Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • 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. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263

Rfc:[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I would treat this article similarly to, which was discussed in a recent RfC, and Reference for Business (, which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:
    Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. is very similar to (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the page, and also include "– via" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via"). If contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.
— Newslinger talk 12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using |via= and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for and, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed , and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Also for Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights ("Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems ("General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems — Newslinger talk 14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reject as a copyvio. WP:SOURCES requires a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this site has essentially no external mentions as to its quality, no "about" section, no masthead information, and no other reason to believe that it might have such a reputation. It's tempting, but it has all the hallmarks of a massive copyvio to harvest ad revenue. By Googling randomly selected excerpts, I was able to confirm it is a massive copyvio of the 2006 International Directory of Company Histories from Thompson Gale. Sorry. The RFC bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Blacklist for consistency with Reference for Business (, which has recently been blacklisted at WP:SBL § Advameg sites (,, etc.). — Newslinger talk 09:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Blacklist per copyvio and similar sites blacklisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: TRT World[edit]

What is the best way to describe the reliability of TRT World? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It will not be neutral and will be intrinsically unreliable. Media in Turkey is not classed as Free and TRT is a state-run body fully under the control of the Turkish government. [[1]] (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fox News - sources for future discussion[edit]

As some of you are aware, I've been preparing an RfC on Fox News for some time now. I don't intend on pursuing it at the moment, but I do want to make the material available for others to use as they see fit. Here's what I gathered so far (and I keep updating it with new sources); you may also review the attached discussion, and in particular this note on why the material is organized the way it is, and why I'm putting it aside for the time being. If anyone wants to try and draft a new proposal or essay based on this material, feel free - I'm available for questions, clarifications etc.

