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

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

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.

This discussion addresses the reliability of books published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing (CSP). Most of the voices in this discussion split into two camps: the one that opposes blanket removal and asks to consider each source on a case-by-case basis, and the one that lobbies for its total removal.

The evidence submitted by the participants is inconclusive. A mirror of the Beall's list mentions CSP as "potentially predatory". There are the Norwegian and Finnish ratings of scholarly outlets: the former mentions the publication as having peer review (this is disputed here, as this review says no editorial board is there at all), but in any case both give only "acceptable" grades and the Norwegian one briefly downgraded CSP to "predatory". This guide from the University of Central Missouri mentions a letter from CSP as being a typical example of an invitation to a predatory conference. Finally, there is this crispy-new paper (see also this summary from an official in the Polish Ministry of Education), which is fairly positive of CSP and says that it "has accumulated scholarly legitimacy", though notes this publishing house is "print-on-demand" and describes behaviour typical of a questionable outlet quality-wise. The Blogspot article was also mentioned, though its authoritativeness was questioned.

The previous discussions, not counting the one in Archive 221, which was not a discussion, attracted relatively few opinions compared to this one, though on average they tended rather negative. In this discussion, the general consensus of editors was that this publisher is not by itself a high-quality one - its books range from receiving critical acclaim to being panned. As mentioned, this is a print-on-demand publisher, even if aimed at scholars. There is consensus that it is should be treated as a self-published source or worse (which by default is generally unreliable, as RSP criteria suggest), but no consensus whether to go lower than the SPS level. Therefore, CSP should generally be treated as self-published.

By my count, the "case-by-case" camp had a just a little more numerical support; however, these people presented evidence of several books that received positive scholarly feedback, and this is a persuasive argument that was not effectively rebutted. Therefore, where the policy does not explicitly prohibit usage of questionable sources (see WP:BLP), CSP should not be removed on sight. However, as is the case for all sources in general, all editors who have doubts about a CSP source can obviously put "better source needed" tags, boldly proceed with removal (within reason) and engage in discussions if there is any disagreement. The onus in this case is on the one seeking inclusion/retention. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Linguist's_history
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Vanity press (where CSP is mentionned)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Cambridge_Scholars
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#Sources regarding Tsamiko and Osman Taka dances. Do they meet Wikipedia criteria for reliability ?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#Citogenesis incident
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Da_Vinci_Globe

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

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [1] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [2] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I other words, the sources used to make the claim that it's a predatory publisher and therefore by default unreliable are themselves unreliable sources. No blogspot is anything but a SPS, and needs to be the work of a significant figure to be deemed reliable and this one does not, while the other list is user-generated, so also fails RS. In short, if anything should be removed from article space, it's those. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

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

  CSP is a vanity press. Their model is to have authors write whatever they want, conduct no review, offer no little-to-no editing services, and then charges universities and random suckers for those books. They've repeatedly published fringe nonsense, (example, example), or straight up copies of Wikipedia content example). They are listed by the two main freely available sources on predatory nonsense, Beall's list (now maintained by someone who isn't Beall), and Flaky Journals. Their books are widely condemned in review, which specifically call out the practices of CSP (e.g. "the absence of an editorial board has clearly failed to guide the author in the preparation of his publication". Library Guides specifically call out CSP as a publisher to avoid [3]. Or entire book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. If CSP isn't a vanity press and a garbage tier publisher, no one is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Flaky Journals blog [4], though critical of CSP, does not characterise them as predatory. Your last link (the bit form the Scopus diaries) is also worth reading: it's explicit that vanity or predatory publishers are a lower tier than CSP, and it characterises CSP's drawback in not conferring a great deal of academic prestige.

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

  1. Di Rocco, Concezio (2019-11-01). "R. Shane Tubbs, J. Iwanaga, M. Loukas, R. J. Oskouian (Eds): Clinical anatomy of the ligaments of the craniocervical junction". Child's Nervous System. 35 (11): 2241. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04261-6. ISSN 1433-0350. S2CID 201170849. "the book is a precious contribution to the understanding of all aspects of the craniocervical junction which should not only be part of the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon involved in clinical practice but also of the students and neurosurgeons in training"
  2. Carey, Peter (2021). "Manual of Bone Marrow Examination by Anwarul Islam (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020; ISBN 978-1-5275-5890-8)". British Journal of Haematology. 193 (5): 1016. doi:10.1111/bjh.17400. ISSN 1365-2141. S2CID 236420372. "an excellent teaching resource for every haematology department"
  3. Kapparis, Konstantinos (2019). "Isaeus' On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3). Edited by Rosalia Hatzilambrou. (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. 283. $119.95.)". Historian. 81 (4): 727–729. doi:10.1111/hisn.13286. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 214471601. "an outstanding accomplishment containing reliable, informative, and thorough accounts of textual, linguistic, and stylistic matters, as well as the legal issues, the background, the protagonists, and the build-up of the case"
  4. Farrell Moran, Seán (2016). "The Impact of World War One on Limerick. By Tadhg Moloney. (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Pp. xii, 209. $75.99.)". Historian. 78 (1): 166–167. doi:10.1111/hisn.12142. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 218497802. "Although the author has done much homework, his thesis, as suggestive as it is, remains underdeveloped"
  5. Spicher, Michael (2019). "AAGAARD-MOGENSEN, LARS and JAN FORSEY, eds. On Taste: Aesthetic Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, 150 pp., 4 b&w illus., £58.99 cloth". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 77 (3): 349–351. doi:10.1111/jaac.12655. ISSN 1540-6245. S2CID 201566618. "Overall, [the book] offers insightful discussions about taste to help bring it back onto the fore. I would recommend anyone interested in aesthetics to read this collection as an entry point into recent thought about taste"
  6. McClain, Aleksandra (2016). "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology by Scott D. Stull, ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 275 pp". American Anthropologist. 118 (2): 457–458. doi:10.1111/aman.12571. ISSN 1548-1433. "Several papers, including the editor's own, offer strong, original scholarship [...] but a few are disappointingly underdeveloped in comparison", "while problems with individual papers mar the consistent academic quality of the volume, I nevertheless commend Stull on having the ambition to plan the conference and produce this book"
  7. Liu, Yi; Afzaal, Muhammad (2022). "100 Years of conference interpreting: A legacy. Edited by Kilian G. Seeber, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021, Price: £64.99, 242 pp. ISBN: 1-5275-6719-2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 32 (2): 349–352. doi:10.1111/ijal.12406. ISSN 1473-4192. S2CID 244890170. "this volume provides a novel and convincing reference in the field of conference interpreting, and is therefore a valuable read for interpreting students, trainers, researchers and other stakeholders"
  8. Wallis, Patrick (2021). "Andrea Caracausi, Matthew Davies, and Luca Mocarelli, eds., Between regulation and freedom: work and manufactures in European cities 14th–18th centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. xiii+146. ISBN 1-5275-0638-X Hbk. £58.99)". The Economic History Review. 74 (1): 299–300. doi:10.1111/ehr.13059. ISSN 1468-0289. S2CID 234070948. "the volume collectively makes a valuable contribution to our appreciation of the complexity and heterogeneity of economic regulation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "In sum, From West to East provides a compact, but very readable overview of approaches to medieval archaeology practised in North America." Kerr, Sarah (January 2016). "From West to East. Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology". Medieval Archaeology. 60 (1): 185. doi:10.1080/00766097.2016.1147856. S2CID 164034768.

  "the volume is a worthwhile read and valuable resource that paves the way to refine the studies on this, without doubt, an exceedingly promising multidisciplinary topic." Basik, Sergei (19 October 2020). "Naming, identity and tourism: edited by Luisa Caiazzo, Richard Coates and Maoz Azaryahu, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020, 233 pp., ₤ 61.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-1-5275-4286-0". Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 20 (5): 540–542. doi:10.1080/15022250.2020.1853603. S2CID 228084528.

  "Overall, this is an interesting take on a fairly well-covered topic. It brings to light some hitherto neglected sources and provides some useful insights" Doney, Jonathan (4 March 2022). "For God and country: Butler's 1944 Education Act, by Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann: Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, xii + 151 pp., £41.99 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-44-388383-2". History of Education. 51 (2): 304–306. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2020.1825834. S2CID 226352364.,

  "the book serves as a door opener to the ceramic traditions of Europe and opens up further reading due to interesting articles as well as rich reference lists" Eigeland, Lotte; Solheim, Steinar (10 September 2010). "Dragos Gheorghiu (ed.): Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe". Norwegian Archaeological Review. 43 (1): 86–89. doi:10.1080/00293651003798846. S2CID 162493819.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes, a positive review would be a very good indication that a SPS or equivalent is reliable. But why require it? In my experience, the status of the scholar in their field is a far more important indicator for reliability than the reputation of the publisher. On the other hand, not every high-quality volume gets reviewed. For example, of the three books I mentioned above, I found (very) positive reviews for the first two ([5] for [6] and [7] for [8]), but for the third one –arguably the one with the best scholars– I did not find a review. Should we treat a book chapter by someone like G. E. R. Lloyd (please have a look at where he usually publishes) as unreliable because it has a bad publisher and there happens to be no review? I at least think we shouldn't. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose blanket removal, but "use with caution" sounds about right, based on the edifying discussions above. Regarding removals, with respect to the edits that led to this RFC, I think it's worth noting that even when multiple citations appear after a statement, it can't be assumed that all of them support all of the statement. There are all sorts of common scenarios where this isn't the case -- classic citation overkill where it may turn out that none of the sources cited fully support the statement, or where only one of them turns out to; a compound sentence where the sources each support different parts of the sentence; a source added by a well-intentioned editor to support their edit but without removing the previous source that no longer supports the sentence; etc. (None of those are best practices, but they happen all the time.) Ultimately questions like "is this citation load-bearing? can it be relied on in this particular context for this particular statement? even if it is reliable and load-bearing, can we replace it with something better?" can only be addressed by engaging in depth with the sources and subject matter of that specific article. There are no rule-based shortcuts. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published. I came here following a brief edit-war with Headbomb on Othonoi. [9] is probably a typical case: there's a citation to a Greek-language journal accompanied by a citation to an English-language book published in CSP by the same authors, conveniently available on GBooks and easy to verify. Blanket removal of CSP books written by scholarly authors is disruptive, and publisher is only one factor to consider the source's reliability. No such user (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose automated removal, treat as self-published although I'm a bit late in "voting", due to the number of concerns raised by other editors, it is clear to me that any automated removal does not consitute due diligence. Even removing CSP sources where another source is provided seems unneccessary - variations on "it's garbage", with little to back up such strong language, are not enough to justify any contentious action on Wikipedia. CSP is not unreliable per se, arguments for which have been expounded at length above. Additionally, due to the changing (and possibly improving) situation with regard to editorial practices, deprecation or any blanket statement of unreliability requires stronger and more recent evidence than has been provided. Toadspike (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support blanket removal vanity press, etc yes, but if we can't find better sources than that's a basic problem that means the text probably shouldn't be there anyway. This means removal would require searching for a better source. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal and prohibit it, unequivocally useless and unreliable Totally agree with above users that it is vanity press. Have seen multiple promotional junk about Indian cults from this publisher on Wikipedia.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support blanket removal and general unreliability. CSP is a vanity press, which is a type of self-published source. AKK700 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Blanket mass removal was inappropriate. It is clearly not a vanity press, and doesn't even fall within the criteria for a predatory press, since it doesn't charge authors. On the other hand, it appears to be willing to publish almost anything, with minimal editorial oversight. So it should not be regarded as an academic publisher. Its books should be treated on a case-by-case basis on the same criteria as a WP:SPS, based on the specific proposed use and context. Banks Irk (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• Judge on case-by-case basis. I cannot find any evidence that this is either a vanity press or a predatory press. It is not a vanity press because submitted manuscripts are subject to an acceptance review. It is not a predatory press because authors are not charged to publish and receive royalties on sales. The most that seems true is that this publisher provides less editorial support than the big academic presses provide. This means that the reliability of each book should be judged according to the expertise of the author. The reliability of books published by mainstream academic presses also rests mostly on the author; it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish. Zero^talk 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Comment. I think that the last point made by User:Zero0000 is very important and it's something I've been thinking about since the beginning of the discussion. Books are different from journal articles. The reliability of journal articles mainly depends on the outlet: quoting from "The New York Times" is not like quoting from "The Daily Beast" which is not like quoting from "The Sun"; when we quote, we always mention the journal and often we omit the author of the article; discussing about the reliability of the source-publisher at RS/N is vital. The same doesn't apply to books. Yes, Cambridge University Press is more prestigious than Ashgate which is (way) more prestigious than Cambridge Scholars Publishing. But no serious researcher would ever judge the quality of a book from the quality of the publisher - it would be like judging a gift from the package. The reasons why a book gets to be published by Cambridge University Press, Ashgate or Cambridge Scholars Publishing are various and not exclusively related to the quality of the book. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  In the case of a journal article, the reviewers get much more time to study the article relative to its length, compared to a book. But even then the reliability depends mostly on the author, depending on the subject. Reviewers of a chemistry article don't repeat the experiment to see if they get the same result, nor do reviewers of a history article visit the dusty archive which the author haunted for several months. However, they check what they can check from their desk and they recommend accept or reject according to their best judgement based on experience. Reviewers of a book are generally only given time to scan the book to look for obvious problems and overall quality (I've been there), so the author is even more responsible in that case. Zero^talk 12:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Judge on case-by-case basis. User:Gitz6666's comment above is of critical importance. Also, like User:Zero0000 says, "it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish." This is why prestigious imprints retire books after publishing: it is because it is the readership that often comes up with the discoveries of plagiarism, fabulism, etc. In any event, User:Fordmadoxfraud's comments are on point: a couple of people are making prima facie declarations of "vanity press," etc., and no consensus or proof has been presented. And the "third party" sources for such claims is what, a blog? This whole RFC is quite absurd. In any event, as shown above, the books it publishes are frequently reviewed by respected journals and included in respected libraries. Finally, it can't possibly be a predatory press because it does not charge authors and because it pays royalties. XavierItzm (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal, judge on a case-by-case basis. Per @Fordmadoxfraud, there are no reliable sources that would confirm CSP as a predatory publisher (except Beall's list, badly outdated). Their website states unequivocally that they do not charge for publishing and actually pay the authors a percentage of sales. While I'm unable to evaluate this, I largely fail to see the predatory element of their business model.

