroness following that by stating "A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief.” is her saying that that belief is entirely reasonable. Meaning the article is completely accurate in what was stated. Silverseren^C 22:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

And that was overturned, because the case centered around freedom of belief. There's a big difference between "I think X is a reasonable belief" and "A lot of people think X is a reasonable belief, and so it should be legally protected." Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The same libel claims were discussed here during the trainwreck discussion in 2021 (perennial source indeed), I didn't get a response then that I had seen to my claim that UK libel law is particularly unique in a rather bad way for journalism, even after some reform. The SPEECH Act was passed in America to protect journalists & academics from libel tourism by way of British libel laws. Chillabit (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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