As always, comments are welcome. However, as the goal of this project was to allow a more informed discussion to take place, let's avoid turning this into another two-source discussion that won't lead anywhere. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you've put a lot of work into this but an obvious problem so far is point 6. Its main argument is asking people to accept a correlation as causation. Connor Behan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Some of the studies controlled for that, for example by letting non-regular Fox viewers watch Fox as part of the study. One of the sources (I can't recall which at the moment) discusses the problem, and suggests that in that particular instance the causation is more likely one way than the other. François Robere (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Great. So are we going to list all the baseless things that CNN, NYT, SPLC, Vox, Buzzfeed News, and all the other RS have said and done. Just look what happened with the Covington kid fiasco, that hardly works in favor of any left-biased news sources. Also, if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories. In that event, is one prepared to do so? If not, we should just PROD WP:NPOV, as it's "clearly the consensus of Wikipedians that this should be removed", at least, by your logic. Hence why we have these discussions and votes, as without a vote, you only can speak for what behavior you have seen. I'd venture to say that the reason people are cautious of citing Fox News for their edits, is that they know many other editors will revert them "because Faux News", even though the information given by Fox News is accurate. Furthermore, the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do. Once again, citing the recent example of the Covington debacle, it is clear that "the talking heads" of all the RS listed are known for pushing the line between "reporting" and "commentary", and between "commentary" and "advocacy". Likewise, it seems that your work is simply a bad case of "I don't like it, and you shouldn't either". Especially since, all of your points apply to every single RS in the list. In other words, you have successfully written a hit piece that doesn't actually cite legitimate concerns other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, I'm not even making the argument that Fox News is a reliable source. I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News. Personally, I don't care if Fox is depreciated at the end of the voting, I've never cited them anyway. However, I do care that people vote reliable vs unreliable based upon the reliability of their actual reporting, regardless of "public perception". After all, this webiste is called "Wikipedia" not "Whatever-is-perceived-as-popular-pedia". Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again"[1] according to Neilson data, and "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The difference between Francois Robere's proposal and your rant is that he's worked very hard to back up and present serious evidence in support of his claim, whereas you just strung together a series of barely coherent assertions. Unless you can present specific diffs and links to support these assertions, you need to drop this false equivalence (or as it's called these days Whataboutism).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories Three problems here: First, you're making a highly unlikely hypothetical assumption to reject a concrete problem. Second, you're assuming the correct and factual reporting amassed by these outlets (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) can be dismissed if its conclusions are wrong. Put differently, you're assuming a factual report about Trump's Russian ties is false, because those ties don't amount to eg. spying. Third, there's a massive difference between the occasional good faith reporting of falsities, which is usually prevented by a proper editorial process and treated by retraction, correction and possible dismissal; and the repeated peddling of over the top lies with no consequences to those doing the reporting. I cite several cases where Fox has done the latter, as well as multiple RS that explicitly use the term "propaganda" to describe it.
@François Robere:I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like. Don't be a WP:POVFIGHTER. Also, it is well known that the Obama administration misled the FISA court to obtain a search warrant against members of the Trump campaign. Call it what you like, but it wasn't Trump who was spying. (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) is blatantly laughable. Do you even live in the United States? Have you not seen the mounting pile of falsehoods perpetuated by the media (both sides are guilty of it). Every "cops shot innocent man" story, of which the cop is later acquitted is one such example. If the media was accurately reporting criminal cases, the court verdicts wouldn't be so surprising. For example, did you know that Trayvone Martin was involved in gang activity and had recently robbed a 7/11 before he got shot? Did the media show anything other than "innocent little kid" photos of Trayvone? Fox News did, MSNBC and CNN did not. The entire #BelieveAllWomen failure during the Kavanagh hearings is another blatant example contradicting your view. At some point, not believing the information provided by the FBI and Police becomes WP:FRINGE. Also, there is a reason I said "If" in my statement on the Muller report. Clearly, if the report shows "no collusion" in spite of your firm belief that Trump colluded, then you will refuse to concede that CNN peddled a conspiracy theory. Also, even college students (not the most conservative demographic out there) believe that MSNBC has a liberal (left-wing) bias. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like." Let's see these "multiple RS". And not in Opinion pieces but in news reporting. Otherwise, stop making baseless claims. "Don't be a WP:POVFIGHTER." - take your own advice bud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like I assume you have a concrete idea on why Christopher Browning, Jay Rosen, Erik Wemple, Thomas Ricks, Bill Kristol, Ralph Peters or Andrew Sullivan would use that term in bad faith? If not, then you risk violating WP:BLPTALK. I suggest clarifying what you meant or striking it out.
The rest of your statements are either irrelevant (asking about an editor's nationality, in particular, is off color) or not backed by sources. As an aside, and to demonstrate why providing sources is so important, note that your claims regarding the Kavanaugh case, for example, are false on their face: the FBI did not exonerate Kavanaugh (nor did they reach any other conclusion),[2] and the police wasn't even involved.[3] François Robere (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS Can you cite sources stating that Maddow's reporting is so often incorrect and politically motivated (not just biased, but targeted to support specific parties or politicians), that it amounts to propaganda? Can you cite sources stating that other MSNBC hosts do the same, and that its "news" side is subsequently affected? For example, several Fox hosts routinely appear in Republican candidates' election events; is this something that, to the best of your knowledge, repeats in MSNBC?
@François Robere:You can't seriously believe that Rachel Maddow's show is not politically biased. I mean. Seriously. She literally cried when Trump won in 2016, and she cried when Muller recommended no new indictments. You can look up the news segments yourself. Also, she was pushing that Muller would "indict Trump jr. any day now, impeachment any day now". How'd that one pan out? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The question isn't what anyone here believes, it's about whether you have source to back your claim. You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts, which you admit spread conspiracy theories and other babble. I'm asking for proof that is indeed the case. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do Can you cite sources supporting this statement?
@François Robere: I can cite sources of this, but it's also common knowledge, I mean, you don't live in that much of an echo chamber, do you? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If you can, then please do. That is not common knowledge. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ElectroChip123, cite the damn sources or quit wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • citing the recent example of the Covington debacle Let's do that. I've ran a search in the four media outlets you mentioned earlier (along with the SPLC, but they made no statement on that on their website): in their initial reporting three of the outlets used the terms "taunt" and "mock" sporadically, but were otherwise neutral and thorough, including context and the usual caveats [4][5][6][7]; all but Vox (which does analysis rather than reporting) reported on the teens' responses in a neutral, uneditorializing fashion [8][9][10][11]; all reported on subsequent, contradictory videos [12][13][14][15]; all but Vox reported on the Diocese report [16][17][18]; and all published opinions criticizing previous reporting and trying to draw conclusions to prevent it from happening in the future [19][20][21][22]. Does this sound like Fox News to you?
@François Robere:The fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting. If they had made "neutral assessments" of the video when they first reported on it, why would the have to issue follow up articles denouncing their undue bias and hateful rhetoric towards the kids? If it was reported on neutrally, why did the kids at Covington receive death threats? Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" (your words, not mine). Also, Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong. In the Covington case, they waited before jumping to conclusions, this meant they stuck to reporting just the facts of the incident and thus they had nothing to retract. He didn't "taunt" or "mock" in the original video, he just stood there. Those statements alone were incendiary, and led to death threats. Also, you don't retract or write articles criticizing your own work for bias if your own work was written from a NPOV the entire time. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
he fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting Yeah, but the two cases aren't even remotely close. There's nothing wrong in making an honest mistake - and that video was convincing. It says nothing of Fox's accuracy either, though the fact the fact that Fox diverges so much and so often from virtually everyone else does raise questions about Fox - questions to which we already have answers.
Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" What exactly was that response? I just showed you that, overall, all four outlets provided balanced, and usually nuanced coverage of the affair; with the only so called "bias" being a sporadic use of 2-3 biasing terms in the initial report. This is hardly comparable to how Fox conspiracies: repeatedly, in multiple shows throughout the day, for anywhere from days to months, and without any critical outlook or balance.
Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong As noted in my little essay, there's been cases when they failed to retract for months, and others where when they eventually retracted, they did so partially or replaced one biased phrase with another; and unlike virtually all other networks, they never fire anyone for falsifying information or intentionally introducing bias to reports. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • all of your points apply to every single RS in the list You're welcome to argue that if you have the sources to support it. At the moment you're dismissing legitimate and well-founded concerns (by which I mean they're supported by a plethora of sources arguing or leading to the same) based on opinion alone.
  • I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News First off, WP:NPOV only applies to article space. Second, I'm not to blame if the RS on the subject are as decisive as they are. We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE, and I'm not trying to.
@François Robere: We're not supposed to promote WP:FALSEBALANCE. Yes, and Fox News is the most watched cable network in the country. Excluding the most watched cable network in the United States would be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if you think they are hopelessly biased and that no one should be listening to them, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Furthermore, how can we ensure our artiles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a severe misunderstanding of policy. First of all, the fact that it's the most watched network doesn't say anything about its truthfulness. The three most widely read newspapers in the UK are Metro, the Sun and the Daily Mail, and all three were deprecated.[23][24] Second, question of majority and minority views isn't measured with respect to readership, but with respect to other sources. Fox is clearly in the minority on a whole slew of subjects with respect to most other sources, both liberal and conservative, meaning we're not actually obligated to represent it for balance.
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs We're not righting wrongs, we're choosing reasonable sources. This is well within our mandate.
Furthermore, how can we ensure our articles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? Are we? We regularly cite a whole slew of conservative sources, from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; I doubt Fox has anything to add on top of these in terms of breadth or depth. Also, this argument of yours could be used just as well in favor of de-deprecating AlterNet and Occupy Democrats, which I doubt you'll support. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson data This isn't a counterpoint, just an ad populum.
@François Robere: Except that it counters your false balance claims. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. See explanation above. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. Unfortunately Wikipedia is driven by WP:RS, so we're forced to consider that one study whatever the truth may be. In the case of Fox News we have not one study or critique but many, and we ought to consider all of them with respect to using Fox as a source. François Robere (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: I was directly referring to your so-called "study" that claims Fox News viewers are less intelligent than the general population. You were using that single study to call all Fox News viewers "dumb and uneducated". Again, I don't care what the result of the voting is, I just want it to be based on actual facts. Citing one study and claiming it as pure truth is a flagrant violation of WP:DUEWEIGHT. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No one said anything of the sort. What I said is that Fox's viewers are less informed than viewers of other networks, and that's backed by at least five studies, not one. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If your goal is to have us depreciate Fox, you have waisted a lot of time and effort. It ain’t going to happen. Every point you have raised has been discussed to death before, and rejected. Each is true about EVERY news outlet. However, if you shift goals and broaden your concern... and focus on drafting a clearer guideline as to what makes ANY news outlet reliable/unreliable, then a lot of what you have noted could be quite useful. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"Each is true about EVERY news outlet" This is completely false to an extent that strongly suggests that you didn't even bother reading the points. As an obvious example, take #6. Is it the case that there are studies for "EVERY news outlet" which show the viewers are "less informed than other outlets"? I mean, that'd be kinda impossible since they can't all be less informed then each other. Do "EVERY news outlet" lack editorial control over their website content? Etc. The whole point is that Fox News is 'completely unlike "EVERY news outlet" and FR has provided ample evidence to support that. As such, it should be treated differently from "EVERY [other] news outlet". As not-RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the point was that basically every news outlet has similar issues and singling out Fox News is obviously a politically-loaded decision. Providing half truths and distorting those views that have different political stances is true of every one of them (as a recent example, CNN and Washington Post actually fabricated a story about the MAGA hat kid). So we should just be aware of bias and know that, as far as informing goes, all of them are pretty reliable, and we should handle opinions as such.Aoszkar (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well the issue is not about certain issues being true in principal for each news outlet, but rather question of degree and frequency of those issues. There is possibly an argument to be made that Fox differs from other (mainstream) news outlets in that regard. The question is whether degree/frequency of issues with Fox have passed a threshold, that from a WP perspective we should advice normally not to use it as we do with other news outlets with a high degree/frequency of issues like for istance the Daily Mail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources routinely refer to Fox News as "propaganda", noting its close ties to the Republican party and its frequent push of a political agenda of its own. This isn't something that repeats with any other outlet. And even if we managed to filter all of that out and only use its most pristine reporting (which would be problematic and might run counter to sources), then we'll inadvertently introduce problems stemming from everything else the network does (see §4.1 and §5.1 here). François Robere (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's certainly true that the morons who blindly support Fox News will continue to bleat their support, regardless of the facts. That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept its use as a source in an online reference work that pretends to be an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
We always go around and around on Fox News, so here is my current understanding on how consensus for this has worked in the past.
  • Fox News political opinion content is not a source of information, except as a direct quote or paraphrase directly attributed to the speaker, and not on the factual content of the speaker's statement. That is, we can cite Fox News's opinion and commentary to say "John Doe said 'Yada yada yada'" only, and NOT for anything else, such as to verify the veracity of John Doe's statement. That is, we shouldn't use political commentary to speak in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Fox News actual news is reliable in the sense that they have editorial control and a desire to report true statements. Now, like many news sources (one could argue all sources), Fox News has a particular voice that it presents that news in, and that voice manifests itself in which things it chooses to report on and not report on, and on what tone to take while reporting, but insofar as Wikipedia has it's own voice (being WP:NPOV) and own tone, so long as we restrict ourselves to merely using the content (rather than miming the tone) of Fox News's legitimate news operation, it is not forbidden to use it as a source, as it meets the hallmarks of a reliable source.
That's my understanding of the current state of affairs. --Jayron32 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That is my understanding as well. There are several problems with this, though: a) Fox's news operation is not that distinct from it's "talk" operation - hosts casually move between shows and host other hosts with no critical checks, some express controversial political opinions etc. b) They're not actually that good. In terms of quality of reporting alone, except for a handful of reporters I wouldn't place them above tabloid level at the best of times. There's no "60 Minutes" there, there are no Watergate-style revelations etc. In theory they have the capacity to match CNN in terms of "breaking news" and straightforward reporting (Shep Smith leads their "break news" division, and he's frequently hailed as one of that handful of good reporters), but that's surrounded by so much cruft I don't think they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt as a network. c) There's no problem with having a "voice" per se; the problem is when that voice overrides general journalistic concerns, pushing unsubstantiated fallacies (the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, everything Clinton, manufactured controversies on climate change. etc.) or ignoring newsworthy items. For example, on one occasion Fox chose to completely ignore headline-making Muller revelations, and spent most of their airtime featuring a murder story involving immigrants (which is tragic and worthy of reporting, but the question of why they chose to focus on that one out of about fifty murders that take place in the US every day). If the bottom line of a network is that the viewers are less informed on current affairs than they should be - and there are studies on that - yet while their biases are aligned with the network's, then that "voice" is overwhelming and casts doubt on the very nature of the network as a news network (which is exactly what most sources do, BTW). This isn't the case with other networks' "voices", and anyone claiming otherwise has a burden of proof to satisfy. d) There is something to be said about the quality of information we present if allows sources this bad. To me this looks like a purely Wikipedian phenomenon: Fox News isn't used in academy, would never have been cited on Britannica, isn't referenced by governments - hell, it won't even pass the Sister Test™[2] - yet here people jump through hoops to allow it to pass as halfway decent. And heavens forbid if someone actually follows a source like that - Fox News mixes stuff all the time, and giving them the credence of a serious news organization is misleading for our readers in a very basic sense (see §4.1 here). François Robere (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I wouldn't let my sister in a room with MSNBC for half an hour. That said, it's not my decision what my older sibling spends her time on. Again you conflate its talk shows with its actual news reports in the name of tendentious editing. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, I submit that the burden of proof is on you to provide sources showing they are not of the same nature, if I've provided sources that refuse to make that distinction. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Related to this, do we have a list of news organizations that didn't push the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia or was a Russian agent for two years straight with no evidence, and didn't bother to apologize after Mueller confirmed that it was a conspiracy theory? So far I can only come up with one: Fox News. Galathadael (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Indef banned WP:SPA user illustrating why reasonable, common sense proposals like this have so much trouble getting affirmed. We need to cut this Gordian Knot and get serious about our RS policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Uhm...I'm seeing alot of negative claims about Fox News that are not supported by RS - excluding their competitors. Let's see some sources otherwise we're looking at OR based on opposition research. Hmmm, why does that sound familiar? It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor, especially one that overshadows them in the ratings, and is capturing the bulk of available advertising $$. I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that doesn't have or hasn't had their share of blunders, conspiracy theories, or that don't use propaganda and sensationalism to increase ratings. Are we on the road to going nowhere fast? Atsme Talk 📧 03:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Here you go. As of the most recent count, I have some 75 references there, from "tweets" to peer-reviewed papers.
@François Robere: We're citing tweets now? I didn't think twitter was a RS. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to check the actual citations and tell me yourself. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor Just as it's easy for the top competitor to spread all sorts of disinformation to solidify its market share. Indeed, for Fox News it is part of the business model these days, having been born as a venture for more accessible - some would say lighter, or popular - right-leaning news, quickly turning to sensationalism and partisanship to grow its share. BTW, Fox's main revenue stream comes from subscribers,[25] and its the NBC group that carries the advertising market.[26]
I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that... I'm not aware of any network where those problems go beyond the occasional pundit to form the basis of the network's business model, as sources suggest is the case with Fox. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@François Robere: What are you saying here? Also, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, rely on talk shows for viewership. Again, just look at the Nielson data. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying hypotheticals are not a substitute for sources. What's your point regarding talk shows? François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a list of news outlets that did (WP:BURDEN)? AFAIK there is and was plenty of evidence of such, and news outlets reported on it as is; and in case of opinion articles, gave proper analysis and the usual caveats. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also thinking that deprecating Fox News is probably never going to happen. It's been discussed many times before, so while consensus can change, it probably won't. SemiHypercube 16:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
While it's true that previous discussions went in circles and lacked clear consensus, I don't think that previously anyone has taken the trouble to document so extensively why Fox News isn't reliable as Francois Robere has. This may be too optimistic but one would hope that the evidence compiled does change some reasonable minds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My mind hasn’t changed. I continue to feel that Fox’s news division is reliable for basic facts, and that their opinion/analysis programs are reliable for attributed statements of opinion/analysis. The same is true for ALL of the major news outlets. Instead of depreciating news sources, we should focus on teaching editors how to use them... how to recognize and separate news reporting from opinion/analysis, and how to place each in proper context. We need to recognize bias, and account for it (ie phrasing what we write appropriately)... but we also need to accept that ALL news outlets are biased, and (per WP:NPOV) we can not depreciate sources that have a bias we don’t like. We have to include opinions we don’t personally agree with. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a much appreciated common sense reply. We should be able to move beyond the unproductive attitude of "this news source is unreliable since it has a different point of view from mine".Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone provided similar arguments related to CNN or Vox, would you handle them the same way? Could we expect "reasonable minds" to be changed based on facts? Because I've seen them misinform and even fabricate news to smear those on another side of the political spectrum. Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Blueboar that "ALL news outlets are biased" [to some degree], but that does not make them equal in terms of WP:RS. No, absolutely not. Some of them are known for rigorous fact checking, others are known for cooking disinformation. What WP:RS tells is this: always use the best quality sources available on the subject. So, one should generally recommend sources other than FOX on US politics. It does not mean FOX can not be used. Yes, it can, just like Russia RT, but only if the contributor is familiar with the subject and what other sources tell about it. This is not always the case. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity... which news outlets do you think have rigorous fact checking? Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The ones that use Wikipedia as their substitute for a fact checking department of course! On a wider note, all of the above discussion could have been avoided if only someone several years ago had stamped on that editor with his obsessive ideological bugbear about the Daily Mail. Having one pov-led blanket ban on one mainstream source lead to calls for more and more pov-led blanket bans on other mainstream sources is not an unintended consequence, it is an entirely predictable consequence. (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact that a Wikipedia editor thinks Fox has a news division makes me question their judgment, if not their sanity. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ Simple common sense test: would you let you sister alone in a room with Fox News for half an hour? What about CNN? Discovery Channel? Bloomberg? ESPN? Some of them might be boring, some of them might be uninformative, but only one of them would end up convincing a child that Antifa goons working for Nancy Pelosi are out to get her parents in the name of Socialism.