In my view – echoing many others above – they are a low-quality, third-tier, yet still an academic publisher who strive to produce content written by academics. Sure, renowned experts won't likely publish their works through CPS, but this doesn't mean that whatever they've published should be thrown out of Wikipedia automatically. A case-by-case judgment would be best here IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Case-by-case like a self-published source. From what I've seen in looking into this, they may not have the most rigorous editorial, and their solicitation for submissions methods are spammy, but there's no justification for a blanket removal. It depends on the authors themselves more than the publisher. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 4 August 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.

RfC: Cuepoint Medium publication reliability

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.

This discussion was started one month ago, and discussions ended around one week ago. Despite the low number of participants (only five, including myself), there is unanimous consensus for Option 2, in that additional considerations should apply for Cuepoint Medium, with editors considering that reliability depends on the qualification of the author. Another more active editor could tweak the closing statement and add it to WP:RSP as marginally reliable. VickKiang (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Is Cuepoint a reliable source for music industry coverage?

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

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

Survey (Cuepoint)

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

Discussion (Cuepoint)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

  Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [11]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [12] [13] [14] [15] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Generally unreliable. Seriously? Anti-knowledge channel of zero use to Wikipedia. Anybody wanting to use this drivel probably needs banning for WP:CIR issues or as a WP:POVPUSHER. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• GB News is generally unreliable as it is a biased or opiniated source. AKK700 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, the channel is a TV version of a tabloid newspaper. No evidence of editorial oversight, it markets itself as opinion led and telling the stories/opinions you don't get to hear. POVpushing. Just because you tell a story or have an opinion not listed elsewhere doesn't mean its correct. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. The television reporting is more or less talk shows and opinions. The network kinda flopped in terms of quality and it doesn’t appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It might be reliable for non-political reporting on events that take place in the UK; and the vast majority of this conversation appears to be focused on political reporting. But generally we don’t carve out those sorts of exceptions for less-established news organizations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable insofar as no sources have been provided that demonstrate that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." It stands to reason that any opinion articles are opinion and should be treated as such but blanket blacklisting the whole medium based on editor perceptions and absent objective proof would be unencyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I'd even go so far as to blacklist. Disinformation has no place in an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable both due to editorial policies and age. It takes years of good editorial practice to earn the badge of a reputable source, and they haven't yet started. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable at absolute best, for all the reasons stated above - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per above. Andrevan@ 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable OFCOM hasn't sanctioned GB News for anything yet alone false or misleading stories. Dougal18 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Aon, particularly in weather related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

SamuelRiv: This RfC apparently does go directly against what a previous RfC said for this exact same topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? There was no formal closure or consensus, so this is to firm that up. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 — Conditional: They are generally reliable and should be used in articles when NOAA has not provided a damage total. NOAA is the US Government’s meteorological organization, and while they can have errors, they should be accepted as more reliable over an insurance company. So AON is generally reliable and should be used on the condition that NOAA has not provided a damage total. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Noting: I switched to Option 2, as I was actually meaning Option 2 with my wording and not Option 1. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

It's much better to do what Slywriter did: notify the project. WikiProject Weather doesn't just consist of 15 people. Chlod (say hi!) 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

  Please do not attempt to canvas this discussion. Calling people into a discussion because of their opinion is clear votestacking. Noah^Talk 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Can we get this relisted so people comment? 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC lasts 30 days, so there is no reason to relist an RFC that began 5-6 days ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 Based upon what I have seen, AON is generally reliable in their reporting of damage and death estimates. These estimates have often been used in place of estimates from the National Hurricane Center because the latter does not put much effort into researching the effects of tropical cyclones outside the United States. It's also helpful for countries in which it's hard to find sources for damage totals. Noah^Talk 04:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1. AON is generally reliable for estimates of damages that can paint a better picture of a storm if we don't have any good sources that can be used. A guideline I generally use when writing is when there's conflict between official estimates and AON, it's important to emphasize official counts over AON's, since official sources are more likely to have boots on the ground that can assess the damages (well, depending on the agency; can't say much for US government sources). I, for one, use the NDRRMC's counts for storms that hit the Philippines, since they usually publish a gigantic table that confirms each estimation they make. But when it comes to storms that hit other areas in the Western Pacific basin (say Vietnam and neighboring countries), the numbers published by AON may be a better fit in terms of accuracy, much like what Hurricane Noah said. Chlod (say hi!) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 – AON should not supersede NOAA, which is the most official source we can use. United States Man (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 - AON is not your typical insurance company. No cute little mascots or funny spokesperson. It is a reinsurance company, in other words it sells insurance to insurance companies for cases of extreme disaster, for instance. It also sells things like catastrophe modeling to insurance companies. Insurance companies with billions of dollars at stake are not prone to depending on unreliable sources. As tornadoes are not in my editing repertoire, where there is discrepancy are we sure they are measuring the same thing, i.e. total losses vs. insured losses? For disclosure I work in the insurance industry (in areas related to pricing) but have no connection whatsoever to AON. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

78.26, Do you believe Aon should be used over NOAA if/when NOAA provides damage totals? This question is more toward the NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters, which is where NOAA states how much a weather event did in damage if it is at least $1 billion. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Elijahandskip that’s not the question posed at this rfc, it’s whether or not AON is reliable, and I believe it is. However, to answer your question, I think that is an MOS question, not an RS question. I think we’re comparing apples and oranges, because of the way losses are calculated. Total loss vs. insured loss. Pay close attention to how the source describes the loss. Can you point me to a specific as to where the two sourced disagree. Even if both sources are calculating total loss, are they calculating in the same basis? Actual Cash Value? Replacement Cost? Functional Replacement Cost? If the figures differ, perhaps it would be valuable to include both figures, as long as an appropriate description is included. It would give a better, more complete picture of a disaster. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

78.26: Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022 is a perfect example (and the one listed in the RfC request. NOAA Part1NOAA Part2 (49 million) to Aon (850 million). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the discrepancy is. NOAA has 48.105 tornado and 803.5 other wind damage, for a total of $851.605 million. AON has a figure of 850+ million. What’s the problem? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

78.26 The wind is 803,000. Not 803 million. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, so it is. My bad for doing convenient but sloppy math. So the difference in NOAA is measuring direct property and crop losses on a physical damage basis, while AON in measuring total economic loss. Very different calculations. So the NOAA numbers are a subset of the calculations going into AONs figure. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Per 78.26, that means the NCEI storm database numbers (not the billion dollar disaster pages), is actually less reliable then NOAA.12.5.215.114 (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they said it was different calculations. Comparing apples and oranges as they put it. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Total economic loss sounds more reliable to me. 75.104.64.105 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As also explained by 78.26, this RfC is not to determine if it is more reliable, just that Aon is reliable for weather articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science

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

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

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

Survey (Fox News news website)

• Downgrade (proposer) (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 reporting. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. Edit: I would accept Option 4 (Deprecate) as a close second. (edited 23:28, 31 July 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 [16] 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)
• 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.”[17] Also this NYT piece [18] "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 [19], 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. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

  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 [20]? 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 [21] [22] 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 [23] [24] 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)

• 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)

• 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 [25], 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[26], 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."[27] 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, [28] [29] 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[30] “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."[31] 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[32] AP: [33] "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 [34] [35], [36]. 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 request help with euthanasia, in discussion with family and physicians. 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)
• 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."[37] 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: [38] 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.[39][40] or that the Biden admin redefined 'recession'[41][42] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 Aquillon, 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)
• 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)

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)

---

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" [43] 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.[44] 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 [45]. 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. [46] 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 [47] [48] 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[49] 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.[50][51]. "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. [52]
• Brookings said, [53] 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..
• [54] "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: [55] The measure, Senate Bill 202, limits early voting sites and restricts both the number and the available hours of drop boxes.
• NPR: [56] "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."[57] 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[58]. The same Warnock piece was a GOP article [59] NRSC post [60], 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)

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[61] 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)

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. [62] 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[63], 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[64] 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[65]. 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.[66] The 2nd one I guess you could call an op-ed but isn't labeled as such. [67] The 3rd is biased but has no glaring factual errors.[68] 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[69]. I found where it seems to be from[70], it's also picked up by the Daily Mail [71] and the NY Post [72] Christian Post [73] Daily Caller [74] 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[75] 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)]

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 [76] [77] [78] 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[79] 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[80]. 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 [81]. 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)

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 (polarizing) 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)

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.[82][83]. 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[84], 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)

- 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)

Website

Is this website reliable? Two of these websites have also received awards.

• odialive.com [85]
• exchange4media
• www.bestmediaifo.com [86]
• MediaNews4U [87]
• MxMIndia [88] PravinGanechari (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for what? How are these sources being used or proposed to be used in what specific articles? Without that context the question is meaningless and any answer is useless. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Banks Irk , Users are adding this website link as source in Sidharth TV page. So I suspected that these websites are not reliable. So I started a conversation

  [89] on the talk page of that page. I got advice from a senior editor on that talk page. To discuss on the noticeboard. PravinGanechari (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

MxM, MediaNews4U, Bestmediainfo.com and Exchange4media are all media and marketing news websites, most of which just reproduce press releases, paid pieces and churnalism without much care for disclosures. I would add Afaqs (afaqs.com  ), Adgully (adgully.com  ) Times Group's Brand Equity (brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com  ) in the list as well. They can at best be used as non-independent primary sources. Exchange4media (exchange4media.com  ) is somewhat of an exception though, it has produced critical and investigative journalism from time to time (e.g [90]) but they are still prone to the issues mentioned so judge their articles on a case by case basis.

Regarding awards, there's a plethora of inconsequential (sometimes even paid for) awards so it will really depend on what award a certain organisation has received. If you are looking for reliable sources on media business related topics then VCCircle, MediaNama and Newslaundry are reputable ones and have proper disclosures; although the first one is a bit prone to churnalism as well.

Odialive looks like a local portal without much recognition, their about page doesn't give an indication of any editorial policy so I'd be very wary of using anything from it. It might just be another random website on the internet and not a reliable source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank You PravinGanechari (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Sydney Zatz on Royal Central

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)
• 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)

LibraryThing for the existence and credits on a book

Hi. In the Anthony Godby Johnson article, the final sentence of the lede section reads, "A second, lesser-known book was published under Johnson's name in 1994, a collaboration with Maya Angelou entitled Love Letters to Hawaii from Aboard the A-Train."

Bear in mind that investigations into Johnson's first book suggested that he may have never existed, and been the literary creation of Vicki Johnson, who purported to be Johnson's adoptive mother.

Is LibraryThing a good source for the passage mentioning that book? This is that site's About page, and this is the page detailing its staff. It doesn't mention Maya Angelou, but I can remove mention of her from the passage. Nightscream (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No. LibraryThing is user-generated and should be considered unreliable for statements of fact: even if a book of that name by an author of than name exists, it might be different person entirely with the same name. Note that this list of acquisitions merely notes that a book of that name and author was received by the University of Hawaii, not that it was by the same author as A Rock and a Hard Place. And is there any known connection between Hawaii and Johnson? See WP:PRIMARY: we might infer that a book by an author of that name exists, but we cannot imply that it is by the same author unless reliable sources do so. Assuming someone managed to find and read a copy of the book itself, it might be used sparingly, but probably shouldn't due to the controversy over the author (it could well be another hoax). Even if the book really was written by Johnson (or Vicki Johnson), if no other reliable sources mention the book, then the book probably doesn't warrant mention, especially not in the lead: that gives disproportionate emphasis to minor aspects, a violation of WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response, and the level of detail in your explanation. It is genuinely appreciated it. Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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 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)

• 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 has 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)

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)

  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.[91] 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.[92][93] [94] [95] [96] [97][98] 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)

• 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)

Reliability of sources

I would like to know why CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but political reporting by Fox News is not considered reliable. Why are the sources The Federalist, The Daily Caller. The Daily Wire, and the New York Post considered unreliable, but considers Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin to be reliable sources? Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a certain aspect of your question that was not answered by the reply you got at the Teahouse? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the original question here ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity was told at the Teahouse that reliability does not necessarily depend on bias, which I agree with. However, on RSP, we refer to a source's "bias" 66 times and as "partisan" 18 times. At a brief glance it doesn't seem too unbalanced left-vs.-right, but it's certainly inconsistent: in an edit I did on The Economist, the bias info was reverted. So is explicit bias and POV-pushing relevant or is it not? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile revisiting some of these depending on how the current Fox News RFC resolves. Masem (t) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reread the reply I got at the Teahouse and I understand what that means. Based on what it says, a source is not required to be unbiased in order to be reliable. I think that it is about how accurate the source is in presenting its information rather than whether it is on the left or on the right. Hope that clarifies things. Interstellarity (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't mandate a consistency with how different sources are handled. Our job is just to interpret and accurately reflect the consensus of editors. Some sources are biased and reliable, some sources are biased and unreliable, some sources are unbiased and reliable. And I assume that some unbiased sources are also unreliable. In order to add some notes to RSP it needs to come from the consensus of editors, not one person's opinion on a source. Andre🚐 17:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would love to see a general “downgrading” of ALL news media. We should be relying on scholarly analysis, not journalism. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, we still have a strong place for reliable news. Andre🚐 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly that just seems unrealistic. It's not often you see a bunch of scholarly sources being published on topics like contemporary pop music or recent video games. And if we were to rely solely or mostly on scholarly sources, I doubt we'll have FAs like Delicate (Taylor Swift song) or Lorde or Spider-Man (2018 video game). ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a terrible idea —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  News media shouldn't be outright deprecated, but I do think it's use should be reined in. Churnalism, partisanship, and over-reliance on social media all contribute to a reduction in quality journalism. At the very least, facts originating in news media should be given time for competitors to confirm/rebut. Slywriter (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I should start of by saying my political bias is right of center, but even so I will admit that there is a lot of truth to the saying that "facts have a liberal bias" (at least when applied to popular sources of information and not academic ones, for academic it probably goes the other way). When combined with wikipedia's strong and inherent bias towards facts this can lead to a perception of bias against conservative mass media. I would be worried about it if we didn't hold academic work above the mass media's work because at the moment that corrects any skew which would result from an overly liberal pool of mass media sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here's my 2c: "Facts having a liberal bias" is said tongue-in-cheek, which refers to, in the U.S., that a faction of right-wing in our present era have abandoned rigor. You can talk about Nixon, maybe Iraq/WMD, maybe Qanon or Stop the Steal. Some examples of unreliable sources are Newsmax and One America News. Some sources which are right-lean but not-unreliable are National Review, Reason, Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, San Diego Union Tribune.