To ease others into the discussion, here are some extracts from the sources cited in the essay. François Robere (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Stuff only Fox does[edit]

Things you see across Fox (including its news division and website) that you don't see anywhere else. Claiming "others do it too" is perfectly legitimate, but please support it with evidence if you do:

  1. Network regularly engages in coverage bias[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
  2. Network regularly spreads conspiracy theories[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
  3. Shows repeatedly deny scientific consensus without justification[19][20][21][22][23]
  4. Shows repeatedly present misleading graphics[24]
  5. Anchors repeatedly present inflammatory or defamatory claims with no context, verification or request for comments; and when they retract the claim they often do so hastily, without apology or correction[25][26][27][28][29][30]
  6. Network coordinates with the White House, with more than a dozen high ranking employees moving from one to the other[31][32]
  7. Networks mixes advocacy with legitimate journalism in a manner that's indistinguishable to the casual observer[33][34]
  8. Anchors substitute for hosts in questionable shows[35]
  9. Reporters enable hosts who spread misinformation[36][37]
  10. Reporters fail to challenge questionable and/or partisan sources[38][39]
  11. Hosts refuse to allow criticism on their shows[40][41]
  12. Network backs hosts who committed egregious violations of journalistic ethics[42]
  13. Hosts regularly campaign with party nominees[43]
  14. Head of News lies on air and pushes bias in reporting - and gets promoted[20][44]
  15. Website downgrades front page stories because of traffic considerations[45]
  16. Website "goes a little Breitbart"[46][47]
  17. Network viewers end up being less informed than viewers of other networks, and even of non-viewers[48][19][49][21][50]

Stuff experts say[edit]

  • A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”[51]
  • Yochai Benkler, Law Professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University: “Fox’s most important role since the election has been to keep Trump supporters in line,” offering narratives of the "deep state", "immigrant invastion" and "the media as the enemy of the people".[52] On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”[52]
  • Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, [propaganda has] effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News... Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a "Trump bubble" for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times.”[53]
  • Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”[51]
  • Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”[51]
  • Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia: “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV... Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature. It’s a radicalization model. [For both Trump and Fox] fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”[52]
  • Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.”[54]
  • Patrick C. Meirick, director of the Political Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, states in a study of the "death panel" myth that “...rather than polarize perceptions as predicted, Fox News exposure contributed to a mainstreaming of (mistaken) beliefs.”[12]
  • Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".[51]
  • Joe Peyronnin, Associate Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University: “I’ve never seen anything like it before... It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.”[52] “No news channel reported on Obama being from Kenya more than Fox, and not being an American. No news channel more went after Obama’s transcript from Harvard or Occidental College. Part of mobilizing a voting populace is to scare the hell out of them... I heard things on Fox that I would never hear on any other channel.”[55]
  • Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board: “We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government. The two objects have become one. It's true that Fox is a propaganda network. But it's also true that the Trump government is a cable channel. With nukes.”[56]
  • Steven White, Assistant Prof. of Political Science at Syracuse University: “Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans, but in our efforts to come across as relatively unbiased, I actually think we downplay the extent to which it is a force for the absolute worst impulses of racism, illiberalism, and extremism in American society.”[57]
  • Jen Psaki, former White House Communications Director: “The peddling of dangerous conspiracy theories is not just a Chris Farrell or a Lou Dobbs problem. This is a Fox in the age of President Donald Trump problem... And it is one that could not only do lasting damage to the legitimacy of media in the US, but could also spur more anger, division and even violence in the short term.”[16]
  • Blair Levin, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FCC chief of staff: “Fox’s great insight wasn’t necessarily that there was a great desire for a conservative point of view... The genius was seeing that there’s an attraction to fear-based, anger-based politics that has to do with class and race... Fox News’ fundamental business model is driving fear.”[52]
  • Jerry Taylor, President of the Niskanen Center: “In a hypothetical world without Fox News, if President Trump were to be hit hard by the Mueller report, it would be the end of him. But, with Fox News covering his back with the Republican base, he has a fighting chance, because he has something no other President in American history has ever had at his disposal—a servile propaganda operation.”[52]
  • Alisyn Camerota, former Fox News host: “When I worked at Fox, sharia law was one of their favorite bogeymen. Roger Ailes was very exercised about sharia law, and so we did a lot of segments on sharia law. None of them were fact-based or they didn’t – there was no emphasis on them being fact based.”[55]
  • Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard: “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.”[52]
  • Ralph Peters, former Fox News analyst: “In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration...[Fox News anchors] dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller.”[58]
  • Simon Rosenberg, former Fox News commentator: “It was always clear that this wasn’t just another news organization, but when Ailes departed, and Trump was elected, the network changed. They became more combative, and started treating me like an enemy, not an opponent... It’s as if the on-air talent at Fox now have two masters—the White House and the audience. [Because of this] Fox is no longer conservative—it’s anti-democratic.”[52]
  • Jennifer Rubin, political commentator at the Washington Post: “[Fox is] simply a mouthpiece for the President, repeating what the President says, no matter how false or contradictory.”[52]
  • Greg Sargent, political commentator at the Washington Post: “Fox News is fundamentally in the business of spreading disinformation, as opposed to conservative reportage.”[59]
  • Andrew Sullivan, political commentator at The Atlantic: “The point is surely that the only "liberals" allowed on Fox News are the ones designed to buttress the "conservative" worldview... Just as important [and] what's needed on Fox - and what you'll never see - is solid conservative attacks on and critiques of other conservatives, on matters of principle or policy. That's the difference between an opinion channel and a propaganda channel.”[60]
  • Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at the Washington Post: “Everyone ought to see [Fox News] for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law.”[61]
  • Charlie Black, conservative lobbyist: “I know Roger Ailes was reviled, but he did produce debates of both sides. Now Fox is just Trump, Trump, Trump.”[52]