  There are also left-fringe unreliable sources. Occupy Dems and Raw Story that we currently do not use. Other examples could include Mercola, ThinkProgress, CounterPunch, RT, WSWS, Palmer Report, Jimmy Dore, Young Turks. Mainstream center or center-left-ish sources like CNN, NYT, WaPo, NPR, aside from op-eds, are reliable and don't have strong political edge/bias to reporting. Lefter-leaning sources like MSNBC, HuffPo and Vox are AFAIK generally reliable even though they have a stronger partisan lean than the more staid and "conservative" establishment publications. The "liberal media" is largely a right-wing mythology used to attack center or minorly-center-left reporting to claim it is far-left. Andre🚐 21:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what to tell you -- you only had to google it. Journalists are more liberal, the U.S. media are more liberal in general; you can easily find more recent work on both, and one saving grace is it may be that there is generally not much bias in the selection of coverage (2020 study that links to more recent studies also). Part of this is going to be inherent to the general rise of investigative and counter-establishment journalism. Of course this very tendency in journalism that may be attractive to liberal activism may also be eroding essential democratic institutions. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Cherry-picking. Here's an alternative: "Despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias" Andre🚐 22:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's a study looking at whether public perception of media bias depends on partisanship, not on whether the media itself is partisan, and it does something remarkable for a 2010 study as in its literature review it claims that no media bias exists but only reviews literature as late as 2002 (and spanning as early as the 1960s, which really makes no sense to me). The 2002 reference is Niven's book, which seems fine but also pretty wide and sparse in scope. That seems to be the case for this topic of research in general however. See a more detailed review (2013). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it makes sense go back to the 60s when reviewing media holistically in the US - remember WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YEARS, and that whole Watergate thing? If not, I recommend All The President's Men, book or film. Anyway, the 2013 article you linked looks more interesting than the 2004 Barro piece [note: the piece is a BusinessWeek op-ed from 2004, relies on Groseclose, is an archived link, and it is not a journal article. I removed it from his article and the Groseclose article because it is no longer published, is an opinion piece, and he is not an expert on this field Andre🚐 00:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)]. Barro is a right-wing economist (he believes the Keynesian multiplier is less than one and has trashed Obama-era stimulus), not a media theorist, and a partisan on this question. It's true that many journalists themselves, and academics, tend to hold more liberal views than the population at large. There's a well-known association with education and tolerant/permissive views on a number of things. However, it doesn't follow that that translates into biased mainstream sources, and the 2020 Science Advances study you linked reinforces this idea that their personal views don't translate into systemic biases in the content. This other recent study is a great example. They had Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month and it actually taught them a couple things. Andre🚐 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Anyway, after reading some of the 2013 text you posted, it mostly emphasizes the work of Groseclose. Two main critiques of him, Brendan Nyhan, and JT Gasper[99] who couldn't replicate Groseclose (quoting) : "Using the same data but analyzed over different periods of time, I find a different conclusion than the previous article. I examine four-year rolling time periods and find that the data produce different parameter estimates in the early- to mid-1990s as compared to after 2000, with all analyzed outlets appearing more moderate or conservative in later time periods.." Nonetheless, Groseclose 2005 considered CNN, PBS, and ABC the "most centrist" outlets, which contributes to my point that the generalization of "liberal media" is flawed, even if you don't like the Tien-Tsung Lee[100] article. Many mainstream middle-of-the-road outlets with robust fact-checking and journalistic integrity tend not to be substantially biased. [00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)] Here are the cites for David Niven (mentioned), a related Eisinger 07 and the reviews of Groseclose including Nyhan and a critique by Nancy Rosenblum and one by Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Andre🚐 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• The more specific issue in the US is that there's essentially a right-wing "bubble" of sources which exist primarily to advance conservative causes, for whom accurate reporting is secondary or not even a concern at all - Fox News is the core of this, with most of the others basing their approach on it to one degree or another (though with steadily-increasing disregard for reality as they try to outflank each other on the right to seize the same audience.) There isn't really anything comparable on the left - sources like Vox or Mother Jones have a clear outlook, like any source does, but they're published from a perspective that telling the truth will change or protect the world (see eg. the Washington Post's "Democracy Dies in Darkness" motto.) Whereas Fox was specifically founded with the goal of protecting future Republican presidents from what happened to Nixon, regardless of accuracy or facts. This fundamental disregard for the truth means that sources within that bubble rarely achieve a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy outside it. Note, though, that there are conservative-leaning sources that aren't in the bubble and which do focus on accurate reporting - the issue is that for people within the bubble, such sources tend to not be considered sufficiently conservative, if at all, because one side-effect of this dynamic in the US is that for many people "conservative" has become synonymous with distorted reality. Sources like Vox or Mother Jones can criticize Biden or Obama and maintain their audience; sources in the right-wing bubble generally cannot safely criticize Trump, on anything, regardless of the facts, without risking the loss of their audience. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whether you look at the news media bubble (538 2017-03-10, Politico 2017-04-25) or the news filter bubble (Yao & Hauptman among dozens) it's evident on the left and right, so I don't know what you're on about without a shred of evidence.

  In cases where an article (or editor) makes a bunch of claims in a row about such and such without giving a smidgen of evidence, I'd rather have a Fox News source (so I know who to blame/track/call for original source if I really need) than no source at all. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is the false equivalence. There are bad sources on the left, biased sources, which have published bad info, like Occupy Democrats and Raw Story, and there are those on the right that are biased and extremely unreliable such as Daily Caller, Infowars, Federalist, Breitbart, Blaze, etc. Those who believe that generally center, establishment sources such as NYT, CNN, AP, WaPo, etc. are far-left, or equivalent to a Fox News of the left, are making a false equivalence. Places like NYT care about facts and telling the truth, and try to do so. Fox is OK with breaking a few eggs to make the omelet. Even the most left-leaning sources generally don't abandon factual reporting as much as the ones on the right do. If you read Mother Jones, The New Republic, American Prospect, Vox, etc., it's not some left-mirror of Infowars with left conspiracy theories. It's not both sides. Andre🚐 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• The print versions of CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but the TV versions are not. This is the same with any media company. Also, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin are all considered unreliable, so I don't know what you're talking about. They are in the same vestige with The Daily Caller and the New York Post of "partisan print media that is occasionally correct, but presents the information in their slant". Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed Andre🚐 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Well actually, that's overstating it. Some of those you mentioned are considered reliable but biased/opinionated. Andre🚐 22:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Curbon7: Just as a note, WP:RSP has The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin as WP:GREL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, Honestly had no idea that those 3 ere considered GREL, so striking as I was clearly talking out of my ass. I've always operated that they weren't, in particular with The Nation, which I've found to be quite consistently poor. Curbon7 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily agree that consensus is being read correctly in the RSP entries, but I wanted to just let you know. It could be the case that the three perennially discussed sources are ripe for a new discussion/an RfC if you believe that they are miscategorized there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would encourage such a discussion. Andre🚐 05:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also the consensus on CNN and MSNBC doesn't distinguish between TV and print (Does that exist? I assume you mean their online publications.). Just that their talk shows are considered equivalent to op-eds/SPS. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC: Evaluation of self-published sources

Is it appropriate to use self-published sources which can be reliably evaluated and evaluate as reliable?

This has particularly come up regarding in relation to an edit dispute on Benford's law, regarding the below paragraph:

Benford's law has also been misapplied to claim election fraud. When applying the law to Joe Biden's election returns for Chicago, Milwaukee, and other localities in the 2020 United States presidential election, the distribution of the first digit did not follow Benford's law. The misapplication was a result of looking at data that was tightly bound in range, which violates the assumption inherent in Benford's law that the range of the data be large. According to Mebane, "It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds." Similarly, application of Benford's law to the last pairs of digits in the same data shows an expected distribution for Joe Biden, but a massive spike for lower values for Donald Trump, which also seems to suggest fraud; however, Donald Trump received fewer than 60 votes in a significant portion of districts, skewing the results of such analysis by adding a standard normal distribution in this range, rather than indicating fraud.

References

The latter part of this paragraph references a YouTube video by Stand-up Maths. This channel's videos provide in-depth exploration of various mathematics topics, including rigorous analysis and explanation of methodology. Data cited from other sources is clearly cited, and often links are provided for further information from other experts, including published experts.

In other words: the self-published source has a reputation for being high-quality, independent, accurate, and fact-checked; and relies on authoritative and frequently peer-reviewed sources for support of their claims. In this case, the information in question regards analysis of publicly-available data, which means it can also be independently reviewed itself; and it doesn't make any extraordinary claims. The claim made and supported in the source is that not only does Bedford's law produce a false indication of fraud committed by Biden, but applied to the same data by a different method it also raises an indication of fraud by Trump which similarly fails to pass rigorous examination. In other words: depending on how you look at the same data, two manner of applying Bedford's law can produce an indicator of fraud by either Biden or Trump, and both of these indicators are erroneous for different reasons.

As per User_talk:Bluefoxicy#August_2022, User:EvergreenFir claims Youtube is automatically a bad source. The way I read WP:SELFPUB, evaluation of the source in context and by its own merits suggests it passes reliability and is fit for use in this situation. Notably, I have found no other source that has taken the analysis as far as last-pair-of-digits application of Bedford's law, and the ability to manipulate data by applying the same analysis tool in different manners is interesting and encyclopedic (it demonstrates that use of Bedford's law is not a binary concept, but rather one that can be generalized to a number of methodological approaches).

There are other such self-published sources on YouTube, such as Veritassium (more math) or Alex Yard & Knuckles (music theory), who demonstrate expert knowledge in their field and give rigorous analysis of their subject matter in their various videos. That this is increasingly an outlet for individuals with specialized knowledge to produce what amounts to entertainment content with an intellectual theme suggests a large amount of reliable self-published sources are appearing and likely to continue to appear. Certainly an individual source requires its own careful analysis—as I've said, the particular video in question itself provides a rigorous analysis and uses publicly-available data, rather than just being published by someone generally recognized as reliable—but it seems distinctly strange to me to determine that no mater how a source evaluates, a YouTube video by a highly-knowledgeable self-published source which has demonstrated reliability and passes a fair examination on its merits is still "a YouTube video" and not reliable.

This is going to affect other articles and it is apparently unclear what WP:SELFPUB means in these cases. Can we get some clarification here? John Moser (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"This channel's videos provide in-depth exploration of various mathematics topics, including rigorous analysis and explanation of methodology. Data cited from other sources is clearly cited, and often links are provided for further information from other experts, including published experts. In other words: the self-published source has a reputation for being high-quality, independent, accurate, and fact-checked; and relies on authoritative and frequently peer-reviewed sources for support of their claims." Thats not putting it in other words thats saying a completely different thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• YouTube isn't the source here (or the publisher either), it's the uploader. If the uploader is readily identifiable as a subject matter expert (Guess you will have to prove that Stand-up Maths is Matt Parker as part of that) and the usual rules are met (copyright, blp, OR ), then why not? Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

SPS suggests the author should be a subject matter expert. Matt Parker is not a professional mathematician but is a bestselling author of a pop math book with a reputable publisher, and I think by the references on his page and what I've seen he's a reputable popularizer/educator of math. Since he's not here saying that such-and-such conjecture should be taken seriously, but applying this known math concept to the real world (which is what his book is essentially all about), I'd say he meets the superficial standards of SPS. Whether his comments are ever worth putting in an article is for editors to decide. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Last point I'm not disputing. Whether the context of a particular article in a scientific journal is worth putting in an article is on a case-by-case basis as with anything else. I'm only concerned with "this doesn't belong here because it's SPS/YouTube/whatever" kinds of disputes.

I also brought up the point about things being said being verifiable (i.e. passing some sort of reasoning based on other information, such as being consistent with other things said by experts, or with an individual editor's own expert knowledge…if you're applying textbook theory pretty directly, we can check the textbook, basically) and optimally providing some rigor in their own analysis because unreliable sources can also gain a following, e.g. Alex Jones, and I believe that evidence that someone is wrong or has a pattern of being wrong (or outrights lying) overrules them presenting as a SME, while a self-published source should be reasonably judged as reliable on some kind of merit other than "they have a following and nobody's called them out yet." Not trying to open Wikipedia up to frivolous "seems legit" sources here, just dissatisfied with frivolous "not legit because lul" arguments. John Moser (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how my evaluation had anything to do with "he has a following". The reason you'd cite a SPS is presumably because they're the only one applying a particular concept to a particular event in a particular way that's relevant -- if there were 10 experts publishing the same thing there'd be no issue. You're editing an article on Benford's Law so presumably you can verify that what he's saying about its applicability is correct, apart from the specifics of the dataset itself (which is presumably available somewhere). If you want an editor to independently verify his analysis then WP:WikiProject Mathematics is probably the place. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In case it's not clear from my original post, I'm saying Parker is a reliable SPS for established mathematics applied to real-world events (if that mathematics is indeed applicable to real-world events, as Benford's Law of course is.) Again, whether it (or any mention of the election) belongs in the article is for you to discuss on the article Talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• If this is about stolen election conspiracy theories that aren't being pushed by professional mathematicians, it seems likely that you don't need sources by professional mathematicians to debunk them, by WP:PARITY: Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources....In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. As stated elsewhere in the WP:FRINGE guideline, not mentioning the fringe theory to begin with is also an option. Geogene (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources says: "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." My understanding of expert is someone who has a a body of writing about the topic in academic sources. If we decide that journalists are experts, then it will affect the accuracy of articles. People who popularize subjects take their information from reliable sources and translate it into English. Some even use Wikipedia articles as sources. What is the problem with using those sources directly?

The other issue here is that in the example, the source is used for its opinions, viz., whether there was electoral fraud. Perhaps different experts would come to different conclusions, not about whether or not fraud occurred, but whether Benford's law is a good way to make that determination or whether it had been used correctly. A peer reviewed article making Parker's claim would be peer-reviewed, so that experts could weigh in on that before publication and after publication we could see what response experts had, for example did they ignore it, endorse it or trash it.

TFD (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No journal worth its druthers would bother publishing a paper on such a ludicrous idea that it can be debunked by a YouTube video. A popmath explainer of simple mathematics is just as much a qualified expert (and you don't need to be particularly mathematically educated to see Parker's argument is simply correct in an almost WP:COMMONSENSE way). jps (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In their reply above, TFD cited the SPS link which brought a question to my mind. SPS says an expert is one, "...whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". That seems very academic focused and appropriate in areas where publications are a common metric of expertise. What about areas where academic work is less common and a person's resume vs the CV shows their expertise? Using light aircraft and automobile racing as examples, would we treat as expert opinion the self published comments of Burt Rutan on the design of a light airplane, Rick Mears on performance driving or Ralph Firman on design and sales of jr formula cars? My feeling is they should be considered experts but I'm not sure if they would be in context of the SPS rules. Springee (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just a quick note… the requirement is for the expert to have independently published works … not necessarily academic works.

For example, David McCullough’s independently published biographies of John Addams and Harry Truman qualify him as an amateur expert on the lives of these US presidents… so we can accept any SPS statements about those presidents by McCullough. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

dailypakistan.com.pk (Urdu-language ref)

• Reema Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Reema_Khan#Birthdate
• Reference: "ریما خان آج 45 ویں سالگرہ منائے گی". Daily Pakistan. 27 October 2016.
• Content "...in Lahore on 27 October 1971."
• Added 20:52, 16 July 2019 by Hammad

The date of birth for Khan has been disputed for over a decade. Various WP:SPA editors, some claiming to be working for Khan have attempted to change it without providing reliable sources.

As far as I can figure out using auto-translation, the reference looks ok, though I'm not seeing the author. Is the author not indicated?

https://dailypakistan.com.pk is used over 800 times in English Wikipedia, and I see no previous WP:RSN discussions about it.

https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/about-us appears to describe a legitimate news publisher. Hipal (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know where specifically a journalist got a fact like that (whether it was from a public source or whether they went through a verification process like the New York Times purportedly does with every tiny fact), then my recommendation is to email/call the publication itself (or the journalist) and ask them. Seriously

Regarding the newspaper itself, they seem fine. Just watch out that it can be a little difficult to tell from the banner whether you're reading from their news or feature desk (both of which have a "Web desk" byline), or whether from their opinion or blog (which use linked author name bylines). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium as a source to allege criminal activity

i was sent here by Praxidicae (talk · contribs) because they disagree with my removal of an allegation of criminal activity sourced to Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium. from the site's TOU page: WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SITE’S CONTENT (sic). serious claims require serious evidence, and the claim of cyberterrorism seems unsupported by any reliable sources. furthermore, reviewing the discussion at Talk:Bodu_Bala_Sena#Terrorist_organization, it seems TRAC scrapes wikipedia itself. despite no policy specifically proscribing such scraper sites, there are plenty of wikipedia namespace discussions where scraper sites are described as unacceptable sources. hopefully some clarity can come from this discussion. .usarnamechoice (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, TRAC is a basically a commercial open source database so the quality of hosted material varies hugely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Here are several other wiki articles which use the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC) as a RS: List of militia organizations in the United States, Ansar Al-Furqan, S14 (Ukrainian group), Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Joint Task Force 2, Ansarullah Bangla Team, Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency, Sinai insurgency, Fidai Mahaz, AlHayat Media Center, Secret Army Organization, Tigray People's Liberation Front. So it appears we have a consensus among many editors who have used it for a variety of different purposes that this source is reliable.
2. That sort of legalese on their website is pretty standard and doesn't really change much about how we uses sources on Wikipedia.
3. The editorial group which runs TRAC (Beacham Publishing [101]) is a well-regarded publishing house which puts out such works as The Official WWF Guide to Endangered Species of North America [102] and Beachams Guide to International Endangered Species [103].
4. From their about page [104] it appears TRAC has an editorial board, is created and edited by topic experts, and accepts corrections. All of these make it clear that TRAC is indeed a reliable source. I would say open source and having copied content from wikipedia means many of its articles are unreliable. Those which have other sources would be useful, but should cite those other sources. (edited 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC))

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A source being widely used on Wikipedia is never an indication of reliability. There are loads of sources that are cited hundreds of thousands of times that are unreliable, but simply fly under the radar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

fair point. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

They have copied content from Wikipedia. That rules it out entirely imo. That editors have mistakenly used a poor source repeatedly means that our articles need fixing, not that there is nothing wrong with that usage. nableezy - 14:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do they copy content from Wikipedia? I'm not doubting you, tbh, I just haven't seen it I see it now. Seems an issue of being open source, so I see the problem. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed... Editors lacking competence is not a reason to rule a source reliable when we ourself are competent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Confusingly, there's another terrorist research group named TRAC that seems to focus on South America (and OP's TRAC conspicuously does not). There also seem to be several publishers named Beacham (including one for children's lit) so it's hard to get good info on the parent corp. The Mackenzie Institute has a partner publication with TRAC. On brief glance several major university libraries have seen it fit to subscribe to TRAC's publications. Initial reviews seemed positive, but Schmid was quite critical of the quality control. A complete, recent review is at Kraft 2019 if you can access it: she notes while Schmid's review above may not be appropriate in the context of an OSINT database, TRAC hosts mostly primary material, and she evaluates its original analysis as appropriately written "complete primers, or detailed reference entries, for complex topics". Beyond that the remainder of Kraft's review is on LIS stuff and not on the relevance of content to academic terrorism research (she gives it 3+3/8 stars out of 4 in this context). A Google Scholar search suggests TRAC is indeed not used for research. There are of course other databases, and KRAFT notes free databases GTD and RDWTI, while Schmid suggests JTIC would be more professionally curated (but not OSINT).

Given all this, I'd say TRAC's analysis is an RS if you want OSINT (and you should properly note other articles that are primary) (to all above, an RS doesn't have to be the best RS), but note there may be better RS out there that importantly would be freely accessible to the average reader. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Universities subscribe to it because its a valuable tool to use for original research. We don't do that here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That contradicts everything I said in my comment apart from the fact that some universities subscribe to it. It is also a non sequitur with respect to how RS are evaluated. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Given all this, I'd say TRAC's analysis is an RS" also appears to contradict everything else in your comment. I'm not sure how you get "reliable" out of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources can be reliable when no other source exists, they are just heavily heavily not preferred. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

a primary source for an allegation of terrorism would be a copy of the indictment. wikipedia is a tertiary source, so a wikipedia scraper site would be a post-tertiary source or a quarternary source. .usarnamechoice (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but an article written on TRAC which is not a scrape of wikipedia, but has its own sources, would be valuable for finding primary sources. SamuelRiv is saying "when you want OSINT" this would be a good primary source. For wikipedia's purposes, such "open source" information would typically never be considered a RS.

No need to beat this dead horse, everybody. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to judge the research standards of another field. If OSINT is in general considered viable in academia then the editors on individual articles can judge whether an RS OSINT source is appropriate in context. If you look at even slightly technical articles in any other field it's the same process, regardless of what an editor's opinion on this board is. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• idk what the above means, perhaps i shouldve been more clear. the wikipedia article for gnaa lists the group as a cyberterrorist organization, and cites only TRACs entry on the group. if cyberterrorism is a form of terrorism then cyberterrorism is a crime, and wikipedia and trac are the only two repeating this. there is nothing else that i can find describing what they did that makes them cyberterrorists, i searched the news and legal archives and can not find anything besides wp and trac. Praxidicae is allegedly looking for more sources but refuses to participate here, telling me to 'get consensus from rsn' (is that even done here?), and 'dont ping me'. so the above is an interesting discussion but it doesnt help resolve the issue. some of the above discussion does cite policy/other pages, but most of them dont which makes it hard for me to figure whether consensus can be reached. should i file an rfc for this? .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The endorsing reviews refer specifically to their article space (conveniently under "/article/"). If a source page/article anywhere mirrors Wikipedia content it obviously cannot be used. It does not necessarily disqualify the entire site. Hence the review above. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Unless youre able to determine which of the articles came from Wikipedia, which came from some other random unreliable source, and which come from a source we would consider reliable, then yes it does disqualify the entire site. If I know one apple is poisonous, Im not sticking my head in to bob for a good one. I agree a website can host both good and bad sources. But you need a way to differentiate between them, and I do not see that here. nableezy - 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Are Babylon Bee and Not the Bee reliable sources

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.

The OP has themselves answered the first part of the question - a satirical website will obviously be unreliable for Wikipedia purposes, and there was no disagreement, and even some sort of disbelief, that this actually needed a RSN discussion. There is precisely one mention of Not the Bee as a source anywhere on Wikipedia (two for the Babylon Bee), all about the website and the people behind it. Therefore, several editors have noted that there is no need to discuss a source no one appears to be using anyway (yet), let alone to the extent that raises problems for our articles. The OP listed one discussion that mentioned the source in passing, but that's clearly not enough to say there is some dispute needing resolution. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that two discussions or an RfC are generally enough, but given that there appears to be no issue with the potential misuse of the Babylon Bee anywhere on Wikipedia, there is no need to list it on RSP. Therefore, I close this discussion so that the editors can concentrate on more pressing issues. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

---

I think it goes without saying that Babylon Bee is unreliable since it is a satirical site, and would like to formalize it here so that it can be added to WP:RSPSS. However, it may be the case that Babylon Bee should not be listed because it is obviously satirical. Despite this, satirical sites like Babylon Bee may be misinterpretted to be real news (see this discussion about whether The Onion should be listed as generally unreliable, which it currently is).

Additionally, I believe it should be discussed whether Not the Bee is a reliable source. This is definitely something that would be taken at face value by many, as it is presented to be real (yet humerous) content. Not the Bee seems to quite rarely distort the truth to the extent of outright presenting false information about whether or not non-systemic, direct occurrences have taken place. However, they often write articles from a biased, many times harmful, point of view such as here, sometimes presenting philosophical/religious arguments/points such as here and here. They also occassionally dishonestly frame issues such as here, albeit this particular kind of framing seems to be rare.

• Option 1 Neither Babylon Bee nor Not the Bee should be listed on WP:RSPSS as generally unreliable
• Option 2 Only Babylon Bee should be listed as generally unreliable
• Option 3 Only Not the Bee should be listed as generally unreliable
• Option 4 Both Babylon Bee and Not the Bee should be listed as generally unreliable
• Option 5 Not the Bee should be listed as generally reliable

TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it needs to be added or run as a proper RFC - I doubt it's very controversial, that Babylon Bee is a satirical site much like the Onion. Since the Onion is listed, I suppose you could list the Babylon Bee as well. "Not the Bee" doesn't appear to be a source at all really, it's just an aggregator, like a reblog site, so not reliable. Andre🚐 00:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Go ahead and deprecate both. They both publish some amount of content presenting satirical takes as straightforward news. Moreover, Not the Bee reposts anonymously authored pieces apparently without meaningful editorial oversight, and without differentiating what might be either opinion or satire from real news. The bottom line is that whatever actual news might be reported there would always be better reported and cited in other sources. BD2412 T 00:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @BD2412: Then should The Onion also be deprecated? Currently, it is only listed as "generally unreliable." TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I think, actually, The Onion at least does recognized non-satirical movie reviews. Obviously it should be deprecated as a source for real news, if it isn't already. It (and the Bee) might be useful to show examples of events being parodied, but not as a source for information about the events themselves. BD2412 T 01:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    The AV Club you mean. I think it came up or is listed in a past thread or on the board. Andre🚐 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to formalize that satire sites aren't reliable, thats just common sense. notthebee.com/ also appears to be largely a joke site although its hard to figure out whether its just highly unreliable or whether its jokes and given that theres repeat writers named "Harambe" and "Jesse James" with matching avatars I'm leaning towards its all a joke but either way its a hard no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  They do consider themselves to be legit to an extent. Obviously they don't take themselves as seriously as the average news organization, but they do have the belief that Not the Bee is simply uncovering truths that sounds so stupid it sounds fake, or something along those lines to a lesser degree. And I assume many others believe Not the Bee to a similar extent. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm having a heck of a hard time finding any sources which talk about them as different from The Babylon Bee other than their own press releases. What are you seeing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Their podcasts. I can't cite it cause I don't remember which ones, but I consume news and comedy from both sides of the spectrum, so I've seen them comment on it a couple times. To be fair, I have never seen Not the Bee make clearly unironic comments on themselves, but Babylon Bee have commented on Not the Bee on their podcasts. Additionally, there wouldn't be a point in Babylon Bee expanding to Not the Bee if they didn't take Not the Bee seriously to an extent. Also, the content Not the Bee publishes just seems like the kind of stuff that would be taken seriously by a sizeable percentage of people, as most of it seems to be some American conservative perspectivies, told in a humerous, sarcastic manner. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Couldn't Not the Bee merely indicate a disclaimer of responsibility for anonymous content? BD2412 T 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, also, found this excert from the Babylon Bee Wikipedia page: "Seth Dillon has described it as 'a humor-based entertainment site that offers commentary on stories that are so outrageous they should be satire, but somehow aren't'" TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• I propose an addition to the MOS that editors must not spit on the floor. I don't have a specific example of an editor spitting on the floor that I can link to, but I'm sure we can all agree that spitting on the floor is disgusting and should be deprecated! 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Satire sites are not reliable (except as primary sources for quotation purposes… and quotation would inappropriate except in very limited situations). That said - I oppose adding it to WP:RSP. RSP is not supposed to be a general list of “good” and “bad” sources… it is a compiling of sources that have been PERENNIALLY discussed… (discussed repeatedly at RSN, with the same results over and over again). The two sites under discussion here are not PERENNIAL. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Are people actually citing it? If not, then who cares? And if so, when challenged are they maintaining it is still reliable? If not, then who cares? nableezy - 01:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Is this a satirical RfC? I'm going to use XKCD as a RS to answer that question[105]. Seems this question didn't need to be answered. Springee (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Somewhere out there someone is reading a piece from The Bee (or The Onion, for that matter), taking it seriously, and preparing to cite it in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Heavens to Murgatroyd, what ever shall we do? If they publish that citation here we'll be powerless, powerless to stop it! Won't someone please think of the children! SamuelRiv (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    • This being a mature effort to build an encyclopedia, we should document which sources are known to be appropriate and not appropriate to use. 23:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

      Being mature editors, we don’t need to have every inappropriate source documented. We only add them to RSP if they become a “Perennial” issue. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

      @Blueboar: I agree that we don't need to, but the issue was raised so we may as well. BD2412 T 01:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

      @Blueboar: Based on WP:RSPCRITERIA, the requirements seem to be: Either two significant past discussions OR a Reliable sources Noticeboard discussion. So correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that both sources should be added solely because this discussion exists.