Stuff that you can play with yourself[edit]

[2] [4]


  1. ^ Summers, Nick (2012-03-21). "Fox News Coverage of the Trayvon Martin Case Criticized". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  2. ^ a b Smart, Charlie (January 2018). "The Differences in How CNN, MSNBC, and FOX Cover the News". The Pudding. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  3. ^ What does Fox News cover after a negative story about Trump?. Washington Post. 2018-04-10. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  4. ^ a b Chang, Alvin (2018-05-30). "The stories Fox News covers obsessively — and those it ignores — in charts". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  5. ^ Chang, Alvin (2018-06-08). "Scott Pruitt is mired in scandals — but you wouldn't know it from watching Fox News". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  6. ^ Relman, Eliza (2018-08-21). "Fox News slammed for covering the killing of a college student more prominently than the convictions of 2 top Trump aides". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  7. ^ Bump, Philip (2018-11-09). "The caravan has all but vanished from cable news". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  8. ^ Stewart, Emily (2018-11-26). "Fox News wants you to be very afraid of what's happening at the border". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  9. ^ Roeder, Oliver (2018-12-19). "How Cable News Covered Mueller In 2018". FiveThirtyEight. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  10. ^ Bump, Philip (2018-12-21). "This wall debate is what happens when the only voices you hear agree with you". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  11. ^ Smith, David (2019-04-12). "Fox mentions Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 42 days running – 3,181 times". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  12. ^ a b Meirick, Patrick C. (March 2013). "Motivated Misperception? Party, Education, Partisan News, and Belief in "Death Panels"". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 90 (1): 39–57. doi:10.1177/1077699012468696. ISSN 1077-6990. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020.
  13. ^ Wemple, Erik (2017-03-30). "Fox News: The bad news network". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  14. ^ Wemple, Erik (2017-10-30). The Fox News-Murdoch playbook: Discredit Mueller. Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  15. ^ Raymond, Adam K. (2018-03-14). "Fox News and Alex Jones Are Being Sued For Conspiracy Mongering". New York. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  16. ^ a b Psaki, Jen (2018-10-30). "Fox has a conspiracy theory problem". CNN. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  17. ^ Roberts, Hal; Faris, Robert; Benkler, Yochai (2018-11-29). "The Fox Diet". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624-chapter-5. ISBN 9780190923662.
  18. ^ Rupar, Aaron (2019-03-22). "Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-24.
  19. ^ a b Krosnick, Jon A.; MacInnis, Bo (2010). "Frequent viewers of Fox News are less likely to accept scientists' views of global warming" (PDF). Report for The Woods Institute for the Environment. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 1, 2020.
  20. ^ a b Adams, Guy (2010-12-17). "Leaked memos cast doubt on Fox News' claim of neutrality". The Independent. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  21. ^ a b Feldman, Lauren; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Leiserowitz, Anthony (January 2012). "Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 17 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410. ISSN 1940-1612. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020.
  22. ^ Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science (2014) (Report). April 2014.
  23. ^ Ward, Bob (2018-06-07). "The Times, Fox News and Breitbart still promoting fake news about climate change". Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  24. ^ Leek, Jeff (2012-11-26). "The statisticians at Fox News use classic and novel graphical techniques to lead with data". Simply Statistics. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  25. ^ BTW, the "employee" they sent on the tour wasn't a trained reporter, but a security guy with camera: Mirkinson, Jack (2011-03-22). "Fox News' Jennifer Griffin Admits Error In Libya Human Shield Story". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  26. ^ Hudson, John (2011-04-14). "Fox News Removes Story Linking Obama to a College Suicide". The Atlantic.
  27. ^ Here they (rightly) apologized, but notice how reckless they were to begin with: this is a huge election season story, and they reported it based on just one source: Farhi, Paul. "Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  28. ^ Kassam, Ashifa (2017-02-01). "Fox News deletes false Québec shooting tweet after Canadian PM's office steps in". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  29. ^ Raymond, Laurel (2017-06-27). "A tale of two networks: How Fox News and CNN handled recent retractions". Think Progress.
  30. ^ Notice the way they "correct" the story, still suggesting something is wrong with the signature: Boboltz a, Sara (2017-12-09). "Fox News Corrects Story Claiming Roy Moore Accuser 'Forged' Candidate's Signature". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  31. ^ Guild, Blair (2018-07-02). "The Fox News employees hired by Trump". CBS News. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  32. ^ Inside the unprecedented partnership between Fox News and the Trump White House. PBS News Hour. 2019-03-05. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
  33. ^ Sean Hannity is pretending to be an opinion journalist. We should know. Washington Post. 2018-04-19. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  34. ^ This is an innocent-looking piece, but notice the embedded videos: Quinn, Liam (2019-02-14). "Dems divided on Green New Deal after Mitch McConnell ramps up pressure". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
  35. ^ This is just one example, but Ed Henry is virtually a fixture on "Fox & Friends": @BadFoxGraphics (2019-03-31). "It's #SundayMorning, so it's once again time to ask why Chief National Correspondent @edhenry is hosting @foxandfriends" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  36. ^ Cox Barrett, Liz (2007-10-25). "Fox News Fans Flames". Columbia Journalism Review.
  37. ^ Kirell, Andrew (2017-05-09). "Fox News White House Reporter Mass-Deletes Tweets, Including Alt-Right Conspiracy Theories". Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-04-02.
  38. ^ This is Andrew Pudzer, former Trump cabinet nominee that was forced to withdraw his nomination after several scandals came to light. Not only is Pudzer's political affiliation hidden from the viewers, but his positions aren't challenged even once: Are Americans on board with new socialist policy proposals like the 'Green New Deal?'. Fox News. 2019-02-14. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
  39. ^ Jeremy Barr [@jeremymbarr] (2019-03-29). "Bret Baier did not really challenge a single thing Rush Limbaugh said during a 7.5 minute interview on his straight-news show last night" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  40. ^ Shapiro, Rebecca (2012-11-26). "WATCH: Fox News Interview Ends Abruptly After Guest Attacks Network". Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-04-02.
  41. ^ ‘You’re a moron’: Tucker Carlson clashes with Dutch historian. Washington Post. 2019-02-21. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  42. ^ Breuninger, Kevin (2018-04-17). "Fox News gives Sean Hannity 'full support' as critics slam him for hiding link to Trump lawyer". CNBC. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  43. ^ Maza, Carlos (2018-11-27). "Fox News keeps breaking its own rules". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-04-07.
  44. ^ Sargent, Greg (2011-03-29). "Another major blow to Fox's credibility". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  45. ^ Schwartz, Jason (2018-06-19). " readers put 'head in the sand' on family separations". Politico. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  46. ^ Schwartz, Jason (2017-12-23). "Fox News website beefs up and 'goes a little Breitbart'". Politico. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  47. ^ This is an example of their daily newsletter. You'll notice a "Daily Mail" vibe throughout:"FOX NEWS FIRST: Why Trump haters shouldn't rejoice over Michael Cohen; Melania slams 'opportunist' critics". Fox News. 2018-12-13. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08. Compare with NYT's newsletter of the same day: Stanford, Chris (2018-12-13). "Michael Cohen, Theresa May, China: Your Thursday Briefing". New York Times. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  48. ^ Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis, Evan (2003). "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War". Political Science Quarterly. 118 (4): 569–598. ISSN 0032-3195. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020.
  49. ^ Stelter, Brian (2010-12-17). "Study: Some Viewers Were Misinformed by TV News". New York Times. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  50. ^ Kelley, Michael B. (2012-05-22). "Study: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  51. ^ a b c d Nelson, Jacob L. (2019-01-23). "What is Fox News? Researchers want to know". Columbia Journalism Review.
  52. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mayer, Jane (2019-03-04). "The Making of the Fox News White House". New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X.
  53. ^ Browning, Christopher R. (2018-10-25). "The Suffocation of Democracy". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  54. ^ Kreiss, Daniel (2018-03-16). "The Media Are about Identity, Not Information". In Boczkowski, Pablo J.; Papacharissi, Zizi (eds.). Trump and the media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262037969. OCLC 1022982253.
  55. ^ a b Siddiqui, Sabrina (2019-03-19). "Fox News: how an anti-Obama fringe set the stage for Trump". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-04-21.
  56. ^ Jay Rosen [@jayrosen_nyu] (2019-03-04). "We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  57. ^ Steven White [@notstevenwhite] (2018-10-28). "Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans..." (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  58. ^ Grynbaum, Michael M. (2018-03-20). "Fox News Analyst Quits, Calling Network a 'Propaganda Machine'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  59. ^ Sargent, Greg (2018-03-06). "In stiff-arming Fox News, Democrats get one big thing right". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  60. ^ Sullivan, Andrew (2010-10-26). "Should Liberals Appear On Fox News?". The Atlantic.
  61. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (2019-03-07). "It's time — high time — to take Fox News's destructive role in America seriously". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
I would actually argue at this point that WP should find every way it can possible to keep Fox News's news-reporting side as a reliable source (not its talk shows etc.) if we want to avoid creating even more external critical that WP runs liberal - it is basically the last mainstream RS source that is on the right side of the political spectrum (per the chart from Pew Research in this [27]). In that we can keep it and allow editors to use the news reporting side, but that no one is forced to use it. We want to show WP supports the use of a wide range of RSes that have political bias. Yes, media is inheriently liberal and there are very few conservative outlets to start, but the push to remove Fox , after we've gotten rid of Daily Mail and Breitbart, would be enough for those that are already critical of WP's bias to firm up their arguments. Unless we can really show beyond a doubt that Fox News' news reporting completely lacks journalistic integrity, then we should be looking for every reason to keep the news side as "tolerably" reliable. --Masem (t) 15:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I wish folks would stop stating that the Pew Research paper says anything about where news sources are on the political spectrum. It only looks at the viewers, not at what they are viewing. Indeed, it's conclusion is that news sources tend to focus on negative aspects of current politicians, whether right or left. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's been shown that liberals are much more varied in their news consumption than conservatives, and its more common for them to watch Fox as well. This suggests Fox would naturally be drawn towards the middle in this kind of surveying vs. where it itself stands ideologically. Mind this is from early 2014, meaning it's dated given the changes Fox went through starting 2016. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to raise the PR issue, but there's a flip side to what you're suggesting: what do we signal by including Fox News to everyone else? That we're willing to accept sources that virtually no serious academic or journalistic source accepts? Another question is whether allowing Fox's news side would actually achieve the desired effect: avid Fox viewers generally consider Hannity et al. just as reliable as Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith (the latter of which many of them supposedly despise due to his contrarian efforts); if we only allow half, or a third of their favored anchors, will it be enough to gain their trust? I do think we should allow a subset of their news department, but not all of it, and not the website. François Robere (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations.[edit]