      If that is not the case, I went ahead and searched all talk pages for discussions, and found six discussions (three for each source) about the reliability of the sources, but zero Babylon Bee discussions and one Not the Bee discussion was significant (if you're interested in viewing the discussions, there's an array of links below this reply, only the first Not the Bee link is significant, at least from what I can tell). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

    That's nothing. I've seen someone cite a literal fiction novel for a claim about a company (that wasn't even related to the novel). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Even if Babylon Bee shouldn't be listed, there are certainly many people that believe Not the Bee is a legit site that "mainstream news media" would not cover unbiasedly. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly many! Uncountably many! So many that it's simply not feasible to list one, let alone all! (I'm giving you the opportunity to prove us wrong, by the way. I've done the search, but maybe I made a mistake.) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  From the Babylon Bee wikipedia page about the Babylon Bee CEO, "Seth Dillon has described it as 'a humor-based entertainment site that offers commentary on stories that are so outrageous they should be satire, but somehow aren't'". Also, doesn't Not the Bee just post the kinds of points American conservatives believe? Not the Bee, albeit in a sarcastic tone, unironically portrays talking points that is common in conservative media. To say people won't take them seriously to some extent is kind of like saying no one takes Tucker Carlsen seriously. Regardless of how wack it might be, it clearly will happen.

  Also, not that I can cite it since I don't remember exactly which one, but I've listened to Babylon Bee's podcasts (I consume news/comedy from both sides of the spectrum), and have heard them unironically comment on how Not the Bee supposedly exposes the absurdity of the left. If Babylon Bee takes it seriously to an extent, chances are Not the Bee does too, and it's most likely the case that many consumers do too. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Based on the most accurate numbers I could get in less than 45 seconds of effort, your assertion that with a current citation rate of (I'm still letting you do this search for yourself) 0.00 out of at minimum 5.3 million, the use of Bee and/or !Bee as sources is clearly problematic? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I have no idea how to search that, even with the link you provided. And also, shouldn't it be listed if it happens a number of times, as opposed to common enough to happen a noticeable frequency of times? I'm under the assumption that The Onion will have the same issues as Babylon Bee. If this is not the case, then it isn't. If it is the same, then Babylon Bee should get the same treatment as The Onion. Perhaps that would mean Not the Bee shouldn't be listed because it is more trivial, but it seems reasonable to list Babylon Bee. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  An example of how to do this search is "insource:babylonbee.com", or use whatever other site you worry might be used in citations. Sorry, I didn't realize you didn't know how to look -- I was pretty convinced you were trolling us. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, so as of right now, yeah it seems Babylon Bee isn't currently being used inappropriately, but I don't see that as relevant. Isn't the point to prevent people from doing it to begin with, rather than to establish that the currently used ones are wrong? Babylon Bee is likely to be incorrectly used periodically. That's a different thing from saying it's likely it is currently being incorrectly used. Unless there's a way to also search previous usages of the site as a source, there's no way of us knowing how frequently it is used. Since it's a satire site, and usage will probably be deleted soon after it's added much more often than other sources. I kinda assumed it wasn't being misused at this current moment, my point is that it will be periodically. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now with that said, I don't have any knowledge of it actually being a perennial issue. Looking at the discussions about The Onion, it doesn't appear they brought more than one example. And yeah, there's currently one example of a misused Babylon Bee source on the Ethan Nicolle article. If you're suggesting we do not add Babylon Bee, I'd say we should also remove The Onion, unless there's some distinct difference. However, the way I see it is that the mere fact that there's any misused Babylon Bee sources point to the likelihood that it is occassionally inappropriately added, and probably quickly removed after. Though, it might also be the case that it's considered a reliable source in this particular non-political case about a previous staff member, and the only reason it would be inappropriate is because their name is no longer on the link provided. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with removing anything from RSP that isn't actually Perennial. The burden is on you however to demonstrate that there has been, continues to be, or will be a problem that needs a remedy. Look at your audience -- most of the people here evaluate the credibility of claims as a hobby. The force of words alone won't convince anyone that a Phantom Menace is worth paying attention to (And for the 100th time, that film was terrible when it came out -- I'm not going to rewatch it and suddenly call it a misunderstood masterpiece in the context of Abrams!). You could, say, write a simple program to use a wiki search tool like WikiBlame on a representative random sample of pages over the past few years and see if your assertion about these sources being commonly cited and then reverted is true. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: @SamuelRiv: I figure probably the best way to determine whether this is a reoccurring issue is searching Talk pages. I have done so and found the following:

  Babylon Bee: 1, 2, 3

  Not the Bee: 1, 2, 3

  Also, the criteria for a source to be included is WP:RSPCRITERIA. This is a discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard, and so the sources should be included on the list, if I'm not misinterpretting it. However, if we're going off of the other qualification, neither Babylon Bee nor Not the Bee passes for the "past signficiant discussions" thing, as there is no significant Babylon Bee discussions, and only the first linked Not the Bee discussion is significant. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  If any other editors are thinking about engaging in this conversation, doing this search themselves, or checking those links TheGEICOgecko just posted, don't. They're all garbage and I wasted far more time double-checking them than what is justified from the minuscule amusement this thread gave me. It was funny for a while, but the joke is dead. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would appreciate it if you don't automatically assume this is a satire thread. If what I'm saying makes little sense, the fact of the matter is that there's a good portion of people here that also think at least one of them should be added, if there is an issue with the logic presented, describe the issue instead of mocking it. Also, you did not respond to what I said about WP:RSPCRITERIA with how it says both should be added solely because there was a discusssion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard (as it says, there should either be significant discussions OR a Reliable sources Noticeboard discussion). So either both of the sources should be added, or neither.

  Also, not sure why you took so long to verify the six links I gave. Shouldn't the only point in checking the links be checking it for substance and for the number of people commenting on whether the sources should be included? To do further verification seems unnecessary, considering how black-and-white it generally will be when discussing sites like these. Just Ctrl + F it, and skim the comments below it, it took me a less than 30 minutes to check ~30 pages. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  You confuse a necessary condition with a sufficient one. That you did not properly vet your own links confirms my assessment of the amount of time other editors should spend on this thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  I included non-significant links because I did not want to exclude information I might be wrong about excluded: this is my first time being aware of these requirements, as the only other time I have introduced a source to the list, this criteria did not need to be discussed in the same way it does for these Bee sources. Also, I feel if you're going to list criteria and use "or", it should be sufficient conditions: I admit not the best assumption that that was implied, but it should be clarified whether the conditions are necessary or sufficient. But yeah, particularly considering the context of it being "perennial sources", it makes much more sense that the conditions are necessary rather than sufficient. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Its a waste of time if it isnt something that is regularly brought up ad argued about. Nobody checks RSP before citing a source. You can use it to explain to somebody why a source is not reliable and that we already have a consensus for that, but for some source that clearly is not reliable you can just as soon explain hey I see you used this site, its actually a satire news site so we shouldnt be citing it. Thats it, the end, you dont need to have an RSN thread much less an RSP entry for that. If people are constantly pushing back on that, sure. But until then, waste of time and energy. nableezy - 02:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 The Babylon Bee should be listed as generally unreliable with text mirroring the WP:RSP entry for The Onion: "The Babylon Bee is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts." We can discuss Not the Bee if it turns into an actual issue or something. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 6 Keep Babylon Bee at generally unreliable and list Not the Bee as No Consensus, as it is not currently an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The purpose of listing something as No consensus is for when there is no consensus on the reliability. However, the discussion is whether it should be listed. I think we can all agree it is generally unreliable, the only question is whether it should be listed as generally unreliable (or deprecated) or not listed at all. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 Treat it the same as the Onion. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Close and carry on. Please don't open these discussion on a source merely because it exists. If someone can't recognize satire then that's a them problem and not an us problem. We are not in the business of evaluating sources unrelated to real world examples of article work.
  This is supposed to be a process that saves time and achieves a broader consensus because particular sources are repeatedly the subject of debate on article talk pages. It is not supposed to be a forum for general discussion about sources for its own sake. GMG^talk 15:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Despite being the one to start the discussion, I have come to the conclusion that neither should be added to the list. WP:RSPCRITERIA states "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard." I have only found one barely significant Not the Bee discussion here. With the context of these criteria being for perennial sources, I believe these criteria to most likely be disjunctional necessary qualifications, rather than sufficient qualifications: "perennial sources" and "some rando bringing it up on this discussion board out of the blue" don't exactly go hand-in-hand. If these requirements are actually sufficient conditions, then these sources should be added, but I highly doubt this, and believe neither of them should be added.

Also note, The Onion likely shouldn't be considered similarly to The Babylon Bee. Doing a search, there's 100-200 talk pages that include The Onion links, as opposed to under 10 for either Babylon Bee or Not the Bee. Not to say I checked any of these The Onion discussions to any extent, but it's safe to assume there is perennial discussion (aka at least 2-3 significant discussions) about The Onion. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Both are obviously not reliable sources, but I don't think it's necessary to list sources on RSP when nobody is attempting to use them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• You know, I expected this thread to close quickly in a WP:SNOWBALL, speedy something or at the very least, a clear and easy close, but it actually seems that there is no consensus that it should be added to RSP or if so, what or how it should be added. Andre🚐 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• See, this is the general problem; RSP was really designed to handle sites that are likely to be controversial and generate repeat, frequent debate. It is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE a general list of "approved" and "denied" sources. Comedy and satire sites are not even sources. It's fiction. We don't list "Star Wars" as an unreliable source on interstellar travel because, no shit, it's a fictional source. So no, we don't list them, but not because they are reliable; because no one should be trying to use them. If people are using them, remove them immediately, and be done with it. A source doesn't need to be on this list and "deprecated" in order to remove it without comment. You do not need permission to make Wikipedia better, and if some idiot is using a satire/comedy website as a source of information, you don't need permission to remove it as soon as you see it. --Jayron32 12:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Except (or course) for those very rare occurrences where it is being cited as a primary source for a quote (or something similar). Context always matters. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course. My point was that RSP is not for posting really obvious stuff, like comedic news satire. You don't need anyone's permission to remove bullshit. --Jayron32 13:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

While I tend to agree, and I hope everyone takes that truth to heart, the OP does seem to be legitimately posing the question, and interestingly enough there is a bit of a discussion here, including that The Onion is listed at RSP. I wasn't expecting the discussion to get into anything significant, but it seems that it did. Andre🚐 18:01, 12 August 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.

Is BeachSearcher a reliable source for content about beaches?

I think https://beachsearcher.com is a reliable source for content about beaches because this is a primary online portal dedicated to finding beaches worldwide. They seem to use Google Maps to add beaches and update information about beaches. Moreover, they claim to manually check the beaches for names and descriptions and work with locals to get reliable information. Kentavr009 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any "about" page or any other information about staff, sources, etc. A lot of the featured listings are for resort or hotel beaches, which raises the question of how those beaches were selected for being featured. - Donald Albury 14:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks dubious, per WP:RS: websites... that are promotional in nature. What exactly is it proposed the website be cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

newscentralasia.net

Looking for comment on this source. It's used to source some pretty big claims in Balochistan Liberation Army - that the BLA was originally a Soviet-backed disruption operation that was resurrected by the Americans when they went into Afghanistan as part of a plot to make export of central asian energy resources to the USA feasible etc. I can find other sources for Soviet involvement, though none that I'd call iron-clad reliable and lots of them are fairly reticent about the claim. I'm thinking I should just remove most of the 20thc history from the article but would value others' thoughts please. GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I see your point. The administrative centre is in Pakistan and it is published in Russian and English! It looks like some state sponsored news source, but which state? It says it has an editorial presence in Turkmenistan. Why does it not publish in Turkmen or Urdu as well?, and the prices are given in US dollars! I think it could probably be used for something with a political slant but what one? NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• The NCA story is very complex with a lot of side citations to different reporters that are difficult to track down (I think I found the New Yorker piece they mentioned), but it seems reasonable and it is not making an extraordinary claim:

  But — and it is a BUT with capital letters –when we say Americans or Russians, we have reasons to suspect that the American and Russian involvement in Balochistan is sanctioned, at least in part, by Pentagon (if not White House) and Kremlin. We would also like to acknowledge that the picture we have gathered is far from complete and except for the explanatory comments of two former KGB officials, we have no way of connecting the dots in any meaningful sequence. For the sake of honesty, this story should better remain abrupt and incomplete.

  Don't blame a source for the fact that whoever wrote the WP article doesn't know how to write properly. (Also @NadVolum they have an Urdu section, and with dual-English-Russian publishing they can reach wide swaths of central Asia (though they'll piss off a lot of people in the process), so I don't know what nonsense you're on about.) SamuelRiv (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That's peculiar, when I looked their Urdu section had nothing in it. Now it has a mixture of Turkmen, Urdu and English! And just checking now again - and it is all Urdu! I guess they must have had some problem which they're t6rying to fix. NadVolum (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Book of Achievers.

Is this a reliable source? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. It seems that the information on it is produced by the subjects of the individual articles, sometimes for pay [106], and there is no sign of fact-checking. One might very cautiously use it for basic facts like date of birth if that information is not available elsewhere, but it wouldn't establish notability of a subject and an academic or journalistic publication would be far better if possible. Furius (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. I had a look at the pages linked by About Us and FAQs at the bottom of the page and it just does not give me enough information to have any kind of confidence. In particular the bit in the FAQ about write in and tell us why you are an achiever makes it sound very iffy to me. NadVolum (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Based on the About and FAQ it has the essential structure of a Who's Who (without apparently the business model?). We had a discussion about Marquis Who's Who recently, basically the definitive one for reference libraries, and it was rather tight but the essential dispute came down to their lax/ambiguous practice of verifying the submitted information. In this case, they do not claim there is any attempt to verify submitted information at all. They also do not hint at how they get information about those who are nominated by third parties -- obviously they can't call them all because there's a lot who are long dead without clear relatives. It also appears "Achievers" get to update their own information, and it is not clear whether those updates are subject to approval. They do not cite sources (such as in the case of bios of dead people), but they do encourage users at the end to email if there are mistakes (not unlike History.com, which was also recently brought up as sometimes reliable). I'd agree that it's generally not usable. However, like History.com, you may find that some articles (like those of dead historic people) might strongly indicate facts or quotes that are easy to verify or search for elsewhere, and thus it can still be a potential research tool. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

World Religions and Spirituality Project and CESNUR-affiliated author

Is this a reliable source? This has come up at Template:Did you know nominations/Ossian D'Ambrosio as a significant portion of the article relies on this source, which is flagged as unreliable by the User:Headbomb/unreliable script. WRSP has a very small discussion previously at RSN but I couldn't find any real consensus for it one way or the other. Questionable site design aside, their about page does make it seem like their could be credibility there, but I think it seems to be the kind of source where the specific authors of each "article" are what determines its reliability, which is where CESNUR comes in.