Turner Classic Movie has a solid Database for film. I also believe that it is NOT user-generated. Check out their TCMDb section. They seem reliable when it comes to year of release, cast & crew, even some areas have a Leonard Maltin reviews.

Main Page:

TCMDb section:

"To Have and To Have Not" film page:

Give me your feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
In the upper right hand corner of the database it states that it is "powered by AFI". The only part user-generated is the user review section. Some don't think that databases are appropriate sources any ways. If AFI has the database information available directly, I don't see a problem. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
As above it's not user generated and sourced reliably so is a reliable source along with the AFI Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not sure what AFI is, fantastic since it seems to move TCM forward as a reliable source.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no point using TCMDb since their data is coming from the AFI Film Catalog. Just use that. -- Netoholic @ 12:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The point is to see if this specific one is reliable it will avoid citation hunting, when people like myself who don't know use it.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not against it per-say, but some of the AFI information is curious as AFI no longer seems to have information on a large chunk of non-American productions. So where are they getting information for those films on the TCM DatabaseAndrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Make google search of these titles that are abandoned on TCM if they are here. It will reinforce why TCM should be used as a citition. Thanks Andrzejbanas.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: HispanTV[edit]

HispanTV is similar to Press TV, so this could be checked out too.

  • 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

Thanks.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Bad Question. The top of this page suggests discussing "The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used" and "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports" -- which this RfC isn't. And there's no mention of a dispute that would justify an RfC. And this is supposed to be about applications of policy e.g. WP:RS which emphasizes context, not about overriding WP:RS and linking to an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The question is fine, as editors frequently inquire about a source's general reliability on this noticeboard. However, I've removed the "RfC:" from the section's title, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 21:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have unarchived this section (which archived yesterday) because after doing my homework, I forgot to come back to this, and also noticed that the first bit of feedback caused a problem. I hope I have unarchived it to the right place, and will post my response shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 3 or 4 for both, HispanTV and Press TV: Google has a problem with them, they appear to "parrot" or "mirror" other state propaganda websites already deemed unreliable on Wikipedia (eg Telesur (TV channel)), and of more recent concern, I checked out a "documentary" from last week that was pure and classic, psychological warfare and conspiracy theory state propaganda. It is most unfortunate that the "documentary" is in Spanish, and others may not be able to appreciate the full impact—I hope anyone who speaks Spanish will view it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Press TV is already listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but is used to source BLPs; HispanTV is similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I went to their website last week to check on recent reporting, and found listed as a documentary on the HispanTV website a "report" on the blackouts in Venezuela:

The HispanTV "documentary" promotes ideas like the United States detonated a nuclear device to cause the blackouts, and while interviewing several "engineers", offers ZERO proof for this notion. It includes zero mention of mainstream information about the years of deterioration and maintenance issues that led to the blackouts. But the blackout "documentary" is only a pretext, as content moves quickly from discussion of the blackouts to pure stuff of conspiracy theory and psychological warfare. It is really just a crude propaganda video, although presented with some level of professional videography. It used the foundational claim that the U.S. caused the blackouts to move on to other conspiracy theories about the U.S., while using classic techniques like tight photo shots to imply limited support for government opposition, and different photo shots to imply broad support for Maduro. It offers the example of plenty of food available in Venezuela by showing images of several quite overweight Chavismo supporters who do have access to food (one can speculate whether the food was provided for the purposes of the video). It offers videos of opposition supporters who appear angrily deranged juxtaposed against the portrayal of calm patriotic government supporters. I hope others will watch it: classic propaganda that should have no place on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Google blocks both
Anti-semitism claims
And all of these state media outlets (several already indicated as unreliable on Wikipedia) parrot each other, according to this from HispanTV—content that I cannot verify because link is empty:
According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), Alba TV, La Radio del Sur, Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), YVKE Mundial, Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS.[1]
The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations states:[1]

"These media reproduce accurately the numerous notes that, on a daily basis, are published by HispanTV, a media that considers and treats the State of Israel and the Jewish people as enemies ... In other words, what HispanTV publishes on a daily basis, our media repeat without editing or changing anything, transforming Israel and the Jews into hated 'infidels' ... In this manner, HispanTV and its national repeaters use diverse fallacious or distorted arguments in order to delegitimize Israel’s existence, accuse it without evidence of all the evil in the world, especially in the Middle East and even going as far as gloating when involving Latin America and using the well known anti-Semitic prejudices applied to the Jewish State ... It is obvious that HispanTV, the Spanish Iranian TV channel, jointly with similar media such as Press TV in English besides other tools, are part of the ayatollahs’ huge propaganda apparatus".


  1. ^ a b "Antisemitisim in Venezuela 2013". Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations. Archived from the original on 12 July 2014. Retrieved 13 January 2015.

Press TV is used to source quite a few BLPs:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 3 or 4 In short, HispanTV is a Iranian state-owned corporation. The channel has already been removed in several European contries as well as in the United States, and journalists have noted its bias and lack of objectivity. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 HispanTV and PressTV are both appropriate outlets that represent the Iranian point of view about global affairs. I believe that they are also both legitimate alternate sources of information because they report on the inaccuracies of Western outlets and are beneficial to provide a well-rounded and NPOV perspective for Wikipedia articles. -- =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Unreliable. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everyone. I have a question about whether or not the following source (What if we loved black people as much as we love black culture would be usable in a potential expansion of the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. The following part from the web page is the portion that I would use in the expansion:

In the story “Little Eva, The Flower of the South”, people of color can also be seen as props to help portray Eva as being an angelic and perfect child.  The story represents “little colored boys and girls” as being dependent on Eva as she teaches them the alphabet.  This theme of Eva caring for the people of color in the story portrays her as being superior over them.  Smith’s essay on “race” discusses how some texts in children’s literature “homogenize and belittle people of color” and often set black people in the contrast of white characters.  “Little Eva, The Flower of the South” is a perfect example of this.

The website was done by a professor from the University of Wisconsin, Madison so it leads the above link some credibility. However, I have a suspicion that this may be a discussion board assignment and that the author (i.e. Angela Tucker) may have written this for a class. For those unfamiliar, some English classes assign their students to write a discussion board post on a certain topic and respond to other students’ posts. As someone with a M.A. in English, I have done these kinds of posts many times. For clarity, I have nothing against them, and I find them to be a useful education tool.

When I click on the author’s name, I can only see two articles written by this individual, including this one. That article directly talks about a University of Wisconsin, Madison class. I am assuming that this would make the page invalid for use on a Wikipedia page as it was most likely written by a student as part of an assignment, but I wanted to double-check here. Apologies for the long post. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is Angela Tucker?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Slatersteven: Angela Tucker wrote the above article (which I said in my message and you can see from the link). She appears to be a student (at the time of the writing) and this appears to be an assignment for a class so I am assuming that would make it unreliable. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
So (in effect) almost a student thesis, then no it would not be RS. It was not written by the expert, and there is no evidence of editorial control (and yes I know she wrote the article, its why I asked).Slatersteven (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I thought that would be the case, but it is always helpful to get a second opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2019 (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.

The Tennessee Star[edit]

I've noticed on several occasions that editors have tried to introduce fringey and rightwing POV content by using the Tennessee Star as a source. The Tennessee Star looks like a normal newspaper (e.g. like The Tennessean) but is just right-wing nonsense masquerading as a local newspaper.[28][29] It's part of a concerted effort by far-right activists to contaminate public discourse: "Launched in February 2017, the Star is part of a growing trend of opaque, locally focused, ideological outlets, dressed up as traditional newspapers. From the Arizona Monitor to the Maine Examiner, sites with names and layouts designed to echo those of nonpartisan publications — and with varying levels of credibility — have emerged across the country, aimed at influencing local politics by stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Read up on the Jackson v JQA 1828 vitriol - this is nothing new. Biased newspapers have been around for ages, in every nation with any free press at all. And that is one of the reasons why, internationally, media with "bad opinions" are allowed to exist. [30] The only valid issue is whether it corrects errors, and not just its perceived political positions - like "pro-Brexit v anti-Brexit" UK papers, or pro-Catalan v anti-Catalan Spanish papers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The only valid issue is whether it corrects errors
No, no it isn't: the question as stated, is whether it is genuinely an actual media outfit and not a propaganda outlet pretending to be an actual media outfit. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not remotely correct. WP:IRS describes several attributes of reliable sources. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This site is demonstrably not a "well-established news outlet." Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. I'm not aware that any of these sites have any "reputation for accuracy" — indeed, they appear to have the opposite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
and to that point, the politico explains that there is no separation of editorial and advertising boards at that work, that raises several issues related to disclosures of COI. While other major papers may have no line between news and opinion desks, they still have their distinction between news and advertising which is a key RS. --Masem (t) 01:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers This makes me sad. GMGtalk 00:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the pertinence of political positions, yes and no. No, if it's simply a matter of political leanings, and yes if it's a question of "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist", per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Regardless of the site's content, however, what needs to be established is a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This reputation is not established by the source claiming to be the "Most reliable local newspaper across Tennessee", and it is not assumed by default until proven otherwise. As the policy states, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires." Eperoton (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracy is what we are concerned with, not bias.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Given that the Tennessee Star reprints as fact massive amounts of material from the Daily Caller - all of the following are on their front page at this moment [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] - since that site was deprecated as a source that publishes false material in this RfC, the Star needs also to be deprecated as unreliable. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    If it is simply reprinting [the same unreliable content as] a banned source, I would think it would/should be treated like the other source, yes. (I know we treat different outlets' publication of the same wire story as non-independent.) -sche (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is. They even credit the Daily Caller on most of the stories, whilst on others you have sentences like "X did not reply to the Daily Caller's request for answers", which sort of gives it away. They also print stories from "", and you just need to look at the front page of that website ... Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Further: The "Maine Examiner" ([38]) and the Ohio Star [39] also need to be deprecated. They are effectively the same website, with a few "local" stories thrown in to give them the impression of "local news". Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's reliable (for all the reasons mentioned above) but it's worth pointing out that it's barely used at all. By a quick search, it's only been mentioned four times on talk / internal pages (including this one), and is currently not cited at all in article space. It's worth noting that it's an unreliable source that makes some efforts to present itself as having a better reputation than it does, but if we try to preemptively ward off every possible generally-unreliable source, we'd never find time to stop. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If nobody is using it, or even proposing to use it, as a source on Wikipedia, is it legitimate to have this discussion at all?
  • It's a reasonable conversation to have now, especially if these "fake newspaper" websites are going to increase in number. Obviously, any article that's simply been copied from a site that's already deprecated can't be used anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


This discussion was last held in 2014, and it's time for an update. Mathglot (talk)