CESNUR has been previously discussed here (for example 2008, 2019, 2019 (2)) and the consensus seems to be that CESNUR is not a reliable source for such matters. I bring up CESNUR specifically because the author of the source in question is Stefania Palmisano who serves on the CESNUR board of directors (the other author, Martina Vanzo, is a grad student so I'm kind of leaning on Palmisano's position as an associate professor as giving weight to any potential reliability). Does her serving on the board of an (apparently problematic) advocacy group create an issue for the reliability of her work in the field that CESNUR advocates for?

The DYK nom and I appear to disagree on the reliability of the source (their response is here). Given that so much of the article relies on this source I wanted to bring it up here before moving forward. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

First, the journal is clearly an academic RS, and editors can decide if a given article is due relative to other scholarship. As far as the organization in general, the previous evaluations are somewhat odd. For starters, the RSP entry is a non sequitur in the first sentence and should not link WP:COI which has zero relevance to an outside source (gee, ya think an advocacy/think tank/whatever will have a conflict of interest, or whatever you want to call it??? A professional COI in that context would be if a think tank were evaluating say a government institution while one of the members of the think tank doing the evaluation was also affiliated with the institution -- it's situational and irrelevant to a general RSP evaluation.) And no, a mainstream academic who serves on the board of an advocacy group that you might think is cuckoo does not automatically make the mainstream publications by said mainstream academic a non-RS -- that is simply stupid. Otherwise wave goodbye to Pauling, Penrose, etc. etc. As far as WRSP goes it appears their original leadership is now more humble, though each of their major project and regional pages has Ph.D.s listed as curators (but no dates, so I'm not sure how old it is, which is troubling). The profiles have bylines and dates however, and the interviews seem inconsistent. It all seems pretty objective though -- the profiles seem to be what you'd use as a source, and they're just lists of events with basically no analysis (and, as I said, a byline and date), so what's the issue? And if cesnur.net is now only the journal and not the advocacy org, RSP should be updated to green since the journal's been in place with a lower rating notice for pre-journal CESNUR per previous discussion that I'm not reading everything through (though red seems like a weak argument, and almost all the counter-CESNUR sites are deadlinks and are by non-academic cult deprogrammers/activists). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RadioFreeEurope/RFL

I see Radio Free Asia has gotten the thumbs up, so I would assume RFE/RFL is also in the green. But I assume some might have objections in terms of funding, etc., as with RFA. But I don't see a qualitative difference between RFA and RFE/RFL, so they should therefore be equally reliable. What is the consensus? Euor (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well our article on Alhurra is no help and needs to be updated because it gives no indication of its state in nearly a decade, but it indicates that the first news director resigned because he felt USAGM was pushing to promote U.S. foreign policy on top of news. That can take many forms aside from simply bias (which wouldn't necessarily affect reliability). It would seem that RFE/RL should be assumed to be fine if it's correctly funded and managed, but that would require a positive outside assessment since 2014 (the last major shift in policy according to our article). Alhurra should be taken with caution until we get several recent third-party assessments. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is an EIDR entry a reliable source?

I didn't see this on here before, so I thought I'd add a post about it. I was thinking of adding a link to Draft:Hailey's On It!, like this one, as a source, and possibly using the site as a source on other pages. Thoughts? Historyday01 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Are HITC and Happy Mag reliable sources?

Are HITC and Happy Mag reliable for factual claims? Do you use them in your articles? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-help books on psychology and human behavior

Are self-help books and other publications which identify themselves as being intended for self-help, reliable sources specifically for describing forms and types of a human behavior, such as what is currently done in manipulation (psychology)? Specifically, can these sources be used to identify forms and types of human behavior when no more reliable source is available?

This question also applies to other articles in Category:Psychological manipulation, such as gaslighting and emotional blackmail. It applies more broadly to aticles in Category:Human behavior.

These are a few cited books, with authors having varying amounts of qualifications and the books having varying scientific support/acceptance - illustrating how it can be especially difficult to determine reliability of the individual sources without a higher-level discussion: Here are two cited sources on the manipulation and gaslighting which are not books, but identify as self-help material: [107][108]

There is tangential extensive discussion here and here. This question came up as part of an ongoing dispute resolution proccess on DRN. My main concern is that WP:MEDRS is not met by many self-help books on this topic, and the application of MEDRS to psychology articles is difficult and inconsistent. I hope that this will clear up some of that inconsistency.

References

Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I do not think that these kinds of sources are reliable, but we have scores of not hundreds of articles and listicles masquerading as articles based extensively on pop-psychology and self-help books, articles, advocacy group websites and blogs. Until there is consensus that MEDRS should be enforced in the psychology genre, I doubt this massive problem will be fixed. Banks Irk (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• WP:MEDRS applies to issues in clinical psychiatry, pharmacochemistry, and the like while WP:SCIRS should be considered for anything in experimental psychology, theories, or interdisciplinary applications. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:NONSENSE apply, while WP:COMMONSENSE notably does not since a major part of the field of psychology is proving or disproving "common sense" notions. It would be nice if a perhaps WikiProject Psychology started a PSYCHRS essay to explain the differences in the standards of proof and scope of application of expertise between say clinical and experimental psychiatry versus clinical and experimental psychology, what it means when a respected doctor/researcher writes a lay book (that's covered in MEDRS actually so should not be an issue), the applications of psychology to the softer sciences, and the point at which psychology historically transitioned into the realm of mainstream medicine and science. In the meantime, follow the general guidelines for med/sci as closely as possible: reviews, metaanalyses, and professional standards are what you should stick closest to as worth reporting, and don't pull raw data out of studies that's not in the conclusions or in the reviews. Pop sci is an RS for what pop sci is saying. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying what RSP is for

I have noticed that we are getting a LOT more requests to list sources (especially news sources) on RSP. Most of them do not fit the criteria of being “Perennial” (ie discussed multiple times - usually with the same result). These RFCs tell me that there is a general misunderstanding as to what the purpose of WP:RSP is. I think we need to brainstorm a better way to clarify that purpose. Ideas? Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is for political types to wage POV wars safely out of the way of actual content. It has no policy force. Ignore it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of editors editors DO treat it as having the force of policy (especially when it comes to those sources that are listed as “deprecated”). A lot of editors seem to think RSP is a general list of “spproved/good” and “not aporoved/bad” sources. It wasn’t supposed to be that, but it may be turning into that. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many clueless editors. That's not news. But RSP is catnip for them. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thx, Alexbrn, I can appreciate your answers, even though we don't always agree. Atsme 💬 📧 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It does have the force of policy, RSP acts as a supplement to WP:RS. Noticeboards dedicated for policy pages is how one obtains a global consensus for more specific questions related to the policy and ignoring it would be ignoring that consensus. Even if the RSP page itself did not exist, the discussions or RfCs still do and its consensus would still apply. All RSP is, is a means of tabulating that information. That there's a problem with editors trying to insert sources which aren't truly perennially discussed into it, or editors misreading it as an exhaustive black and white source list doesn't mean it has no utility or that it need not be followed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree 💯 Andre🚐 19:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You can "agree" all you like, but this further exemplifies the WP:CLUELESSNESS issue. Even leaving aside the fact the WP:RS is not policy, RSP helpfully states at its head "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn is spot-on. Sorry, RSP is not MEDRS by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't have any more bite than an essay. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanatory essays can explain the consensus of editors. If they are missing anything or inaccurate, they should be updated. Content guidelines have many exceptions but they have the force of consensus which is what Tayi Arajakate means when he says consensus applies. Andre🚐 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

They said "It does have the force of policy". You agreed. Again, these are perfect examples of people claiming RSP has no problems, instead showing exactly the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not literally a policy but by virtue of consensus, it is binding, as policy empowers the consensus to bind. Let's not split hairs, it is getting pedantic. We have a category of things called policy and guidelines, but we also have a system where rules are interpreted. Wikipedia:The rules are principles and the statements of policies and guidelines are a description of the consensus, they don't have force on their own, WP:NOTBURO and WP:NOTDEMO or a court or a state. Andre🚐 19:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Further exemplification of the problem. A explicitly non-policy page does not flip to become policy because you say so. RSP does not enjoy consensus as to its use or even existence (as you may easily see from this very thread). Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You know what's cluelessness? It's rejecting standard practice and calling it cluelessness. WP:RS being a content guideline and not a policy doesn't change anything, it's just pedantic. If it makes you happy, WP:RS relates to WP:V which is a policy. When I said it has the "force of policy", I meant its based on policies and guidelines and is not some random personal essay as you would like to have it treated as. The only thing that's preventing RSP from becoming a "official" supplementary page is that it's more ad hoc and includes entries based on smaller informal discussions alongside widely attended RfCs. The entries themselves are based on consensus so it doesn't matter how formalised the list itself is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Every word there is meaningful. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've a question for you. Are you going to try to use InfoWars as a source in articles because the page has the generic essay disclaimer that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community"? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there anybody so fucking stupid they'd try and use Infowars as a source? and if such a person existed would an essay-style page divert them into thoughtful introspection about their worldview? I do wonder where this push to legislate the obvious is coming from. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it isn't as obvious as you think and that the "legislation" i.e the RfCs that have occurred on it are irrespective of RSP. The list just lists it and its entry is just the closure of those discussions. Clearly there was a need for it and there are people who do in fact trust it as a source to the point that it becomes a problem. Even if they don't listen, it's an useful tool that one can directly refer to for people who are trying to prevent its use. Then there's the other kind of person who may have simply never heard of it and can refer to the list to see what kind of source it is and what the consensus on it is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn you clearly haven't spent enough time in the American Politics area to observe that folks are, for I assume good reasons, trying to occasionally use dubious sources and dubious information, whether it is Counterpunch, or Washington Examiner/Washington Times, or just brazenly linking directly to politician websites, or self-published blogs from randos (not talking about you-know-who but much worse stuff). The need for clue is high for many editors, you seem to be both simultaneously having a very high and a very low opinion of the mean or bottom quartile of new editor. Andre🚐 04:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Has RSP helped the AP2 problem, or made it worse? If such a fucking stupid person does exist who thinks Infowars in RS, and in the (unlikely) event they are redeemable, the route is through gaining some understanding of Wikipedia as a whole, not through being told they're going to be spoonfed a colour-coded checklist of usable/unusable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of RSP is to get one's favorite/most disliked source, upgraded/downgraded via an RFC regardless of how many times it has been discussed before, heh. Tsk, be serious. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I concur that RSN is being overwhelmed by interminable RFCs proposing that sources be listed at RSP. It is not an appropriate use of RSN. RSN should be for questions on the order of "Is this source reliable for this statement in this article?". After a sufficient series of such questions over many months, it may be appropriate to list the source at RSP. Banks Irk (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a slightly more effective method of searching the RSN archives, but with the possibility of added POV in the summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

the problem is that there are a contingency of editors who think that any source not listed on WP:RSP = automatically ok to use even if they're obviously not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have more problems with ones thinking no source can be used unless it is marked green at RSP. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I certainly use it with a quick CTRL-F when I have concerns about a source I'm looking at, but like you point out, it's not a full reckoning of every source, just the ones that come up a lot. (or once or twice, but someone really wants to have it on the list with their wording) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fuel for the WP:CLUELESS. If it was just scaled back to an index that would be fine. With the commentary, novel terminology (e.g. "WP:GREL" created in 2019), icons, colour schemes, etc. removed. It's becoming a blight on the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is red at RSP, so you can't use those links to support your argument. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh No. Now I've crashed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any removal or scaling-back of the policies and processes that exist on RSP and this noticeboard. They have utility. If you have constructive suggestions for how to improve them, that would be welcome. I agree that not all of the threads on this noticeboard are useful, but some are. Individual threads may or may not lead to changes or new consensus on things. A consensus has force whether or not it is listed on the perennial sources list. Also, I don't see how RFCs are "interminable." They have a well-defined start and end date. Once a given RFC is closed it will not be reopened again for a while unless things materially shift. So, generally, I don't see a problem with the current RSN/RSP, and I oppose any attempt to yank the rug out of the process when there are currently some important questions being posed and discussed. Andre🚐 17:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

With due respect to Andrevan, his comment illustrates the problem nicely. He (she?) seems to think RSP is part of a “process” for deeming sources reliable/unreliable… when that wasn’t what it was intended to be. It was supposed to simply be a handy reference guide. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A consensus has force whether or not it is listed on the perennial sources list ← sorta maybe, depending how strong that consensus was. So why not simply have an index to prior discussions without all the arguments about gubbins to overlay that? Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is about the gubbin. The discussion is about the reliability of a source. The gubbin is just a marker to the conversation for ease of use. As you probably know, there are often perennial disputes that new editors may bring up again and again. This is a way of providing some project-wide guidance, which often has plenty of exceptions and complexity. Andre🚐 17:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The "gubbins" has zero policy force. It's the result of often asinine arguments. The more relevant WP:PAG is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

All policies on wikipedia are a description of a consensus, and are not firm rules. RSP is a process that summarizes the consensus of editors, which have force. Andre🚐 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is basically an essay-status page reflecting the WP:LOCALCON of a small number of editors, many of whom are hardened political POV-warriors. For any particular question it may be right, or it may not. Just like essays in general. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of editors have the force of consensus and years of following the process and principles herein. Andre🚐 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