May I ask confirmation whether Wikipedia considers The TransAdvocate ( to be WP:RELIABLE? We've no article for The TransAdvocate. I see a previous discussion here[40], regarding "use in BLP, etc", which seemed to deem it WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed my own comments which were not written to be published on this noticeboard, nor was permission given to move them
Run by a registered non-profit with a mission of documenting and countering "media tropes and misinformation". Not a national newspaper, but neither is it personal blog or self published. The interview with Catharine MacKinnon appears a reasonable source for that detailed material for her views on feminism.
It is in use as a source on 23 different Wikipedia articles. The discussion about it is nearly 5 years old and was inconclusive at best, and did not recommend that it be removed as a source but put in context. -- (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Always check Reliable Sources Noticeboard first, for this type of question. As A145GI15I95 alluded to in the bare link above, RSN has this about it: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Transadvocate use in BLP, etc.. That dates from 2014, didn't see anything else. Pretty much any blog is a WP:SPS although some are moderated (which is not as strict a bar as peer-reviewed). See WP:BLOGS.
To evaluate the reliability of a blog, as the guideline states: Self-published expert sources 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. A search for "Cristan Williams" shows she appears in about three scholarly works and four books. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. It's not a blog, it is journalism with fees for submissions as 'honorariums'. The site is a form of fact checker site and a set of trans-related resources and historical records supported by a not for profit. Submissions go through an editorial review process and have the express purpose of "we don’t simply repeat the news, we report the news as uncovered through actual investigation"
  2. There was no agreement to blank discussion from the article talk page and move the comments of others here (ref WP:TPO). It is perfectly fine to review sources on the talk page of the article they are being used in. There is no consensus that sources must be discussed here, or in which circumstances RSN is preferable.
-- (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Fae, sorry; a better solution perhaps, would've been to leave it there, and provide a pointer link from here. Can still do that now, but at this point, I feel shy about moving it again, but would certainly support its being done. Mathglot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I would rate it as a non-expert group blog (per WP:BLOGS). There is an editorial board, but none of them([41][42][43][44]) have a credentialed background in either psychology, medicine, or journalism - rather they are long-time activists and independent writers. It should never be used as a source about living people, never used for opinion, and I would avoid its use entirely except for what any authors say about themselves that follows WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Netoholic @ 11:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That is clearly not right, Netoholic. RfCs on advocacy groups have consistently found that they are to be considered RS on topics within their area of expertise; on non-MEDRS subjects, I see no reason why the qualifications of "long-time activists and independant writers" should not be considered reliable, as long as they represent experts who have published independently in their field and are not used as evidence about individual BLPs (the conditions specified in WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't group all advocacy groups together - an advocacy group staffed by credentialed scientists, for example, is not the same as one staffed by "activists". What do you consider their "area of expertise", and by what measure is that expertise demonstrated? What is "their field", and in what publications have they been published as experts in those fields? I don't see much difference between this website and #The Tennessee Star one listed above. Claiming to be a news site does not make it so. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Their expertise is in gender identity, as are their publications. I would have thought this to be obvious. Nobody woukd be interested in citing this source on any other topic that I can think of. And I have no idea what this has to do with the Tenessee Star. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
None of the editorial board has expertise in gender identity, which would generally require high-level academic credentials in medicine or psychology. They do not have expertise in reporting of gender identity issues, which would generally require journalism credentials. At best, the website should only be used as a source for personal stories per WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic, I'm afraid you are not well-informed. Cristan Williams, for example, has multiple publications in Transgender Studies Quarterly, a leading journal in the field. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
We're not discussing sourcing from Transgender Studies Quarterly, are we? Cristan Williams may have gotten published there, but that does not confer expert-level credentialing enough to the whole of The TransAdvocate enough to bring it higher than WP:BLOGS. And "multiple" is a bit generous when you mean two. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I am simply following policy per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources 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" - this is exacrly the situation,e.g., with Cristan Williams content on The TransAdvocate, even if treated as self-published. There is no reasonable ground to treat TransAdvocate articles as less reliable than a personal blog with the same byline. Newimpartial (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
As this thread has developed, I've come to feel support for the arguments presented above by Netoholic, and my opinion (if it matters) would be that TA should be considered an unreliable source. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the context within which this particular discussion started, it would be difficult to AGF about that specific comment. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: I am glad to hear you want to follow WP:SPS, but let's read the rest of it: Exercise caution when using such sources and Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Even if you think Williams is an expert, the source is still self-published (Williams runs the website) and in this case the source is being used to reference Catharine MacKinnon - a living person. Additionally, even if you think Williams is an expert (something still not proven), that does not mean every other author on TransAdvocate gets to be considered an expert by association. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
A refrain I hear often around here is to consider whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose, like a theological news site may be reliable for quotations from interviews with theologians but not for archaeology, or might have biases that require attribution in-text. (I recall it being argued that RedState and some other such sources, for example, might be reliable only for quotes from interviews they did.) In the article where this discussion started, this source is cited in three places, for the attributed views—quoted from interviews—of Judith Butler, Catharine MacKinnon and Cristan Williams, the last of whom is an editor of the outlet but whose quoted views are also sourced to another source which means The TransAdvocate could be dropped as a source for that without affecting anything. The other two are notable feminists whose views are relevant to the article, being as it is an article on feminist views. Personally, I am inclined to think it a tolerable if marginal source for such attributed quotes from interviews; it does have a staff and is moderated. The source's name could be added alongside the speaker's, if desired, as is already done for some other sources in the article (for example, it could read "In a 2015 interview with The TransAdvocate, Catharine Mackinnon..."). -sche (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article where this question arose (Feminist views on transgender topics) is largely a presentation of two opposing factions within feminism. TransAdvocate clearly favors one side over the other, making their reliability questionable for this particular purpose.
This question also arose after another editor asked on the talk page that we examine reliability of sources, and a third editor deleted content from CounterPunch and Feminist Current, citing WP:RS (whereas I've seen these two pubs sourced without question on other articles).
I wish to make very clear here that I'm not seeking some kind of "revenge removal" (if that's a thing on Wikipedia, and I am new here) on this controversial topic, which is why I didn't delete the TA content, and I instead asked about its reliability on the talk page. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Mackinnon, she did not say the quote being used in interviews with TransAdvocate - they are displaying a quote she said in a 2015 interview with NYU Shanghai student publication On Century Avenue. Its easy to miss, as the TransAdvocate puts those words in a big block quote and links to that other interview subtly (the link is in Catharine MacKinnon's name). Having a block quote like that usually implies that same quote is in the text of the article... I think this is a clear example of misleading presentation on the part of TransAdvocate and shows lax journalistic standards. The article should be immediately corrected to point, at least, to the student publication source. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Context is important. If the article is discussing the opinion of a particular feminist, and the cited source is written BY that feminist, and is directly attributed as being that feminist’s opinion, then it is a primary source for those view, then it is reliable. Now, the NEXT question is one of DUE WEIGHT... ie, should the article mention the opinion of this particular feminist or not. THAT is not a reliability question, but one for our NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    As you point out, questions of due weight are o/t here; only reliability is at issue. And I agree that views by a feminist in her own writings and thus credited are reliable. Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It has an editorial board, and its interviews have been cited by the LA Times, Buzzfeed News,Salon, Broadly, and the Daily Beast, among others. I think we're reasonably safe in assuming that they aren't fabricating quotes from well-known feminist philosophers. Which would be pretty remarkable, and probably not a really sustainable practice in the long term. WP:SPS is not a prohibition on online publications, they obviously have an editorial process. They might be reliable for some uncontested claims of fact, but there are probably better sources in many cases. Nblund talk 16:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Is a Reliable Source? Is this 1999 article, [45] a Reliable Source for a historical event? I have never heard of Athens News. I am against using these kinds of non RS, as they are not helpful in weighing the events, or containing fallacies that are hard to spot. I am not against the text supported by the specific citation, what has been added is common knowledge among greeks as we are taught about them since elementary school. But we are having a debate about whether we should rely on these kinds of sources. Well, what do you say? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • For background here we are talking about a simple transcription of the seminal radio call of the students during the Polytechnic uprising "Etho Polytechneio". The fact is supported by two very RS news sources. We are not talking about any academic analysis to need peer-reviewed papers. Just a transcription. This is a frivolous report by an ongoing WP:BATTLE user. Dr. K. 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have never heard of Athens News. What an argument...Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      • He could have just clicked its article: Athens News. This is actually one of the best RS on the Greek junta and the surrounding events. Dr. K. 19:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
        • So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd. Here. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
          • So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd. This is a silly remark. Read the article and see the good reviews and the professional publishing houses that it was part of. Dr. K. 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
          • WP is not RS, so any reviews at a WP are not valid. Nevertheless, there is only one sentence at that particular article commenting the quality of the newspaper, citing "", clearly not RS. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Nonsense. It was part of the Lambrakis Press Group of newspapers. You can verify this on your own doing a Google search. Wikipedia is only a starting point, as you should have known. No more of these dense comments if you could. Dr. K. 20:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Can you provide such a review so this discussion can close here? Cinadon36 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
                • No, you go find it. I am not going to humour your incompetence. Dr. K. 20:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is another piece of information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE. Dr. K. 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Once more, someone cannot resist from commenting about other users. Please stay on topic. If you feel there is a CIR issue, report it at ANI. IDHT is not the case as I have told you I am ok with the text. As for Battle, it takes two to tango. Regards. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. You lack the competence to understand that you can't write in English. That's not BATTLE on my part. Just advice. It's your BATTLE because you resist my advice with PAs and CLUElessness. Dr. K. 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeap, I am sure other editors are not interested in this rant, so... goodnight Dr.K. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Athens News was (and still is) well known. Even an Imerida (Atelier) was held recently in Greece regarding the influence of newspapers and magazines to the politics of Greece, where Athens News was a topic. IMO, Athens News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SilentResident. As I have said from the beginning multiple times to the OP of this thread, is a world-renowned source, not simply RS. A simple Google Book search reveals is used as reference in many academic books from the who-is-who of publishers. However, this did not prevent this person from exhibiting a BATTLE attitude and wasting peoples' time across many fora, including this one. A question comes to mind: Is this person incapable of a simple Google Book search before coming to this board to waste everyone's time? Or before he posed silly questions on this board, after he was told that his approach was wrong? Just observe his replies just above. Or before he edit-warred on the Polytechnic article adding silly tags on Athens News? I guess the answer is obvious. It is no. Dr. K. 22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Good morning Dr.K. You are talking as if it has been proven that is a reliable source of historical issues. We are far from it. More evidence is needed. How about those reviews you have hinted can be found starting from WP article? A google-search does not prove anything. Most probable athensnews is(was) RS for contemporary issues (not for historical ones). Have a nice day. Cinadon36 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
As for Dr.K.'s comments on me (I was asked to provide an answer[46]) A)it is he who started the BATTLE with comments that are far from polite. (see Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising) He frequently calls my comments "silly", "nonsense", he routinely asks me to stop editing WP and he exhibits a full-blown confrontational attitude. Even whenever I tried to cool things down, he won't stop. [47]. B)There is a dispute on whether or not is a RS. It is only natural to place a question on this noticeboard. This discussion would have ended if there was one piece of hardcore evidence that athensnews is RS for historical issues. But there is not, so we should expect tones of OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not an honest accounting of what went on. I very politely told you that you could not write in English, something that is self-evident if you see the talkpage of the article and the highlighted text you were edit-warring into the article that was not written in anything resembling English. You took this as an attack, and doubled down on filibustering and NPAs. As far as the source,, is an eminently reliable source. I have already explained why, and I am not going to repeat my arguments here, just because you refuse to accept them. Now, you should respect this noticeboard and the regulars of this place, and stop filibustering by repeating the same comments over and over, and give these people a chance to comment, without having to go through the crap you keep adding. Obviously, you would want to have the last word. Have it. I am done here out of respect for the regulars and because I don't want to bicker continuously with you. Dr. K. 16:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
A)No reviews were presented to prove that is RS. At the begining of the talk you pointed to a WP article and later you 've added a google search url. None of these are RS B)Anyone who 'd like to check who started rude comments and kept the flame on, can have a look at the Talk Page. C)As for the rest (you cant write in English etc) I wont even bother answering, out of respect of the regulars here. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just for the record, and to put this nonsense report to sleep, I have expanded the article of Athens News, The regulars are welcome to have a look. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Lots of OR and trivialities such as "The book Orthodox Constructions of the West. published by the Oxford University Press, uses the 2007 Athens News article Fighting for an authentic faith.[18]". Certainly can not be used as a RS on historical issues. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Didn't we just agree to leave this up to the regulars to comment on, instead of having to listen to your nonsense? Leave a third party to comment on your silly report. You have a COI. You are trying to defend your silly report to the end. That's understandable, but wrong. Don't do that. This is a wiki. Let others comment on your waste-of-time report and put it where it belongs: to sleep. Dr. K. 20:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K, why dont you leave your bullying and nonsense comments for somewhere else? You are trying to defend your silly claim that Athensreview is RS on historical issues. Dont do that. It is ridicuclus and wrong. Shows low grasp of WP policies. Now, please do not waste regular's time with more crap OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Get it through your head: Evaluating your report as silly and nonsense is not an attack against you. Don't play the victim. Once more, if your report is so great let other editors defend it. You, bickering to the end CIR defending your crap with WP:NPAs and WP:ASPERSIONS, is not persuasive in the least Also copying my style of comments is plain silly but then what's new. Dr. K. 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You're both using personal attacks, maybe you should both stop, before someone notices. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @MPS1992: I have been here long enough to know when comments like yours will come, and I try to avoid them at all costs like a poison pill. See how many times I have pleaded with that account to leave this discussion for other users to comment. In the beginning he agreed. But when I expanded the article and invited the regulars here to see it, he started the counterattack. I then asked him again to disengage and leave others to comment but to no avail. Then came the poison pill, as I knew all along. Dr. K. 21:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
So Dr.K. when you have a review for AthensNews, please ping me. Next time you call me or my comments silly, I am going to ANI for Personal Attack. MPS1992 you are probably right, but I was just answering back.Cinadon36 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36, I suggest you don't, because you are just as likely to be blocked as the other fellow, if not more so. Dr.K., I have no idea what to make of your comment. Good luck to both of you. MPS1992 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what from "let the regulars chime in" and "do not discuss this conflict with me any more" you did not understand, but I will never ping you for this matter. Because the expanded article speaks for itself, and I trust the regulars to render their verdict on it. I am also stopping communication with you on this matter so that I can stop this bickering. So no more baiting about pinging you. As far as ANI, you have threatened me many times with a report. As previously, I reply to you: Be my guest, any time. But watch for giant flying objects coming your way if you do that. Dr. K. 01:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@MPS1992: I meant that sooner or later, during a dispute, someone will come and comment that the fault was on both sides. I try to avoid this type of comment like the proverbial plague. That is why I was asking this person to let the regulars comment instead of continuing the bickering. Dr. K. 21:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K., if you genuinely do not understand why some of your comments are perceived as personal attacks, then I really cannot help you further. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Look, if you check the background of my recent interaction with this account at Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising and also the main article itself, you will see the intransigence and other BATTLE behaviour of this editor. I am normally very civil and low-key. But when I meet this type of disruption I believe it is better to describe things as they are, rather than playing faux-civil, passive-aggressive games. Dr. K. 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • At this point, I have to ask both Dr.K and Cinadon36 to take a step back, STOP arguing with each other, and give others some time to examine the source and the context in which it is being used. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to ask me to disengage, Blueboar. I have been telling this account multiple times to leave this bickering and let the regulars of the noticeboard chime in. Just search for the word "regulars" on this noticeboard. 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also like to ask you, Blueboar, to ask the other account not to follow my edits in articles he is in conflict with me, as he did at Athens News. Dr. K. 01:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar, I wont be replying to the other user any more. Cinadon36 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • SilentResident removed the OR tag from the article, claiming that this in RSN first, then we see if it is really WP:OR. So far, the addition of this tag cannot be justified. Why should we solve this at RS and not at the Talk Page? As for justification, I have explained why it is OR at the article's Talk Page. [48] Cinadon36 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
While you have expressed your views on WP:OR, you havent explained why exactly it is WP:OR, IMO. Your tagging doesn't appear to be constructive. That's why you have been reverted. Checking the history log, there appears to be an edit war on that article. Guys please stop that. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
SilentResident, you should not ignore the revenge-tagging and the HOUNDing by that account. He followed me to that article after I came to this noticeboard to announce that I expanded it and started revenge-tagging it, going to 3RR within minutes. So much for his declaration that he won't reply to me anymore. But I guess it's ok to follow me around and try to tag articles I improve. That's just unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT and cannot be ignored. Dr. K. 06:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As to the questions, firstly having people say using it as a source (especially without knowing what they are using it as a source for) or committing on what it does does not mean it is reliable, (look at the daily Mail). Having said that I can find nothing to indicate it is not an RS. If someone can demonstrate it has a reputation for telling porkies let me know. Until then its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks. That's exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned to wait for the opinions of the regulars. Better late than never. Dr. K. 10:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This forum is not for discussing users actions, stop.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Birth record data overriding secondary sources and personal request?[edit]