With due respect to Blueboar, whether a process was intended, one was formed and is being followed. In my recent attempt to start an RFC I tried to propose one with 2 options, but I was told that the 4 option format is "standard." That's a process, de facto. Andre🚐 17:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about the “4 question format” of RFCs… but what comes after that… ie the belief that the results of all these RFCs need to be listed in RSP. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the RFCs do not lead to a listing on RSP unless they are perennial and the listing is useful. Andre🚐 18:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd go the other way and say we shouldn't hold RFCs here unless they're perennial or need at RSP for some other exceptional reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an almost perfect illustration of the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

On another page you have tried to argue that self-published blogs are fine to use for amateur media criticism. Perhaps the "problem" is that some editors have ideas that are outside the prevailing consensus view. You are free to discuss those ideas, but you have to disagree and commit with the consensus of editors. Hundreds of editors are participating in the RSN and RSP process to discuss the reliability of sources. It's quite problematic and uncomfortable to challenge that consensus and instead claim that all sources are fine and that only context matters. It's awfully problematic to suddenly propose to dismantle this system that has been running for years at minimum simply because one of the discussions is going a certain way or some discussions are long, contentious, or not very germane. Andre🚐 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a further almost perfect further illustration of the problem, in thinking a specific case can be generalized into a "rule". RSP is largely meaningless except that it attracts people who don't understand that. In my own areas of interest it's largely irrelevant, except for the way it's rendered RNS a bloated mess. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail used to be in use, then there was a consensus of editors to deprecate it, and now it is removed from articles. I agree that an RFC on one article, about a narrow case, may not apply in another unrelated case. (You yourself argued the opposite of this proposition days ago.) However when it is a consensus on whether a source should be reliable or deprecated, that does have force. That's how Wikipedia prevents concern trolls from coming in all the time to say that NYT is unreliable and soapboxing on talk pages. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH: it's a form of disruption not to get the point and continuously grouse about one's own views on sources. That's why we have an RFC. If the RFC ends and I don't get the result I believe in, I still have to abide by it. Andre🚐 18:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether an RfC is generalizable depends on the RfC (look at the closing wording to get a clue). The deprecation of the Daily Mail happened before RSP even existed[109] and has nothing to do with RSP, again perfectly illustrating the problem of people thinking RSP is the law. And people saying the NYT is unreliable are idiots and need to be removed from the Project - again RSP has nothing to do with that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is simply a tool for enabling the deprecation of the Daily Mail, or the reliability of NYT, to be easily referenced and for those consensus decisions to be easily discussed and enforced if needed. There will always be some exceptions. Andre🚐 18:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is it's not "simply" that. Something that was "simply" that would just point to the consensus with a plain summary. RSP has spawned new wikilinks, terminology, categories, argued-over commentary, would-be "processes", colour-schemes and icons. And a whole bazaar of stupid argument. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time or so that you've characterized the good faith participation of editors as "stupid," "asinine," lacking in clue, you're painting with a pretty broad brush, so please consider your tone and your message and how it might be received. We are all here as volunteers who have given years of our free time to the project because we enjoy it and want to improve it. Andre🚐 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet you were on about "concern trolls". Seems there are all kinds of problem editors here. Most Wikipedians are great; some of those hammering on RSP, not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The concern trolls are out in force lately opining on Wikipedia's bias and the issues they have with NYT being unreliable and the like. The RSP board/system are a tool we have to counter those trolls, not encourage them. Many of our noticeboards from fringe theories, and BLPs, or AN, attract problem editors as well as well-meaning editors. Andre🚐 18:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few editors prefer it as was and WP:CCC, all da time. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You may propose an RFC on RFCs or an RFC on RSN/RSP. I imagine a number of editors would like to participate. And then when that RFC ends, we have to all be happy with the result, and a no-consensus result is status quo. Andre🚐 18:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP arbitrary break

• Look, here's the issue: Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to assess sources against the clearly defined standards at WP:RS, and if they find sources that are not up to those standards, they are expected to just fix it. No one needs permission to make Wikipedia better. We don't need to discuss blatantly obvious stuff here. When a source is contentious or if its provenance or reliability is unclear, discussions here can shed light on that. We aren't the "source approval board" or the "source banishment board". We're the "Hey, we've had a bit of an argument over whether this source can be used to verify this Wikipedia statement here, can y'all help us out" board. We have an actual, honest-to-god discussion up right now how fucking Babylon Bee needs to be handled. It doesn't need to be discussed. It's a comedy website. It's not a source, it's fiction. If someone is stupid enough to have used it as a source to speak in Wikipedia's voice, you don't need to call together a kangaroo court to decide if you should remove it. Just remove it. There are millions of good reliable sources in the world, and billions more bad ones. We don't have the resources to preview all of them and give our thumbs up/thumbs down. If you have the competence to edit Wikipedia, you have the competence to assess the reliability of most sources. Just take care of it. Save this board for disagreements and edge cases. --Jayron32 18:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with the sentiment. Just go fix it, be bold, etc. I still think the board and the system have validity. I also thought the Babylon Bee discussion seemed unnecessary at first, and yet, there is a legitimate discussion there, and the OP appears to be earnest. I'm not saying we need to list the Babylon Bee. But more to the point, I do think some editors are challenging that even the discussion of perennial, complex, controversial sources should occur. Andre🚐 18:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  The only value in the Babylon Bee discussion (apart from some mild amusement) is that it educated one editor a little bit more about how the WP namespace isn't Wikilaw, and it raised the possibility that maybe some editors might read the description of the procedures of RSN/RSP and think that this is a formalized way to implement a fixed policy, which precisely lends support to Blueboar's original point that there is a problem with RSN/RSP. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record… I DON’T think there is a problem with RSN… I DO think there is a problem with RSP: which is that too may editors seem to think that the result of an RFC has to be listed at RSP in order for that result to be considered “official”. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It certainly feels like a baby and bathwater situation to me. Andre🚐 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I call shenanigans. RSN was never used for RFCs until very very recently, and I think it is an egregious misuse and abuse of RSN that a handful of editors have hijacked it to advance political and other agendas. If somebody appointed me God of RSN, any new topic not formulated as "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" would be summarily deleted. Banks Irk (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh… @Banks Irk, I think you are over stating the situation. We have always had “is X reliable?” questions asked without context (ie where we had to ask for the context)… and plenty of RFCs have been held here over the years - just not as many as we are currently seeing (the number of RFCs has risen recently). Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair distinction. Certainly lots of RSN topics start out "Is X a reliable source?" and someone, occasionally me, asks for the context "for what statement in what article?". Absent that, the issue should be flushed... notwithstanding that the answer may be "No, Mad Magazine is not a reliable source for statements on U.S.foriegn policy - it isn't reliable for anything!". But, while I haven't posted all that regularly, I do read RSN regularly, and using it for RFCs was virtually unheard of until very recently. And now, it is ridiculously abused. Banks Irk (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  IMHO I don't find general discussions about "is X reliable?" a bad thing. The bad thing is that either we have discussions over sources that are too obvious to be discussed (Babylon Bee) or we have discussions like the one I closed about Cambridge Scholarly Publishing, where 90% of discussion is editor commentary without supporting evidence and is strongly either in meta territory (what is RS?) or ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT territory. Also, since RSP is not independent of RSN, it isn't possible for RSP to have problems but not for RSN; the only possible exception I think of is unbalanced summaries of RSN discussions on RSP. But otherwise RSP is in fact a good piece of guidance that many misinterpret as binding policy (though consensus still binds us).

  As for Blueboar's concern: WP:RSPCRITERIA says "editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard," which is additionally bolded as emphasis. The current wording quite strongly suggests that this should normally be enough. Since we don't define "perennial" anywhere earlier (other than "frequently discussed"), this wording more or less serves as the definition. So obviously editors use this IMHO flawed guidance to force their source to appear on RSP. I can't blame the editors here. They don't see their source on RSP so they often think they would make a service for the rest of Wikipedians if it appears there so that they know they can use it/should generally avoid it. They may be biased in that thinking and seek inclusion of some totally niche outlets but that's a different matter and a problem of the current guidance for RSP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did some digging through the archives to see when we added the inclusion criteria and what was said at the time… it’s the first discussion in WT:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2 from January of 2019. Worth reading.

Even back then, they were concerned about some of the same issues we are discussing, such as the list not being “perennial” enough. Perhaps we should ping some of the editors who took part in that discussion, and see what they they think about the issue now that 3 years have gone by. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much to add other that I agree with those who are concerned that RSP is both becoming it's own monster and the constant RfCs at RSN are an issue as well. It has become almost a strategic move to try to get sources editors like/dislike rated at RSN. If you can just get that "green" or "red" then you can finally get tell the opposing editor they have to allow/remove that particular fact/claim from the article. It also means often editors evaluate if a source is good for a claim (both verifiability and DUE) based on "did this come from a green/yellow/red source. If there is a disagreement between green and yellow content, green wins of course. A flaky claim made by a green source is plenty to overule a considered counter claim made by a yellow source. What else do we need to talk about? Of course not every RSP entry was based on a RfC so some classification is just the assessment of a few editors who have looked at prior discussions. Thus some "conclusions" may not be based on an actual RfC. Even then we would be at the merci of who bothered to respond to the RfC at the time. This brings up the issues RSP has caused at RSN. How many RfCs are started with a simple question which simplifies to, "Is X a RS (list 4 categories)?" These questions almost always ignore that almost all sources are NOT reliable for at least some uses (The New England Journal of Medicine is not a RS for theories in aerodynamic compressibility). Questions about the reliability of a source need to come from proposed uses of that source rather than some open ended question with no example of how an editor is trying to use the source or why the particular article is good/bad. I do think the RSP list has become it's own monster and hasn't improved the overall quality of Wikipedia. It would be better if we got rid of it or at least radically stripped it's scope down. Springee (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your discussion of "strategic moves" ascribing some Machiavellian intent to editors downgrade the sources they do or do not personally like is assuming bad faith, and gives away the game that editors are casting doubt on the entire RSN/RSP system because it is able to produce a result that they do not like. (And by the way, I hate the National Review, and I've been reading the Wall Street Journal since I was a child in my father's office.) You may say you were against the system from the beginning, but I have seen several editors opine that in fact using the noticeboard as it is used for RFCs is not the correct usage. Blueboar has said he is not against RFCs and I believe him on that. You however @Springee are saying that it should be removed or pared down.

But instead of saying the whole system is bad, throw it away, you should propose a constructive improvement to the system that addresses its perceived shortcomings. Some of your comment almost seems that you are questioning the entire premise and operating model of Wikipedia, which has been operating this way for almost (over?) 20 years now. Now I don't mean RSP specifically. I'm referring to the consensus mechanism that a source should or shouldn't be acceptable to use across the board. The idea of a rating system, or colors, or special categories and names, is not critical to this whatsoever. But the idea of a consensus of editors that a source is generally not good to use - that's been around for a long time. In fact, when I was most active as an editor (2004-2011 I guess you could say?) it was just a given, that Fox News was not good to use. The fact that many editors now think it is OK to use despite being frequently inaccurate, and willing to sacrifice truth for propagandistic purpose, shows the need of an RSP-like system, but the particulars of the system are entirely negotiable. However, it is definitely the case that some sources, like Infowars, are just bad to use, for good reasons, by the consensus of editors. And it is ALSO the case that some editors nonetheless want to use Infowars, for what we assume are good reasons. That's why we need an RSP or RSN like system that is clear and easy to understand. Andre🚐 04:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think my comments question the general operation of Wikipedia for the last 20 years then I suspect we had a failure to communicate. I'm concerned about the way RSP is being used and it isn't 20 years old. Prior to RSP it was still clear that DailyKos and DailyCaller were low quality sources. If you think a far more limited form of RSP would be the answer, fine, I'm OK with that. I told you the problems I've observed. I didn't say, "the solution is..." Springee (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the RSP system is working well. I'll think it is working well if Fox News is downgraded or deprecated, or if the status quo is upheld. I'll respect the outcome of the RFC no matter what happens. I don't see the Babylon Bee RFC as problematic, or helpful, it's natural that there will be chatter of new users posting stuff on the noticeboard trying to be helpful and maybe learning something. I do think the rigidity of the editors insisting that editors all follow a specific format might be something to improve. Sometimes, it is fine to just ask a simple Yes/No question, in my view. That is a more traditional Wikipedia RFC as well. Andre🚐 04:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• you should propose a constructive improvement to the system that addresses its perceived shortcomings ← here's how to fix it. Make RSP "just" an index of previous discussions at RSN. No colours, no labels, no extra layer of interpretation, no icons, no pre-cooked RfC questions designed for RSP. This could be done by script to fillet out the relevant table column. Then RSN could get back to discusing sources in context (with possible wider ramifications) rather then being a battleground for people wanting to score points by getting an RSP entry in the colour they want. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself as someone who started an RFC here that is currently the largest one on the board, I use dark mode and monobook, and my favorite user interface is a terminal. I am not the person who advocated for the colors, and I don't think the colors are in any way the reason why editors start RFCs here. The colors are an unimportant detail. Anyone who thinks the reason why people start RFCs here is the color, should read WP:BIKESHED. The reason why people try to get a source downgraded is because it's not trustworthy, and publishes bad information, so people should stop using it in articles. That will improve the encyclopedia by using science-based, fact-based, consensus reality sources and not echo chamber sources that publish wrong information and violate journalistic ethics and integrity. If you want to improve the system, instead of removing the crowd-pleasing but ultimately unimportant niceties and affordances, you should instead come to the purpose and understanding of RS consensus of the form of the present RSN ranking. Andre🚐 04:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  What you seem to be saying is "I like it, so anybody else's doubt is not legitimate". Maybe you've never had to argue with people saying a source can't be used because "it's not green at RSP". My proposal would preserve the discussions so confused people could (shock, horror) read and understand what the consensus is on a source rather than having it reduced to an icon and colour. That way such people may become less confused and gain some understanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than thinking that RSP is going to spoon-feed them simple "stop/go" decisions on every source. I feel an RfC for reform of RSP brewing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's really quite an uncharitable strawman characterization of my comments. You are entitled to your RFC and I encourage it. Andre🚐 05:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  A step by step approach might be a better way to proceed, any wholesale attempt at reform will produce nocon. Selfstudier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well I tried a first step[110] but was quickly reverted. Apparently RSN users are too stupid to understand big words. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now, now..I meant in a consensus discussion, odds on a random edit to that sort of page being reverted are quite high. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting for the sake of it is disruptive. Reverting because RSN needs extra dumb language seems odd. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing (or, as I would prefer, removing) that bit of WP:RSN header would probably be hard. Unfortunately the text was appoved in an RfC. I asked the closer of that discussion (Eggishorn) about rationale in December 2019 but did not challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the bold changes to the text as did another editor. I don't mind changing the text, but these changes seem to change the meaning too much. An important result from the RFC Peter linked to is that, "confirms that "In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion...", as it was common practice before the proposed text was added to the header."", "There are a lot of garbage websites out there that should never be used as a source for any Wikipedia article, and the community should be able to judge them as such without the need for going through them on a case by case basis.", "RSN is the logical place to hold RfCs on general reliability / deprecation of sources", "The deprecation RfCs and the Perennial Sources page have helped avoid rehashing some of these, well, perennial discussions. It's good to make others aware of this common practice, etc. Andre🚐 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This feels getting awfully close to WP:NPA Andre🚐 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP arbitrary break 2

I want to get back to my original question: To those of us who DO think there is a problem with how RSP is currently operating - how would you suggest we FIX it? Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove color-coding (or bold-text categorization) for everything but deprecation and blacklisting; reserve total source deprecation for only across-the-board spam, copyvio-cum-citogenesis, or fabrication in a manner that could deceive a good-faith researcher, or perhaps if it's a true perennial source that is totally inappropriate like an open wiki; there's plenty more we could do. I raised issues of standards inconsistency and blatant source material or terminology ignorance in the summaries in a recent Talk RSP thread, but that seems like small potatoes now, though periodic cleaning of the list for CREEP would seem appropriate. (And though you're asking about RSP I want to add that lately with RSN threads it seems the first instinctual response to posts asking if a source is across-the-board reliable is "no", which is tacit approval for mass removal. The standard for such behavior should be essentially equal to deprecation (isn't it though?). As such the instinctual response to any new thread should be to demand specific context, and ignore responses that make conclusions prior to such context being provided.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again we're conflating a problem with the color-coding or the summarization - with the very idea that it should be permitted to deprecate sources. Sure feels like we're litigating the results of an RFC or the ability for a consensus to deprecate sources, and not just some colors and icons. Andre🚐 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Re deprecation, I would prefer that was not an option at RFCs, if a source is to be put up for deprecation then it should be in the format of a standalone discussion and ideally the source should already be gunrel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd be fine with an RFC that offered 2 options: Status Quo, and either Downgrade or Upgrade, but editors seem to generally feel that is not neutral, and an RFC should offer 4 options to be neutral. The logic goes that if we only offer Status Quo or Upgrade, we're limiting the options of editors who may believe Downgrading and Deprecation are merited. I can see the logic even though I don't mind a more targeted Yes/No question. But, I do not agree that Deprecation should be off-limits, because now you only have 3 options which favors Upgrading. Andre🚐 13:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in effect in legacy media commentary on social media-new media

One of the defining criteria of legacy media is that it is not generally interactive while social media-new media generally is.

I'm using "legacy media" here instead of mainstream media as this has the antonym of niche/alternative media.

Anyway, I'd like to flag a concern that established and traditionally operating media outlets may have a tendency to rubbish independent investigators etc. driven partly by their own vested interests. "How dare these mavericks achieve more engagement than us?"

I think that this phenomena may have been evident, for instance, in coverage of the "free Britney conspiracy" and Depp v. Heard where, in both cases, legal decisions swung away from views widely presented in the coverage of traditionally operating outlets and in line with views presented by people whose comments sections typically remained open. One thing that established sources may arguably be reliable at doing is bashing their competitors. Independents, as often being the new kids on the block, may make easy targets.

Perhaps there are other examples of potential bias but these are the ones I've seen referenced and, for NPOV, I think it's a topic worth flagging. GregKaye 17:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "new-media" is it is often (in effect) an SPS, but a nonexpert talking about their own personal opinions. Also I am unsure that Traditional media did represent views widely divergent with legal decisions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Would also add that I think much of the "legacy" media criticism of new media, is their lack of any rigorously established internal code of journalistic ethics. That is not to say every new media outlet is unethical (or that every "legacy" media acts ethically all the time!), but I would assume that's a separating factor in several cases. Mostly, I think, its just a lack of new media having a track record that lends credibility. Finally, it is editorial standards. But, as some academics like Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, Twitter has kinda become the editorial board at places like NY Times, who shadow-edit content based on Twitter outrage (see, for example this in Politico). Anyways, sorry for rambling. In general I feel several new sites are actively shared by renowned media journalists on Twitter, like Bulwark or Daily Beast, so I don't really think its a case of new vs. old. And of course, you have Bellingcat being independent investigators with the highest acclaim in the business. Its probably either a case of perceived credibility (as viewed inside the media business) and corporate interests not wanting to give too much room to competitors. Note how ultra-corporate Fox News never even provides links to the other "legacy" media articles they constantly cite, lest they drag away any of their precious traffic.--Euor (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, there are a lot of new media sources or blogs that kind of later grew into media orgs. Many of them are reliable. Some are not. Similarly some legacy media are not reliable at all. Some are. So I reject the premise of new vs old media. It's basically all new media now. Even the major mainstream sources have had to adapt and become technology companies. Andre🚐 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of thinking of "new vs old media" perhaps an alternate perspective could be to think of established media vs YouTubers etc. In the Depp v Heard situation I suspect that a response of some established media contributors was to take a kind of Right Great Wrongs from what they saw coming from social media and from comments sections of media that had opened them. I think it was a bit like a tug-o-war. I distinctly remember, for instance, article titles at The Guardian stating how Amber Heard was looking good or some such in what seemed to me to be a blatant attempt at PR. Meanwhile, the majority of people responding while watching the trial and a juror who later made later comment disagreed. That article either seems to have disappeared or has had a title change. What I fear that we may on occasion be left with is RS presenting a balancing bias but, as we can only quote the RS, all we would get (in addition to some hopefully neutral content) is one side of bias. GregKaye 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't followed that story so you'll have to cite more specific sources and info. Andre🚐 05:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the Amber Heard one, remember this: media, at least where I'm from, try to be "watchdogs", a sort of check. So in the Heard case, I remember a lot pulling forward topics that might be lost in the public frenzy surrounding the trial. What would this trial, the exposure, and the verdict mean for other women saying they are victims of abuse? Separate from the veracity of Heard's claims, of course. And with everyone tearing into Heard, suppose if she actually IS telling the truth? Of course, all of these things are pretty unpopular when public sentiment is so strongly in Depp's favor, and may seem out of touch to most people. YouTube and TikTok and social-media driven outlets obviously do better to follow whatever is social media opinion.--Euor (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A very good point. Many journalists and media try to go after the scoop and act as the fourth estate, a check on the power of authority. Entertainment isn't my area, but contrarianism, as well as sensationalism, transcend topic. The main problem with Youtubers or Tiktokers is not that their material isn't good content, but that it isn't rigorous or reliable. However there could certainly be exceptions to that. It would be interesting to do a proper study for the topics @GregKaye mentioned for the unversed. I am of course aware of the Free Britney and the Depp v. Heard stories, but not well-versed enough to know how they were covered by different types of media. Andre🚐 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• This may be off topic… but one effect that technology has introduced to “legacy” media is that it allows a “we can always fix it later” attitude towards fact checking. In the days of “dead tree” hard copy, newspaper reporters tried harder to “get it right” before publication than they do today. Issuing corrections was difficult, and more embarrassing. When they mistake in the old days, they had to actually issue a correction notice in the next day’s paper and draw (at least some) attention to it (although the corrections were often “buried on page 27”). Today, with on-line journalism an error can easily be corrected with a simple re-upload. That makes reporters less careful, and thus more prone to making initial errors. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A journalist's word or interpretation should not be considered an RS on law (which is detailed on American law in WP:RSLAW) as journalists are basically just taught the handful of court cases that guarantee their own rights. Those covering the court beat learn quite a bit more, but still not what it takes to actually analyze law. Of course "citizen journalists" are a model of public information that could not in any way be considered comparable to traditional journalism or an RS for WP. If you're making an assessment based on looking at all idiots with opinions on what's popular in the internet, only the most intelligent-sounding get filtered in, and of those a few get lucky and a few have maybe some background to make a decent prediction about law, and somehow asserting that that's a more meaningful source of analysis than a sampling from a collection of maybe 10 major mainstream newspapers, then both your critical thinking and statistical skills need a bit of a tune-up. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what GregKaye mentions is opinions published by legacy vs new media. This should not affect Wikipedia articles because, per News organizations, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The only real exception is facts in articles by experts. But even that does not elevate the opinions expressed to weight for inclusion, unless they receive widespread secondary coverage. For example, Zola's letter about the Dreyfus Affair, J'Accuse…!, published by the newspaper L'Aurore, received such attention that it could possibly be excluded from coverage of the story.

I think one solution would be to pay attention to the policy on opinion pieces and analysis. I have had numerous discussions with editors who claim that the writers are experts because they are journalists and their publishers are reliable so what's the problem. But the expertise of journalists is to report the news, which is then subject to some sort of editorial review, not to explain the news.

Certainly, any media source shows bias in the selection of which stories, facts and opinions they report and what they don't. But that's not a new problem.

TFD (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD, yes but within WP:NEWSORG, opinionated WP:POVs may lead to a shifting of the WP:balance of their outputs should, for instance, they WP:CHERRYPICK even WP:SOAPBOXing or WP:SENSATIONAL... references to bolster their opinions. Yes, they can still be "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" but there could be problems regarding the selection of their coverage. It's perhaps worth noting that the RULES followed by sources don't always have the same base as ours. I think that sources can also suffer from their own variant problems of recentism if contributors join onto a bandwagon contemporary to their time. Source articles don't tend to be revised to the extent ours often are. GregKaye 05:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Although they are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author," Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Opinion pieces therefore have no weight, and cannot be included unless they have attracted attention in actual news reporting. Zola's letter for example became widely reported in news media and hence had weight. Take for example global warming. As a reader, I want to know who supports the theory and who doesn't. I don't want to see a plethora of opinions by people I have never heard of. While we should not tell readers what to think, they want to know whether an opinion is supported by experts or crackpots. Personally, just knowing that experts support one opinion makes me believe it is more credible, even though experts are sometimes wrong. TFD (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why we should be writing our stories on breaking events from the 10-year view and watch out for issues of RECENTISM. We can cover the fundamental objective facts of a story without issue, but as soon as we dig into reactions and commentary, we get into all sorts of problems with both legacy and new news mediums. There's almost no way we can encyclopedically write about reactions in the immediate wake of stories without introducing the bias from primary news coverage, but several months or years after an event we can. Masem (t) 19:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• We've had these sorts of "is the media biased when it talks about the media" discussions before and AFAIK they've always reached the consensus that the general presumption of bias in that case is inappropriate. It's too broad - comparable to eg. trying to treat an author as biased simply because of their nationality or ethnicity, or looking at the owner of a publisher and then arguing that they're biased in every field that that owner is involved in (which, for most publishers nowadays, would amount to "everything".) We use WP:BIASED in a fairly narrow and specific sense to refer to biases that rise to the point of requiring attribution; if we treated eg. every publisher as biased when talking about publishing, and every academic as biased when talking about academia, then we would quickly find ourself with no unbiased sources for anything and WP:BIASED would become meaningless. More generally, while bias and reliability are separate topics to an extent, one feature of a high-quality news RSes is having a degree of separation between editorial and reporting, which extends to keeping reporting insulated from the biases of the owners - a news source that completely fails at that probably isn't an WP:RS because its editorial controls are inadequate, which also means that if a news source is a high-quality RS we shouldn't have to constantly question whether its news reporting is WP:BIASED just because of its owner, the nation it publishes in, or - yes - whether it's covering its competitors. This doesn't mean that they're completely unbiased in the colloquial sense (there's no such thing as a truly, immaculately unbiased source), but they reach the threshold where we can cite them for unattributed facts in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Citing videos shared on social media

I'm curious as to whether WP:FACEBOOK and WP:SNS applies to videos of news reports or other reliable sources being shared on Facebook or other social media accounts. The particular example I thinking of is this one, which is a shared video of a news report. Perhaps since sharing a link isn't technically the same a reposting or re-uploading the video, there's nothing to be worried about from a WP:COPYLINK standpoint (I've asked about that at WP:ELN#Shared Facebook videos) and the social media post could be treated as a WP:CONVENIENCE link? At the same time, it's a Facebook posted being cited which means there may be interpretations or opinions posted about the video's content which are problematic per WP:RS and WP:NOR. I've started a discussion about this at Talk:New South Wales Police Force strip search scandal#Shared SBS video for reference and would be interested in opinions from others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you find it on the SBS website instead? I think you are speaking of this report. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The major thing I would be concerned about is the ability of a social media account to alter the footage from the original. A LOT depends on the specific account holder. A reliable news outlet sharing/reposting footage from another reliable outlet would probably be fine… but I would not trust some random Joe doing so. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Szmenderowiecki and Blueboar for your input. The person who added the citation has responded on the article's talk page that they've been unable to find a link to the original video. They also seem to have acceptd that the link shouldn't be re-added again; so perhaps this is resolved for now. The SBS link that Szmenderowiecki provided above seems related to the same story, but doesn't seem to contain a link to the same video. Regardless, that might have to do since the the opinion at WP:ELN seems to be we shouldn't be linking to shared video links because doing so may be a possible violation of COPYLINK. As for the concerns Blueboar raised about altering the original footage, I'm not sure that's the issue in this case since the Facebook account in question appears to be the official account of Australian senator David Shoebridge; however, anything is possible I guess and public figures do sometime have others managing their online presence. My concern about linking to these types of posts had more to do with WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SYN and WP:OR because when a post like this is linked to there almost always seem to be some interpretation being provided either as the main comment by the poster or as the forum-like comments made by others. It's such interpretations and editorializing that seem to be a problem since none of the persons involved would like be considered a reliable source in most cases other than perhaps when they are commenting directly about themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

They speak Meena language."Meena". -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell. The gmail email address is a redflag. But it's a scholar that seems to work in another language (Hindi?) and that makes it hard to find much about him. Apparently he works at the Central University of Rajasthan, but it's very hard to confirm if he's an established expert, or just a random scholar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)