A public figure uses one name in public. There is a source for birth record data which someone is using to include another name in this person's Wikipedia article. Some issues with the data is that it is not a name which the person uses, or wants in the Wikipedia article, and that it came from WP:OR of a dataset, and it is only sourced to a dataset.

The particular article is Talk:Jussie_Smollett#Government_name[ and the user advocating for inclusion is General Ization. Here is the source.

I am not sure that this is exactly a "reliable sources noticeboard" issue, except for the practice that Wikipedia typically does not use databases as information sources in articles. Could I get comments either here or there? Thanks.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, may I offer the clarification that, unless you have somehow verified it, we don't actually know what the subject of the article wants, nor even that the person who has contacted OTRS is in a position to know what the subject wants. We only know that that person claims that the subject's given name at birth is was not the one we have stated (it is not the given name by which they are publicly known now, and possibly no longer part of their legal name). General Ization Talk 22:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is extremely clear that we do not source information from primary sources/public documents in this fashion. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I will be removing the claim. Please do not restore it. It is a great example of why this rule is needed: the chances are simply too high that somewhere along the line somebody mistranscribed Jussie's name. Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't it say primary source is ok if it's from the subject themselves? I don't really feel like starting a new question, but I'm sort of curious about this edit. The editor added DOB to the article referencing what purports to be the subject's mother. What is the burden of evidence to assure the source is really the subject's mother; and if that was established, would the page of immediate family members for info like DOB? Graywalls (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Somalia news sources[edit]

I came across a series of stubs about politicians in Khatumo State, Somalia (Biindhe, Abdi-Joof, Garab-Yare) that cited Somalia Report (English, also known as, Horseed Media (Somali language), and (Somali language). My question for this noticeboard is if these sources are generally reliable for statements of fact, and if they should be considered generally reliable for assessing the notability of subjects covered by them. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not use any newspaper for a statement of fact (it should be an attributed opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Horseed Media appears to be reliable, I've found it cited in other reliable sources. Here's some examples:
This organisation's journalists have also been harassed by the authorities in the pursuance of their work ([49][50]). In my experience, this is generally a tell-tale sign that it's a news organisation independent of a corrupt government and its content is taken seriously (otherwise why would the police bother?). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Not saying that this is the case with Horseed... but a corrupt government might harass a media outlet because they are the propaganda arm of an equally corrupt opposition group. Harassment does not always indicate legitimacy. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. The situation I had in mind was the Democratic Republic of the Congo's censorship of Radio Okapi, a UN-cofounded news organisation, for interviewing insurgents. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Is WolframAlpha a reliable source?[edit]

I think it is. It's not a wiki and contains a bibliography with only peer-reviewed publications. It is also made as a better substitute for Google and Wikipedia for students. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:CCBC:262A:863E:CDB8 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not too sure about it, it claims to have a "a world-class team and participation from top outside experts in countless fields", but without knowing who they are (and give that they "work to accept completely free-form input") I am not sure it can be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In what context? WolframAlpha is, lacking a better term, a search engine that is related to the company that created Mathematica. In terms of mathematics and similar I would say yes. So I would be comfortable citing WA for information like the equation of a gear ratio [[51]] or a Bessel function [[52]]. However, if we look at say the entry for Hillary Clinton [[53]] it's clearly information aggregation and cites, in part, Wikipedia. The site has deep knowledge but limited scope. Springee (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Which then produces circular referencing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
For Clinton, yes. For a Kalman filter, no. WA does provide references and they are to papers on the subject, not to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And for how many other articles? Surely this is the whole point, we are going to have to judge each article separately. Thus it seems to me it is not generally reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It is reliable in many contexts. When you say "we are going to have to judge each article separately", that is broadly true for literally every source in existence. Is the New York Times reliable? Well, it depends on what context. Are we judging something cited to the an actual piece of journalism, or are we judging something cited to a guest Op-Ed piece? How will we know unless we are asking how the source is being used and what part of the source is being cited for what purpose. There is no contextless way to say "is this source reliable". It should always be "reliable for which use." Generally, for uncontroversial science and mathematics items like equations, constants, and raw data and the like, it's very reliable. For other uses, maybe not. Again, this is how the analysis of any source should go. --Jayron32 16:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The difference (as I see it) is that sources generally regarded as RS do not have to be checked every time they are used. whereas this one will hAve to be, as it is clear it is only an information aggregation site, not one that exercises editorial or content control.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If by WolframAlpha we are refering to urls of the sort, that is just a search-engine output that is likely to vary over time, and (possibly) the seacrher's location and search-history. It is even debatable whether to regard it as a published source, let alone a reliable source. As such, it is never directly citable as a source on wiipedia.
Now, of course, often enough the answer provided by the search engine will be correct, and it it cites a reliable source (per wikipedia standards), we can cite that source. For example, the search result for Bessel function draws information from Wolfram's Mathworld, which I would regard as a reliable source for the topics it covers. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that it can't generally be cited, since while it has a bibliography it's unclear whether it's exerting editorial control over any individual result in particular (and it does seem like they pull some data from Wikipedia.) Beyond that, the uncontroversial mathematical constants we might cite to it can be better-cited elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it would be okay to cite it, outside of Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap data. It's somewhat ephemeral but can be archived satisfactorily, and I could see this being useful for e.g. verifying that an article doesn't have any mathematical errors in it. Jc86035 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree strongly with Abecedare: URLs like should never be used as references for anything, any more than the output of a Google search should be. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Joel B. Lewis and Abecedare: I don't think using a WolframAlpha search for its calculator output would be the same as using any arbitrary Google search. It's possible to archive the results, and many of the areas where the results would be useful are probably unlikely to be significantly different in the future. Jc86035 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, WA is an excellent source for uncontroversial facts, especially quantitative things. In an earthquake article I once used WA to get a great circle distance between a city in South America and an earthquake epicenter. The New York Times had botched it because they were using the driving distance to the epicenter...which in this case involved diverting through a pass in the Andes. I noticed their number was ridiculous and used a WA search to get the real one. I could have looked up the equation to get that distance between two sets of lat/lon coordinates, but this was easier and probably less controversial. (It's hard to get consensus on something when the NYT is wrong. Geogene (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Perez Hilton[edit]

I am requesting for comment about reliable sources of celebrity news sites, including Perez Hilton which is uncertainly reliable news source for citation in celebrity, entertainment and gossip. --Acajenka (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cubano and Miami native Perez Hilton is the internet’s most notorious gossip columnist." At a stretch, you can use it as WP:BLPSELFPUB, but almost certainly not in other people's WP:BLPs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
But I see it's a popular source: [54]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Popularity does not equate to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that it is an unreliable source?--MarshalN20 🕊 12:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The selfdeclared "Perez Hilton is the internet’s most notorious gossip columnist" is a piece of evidence. Also, it's a WP:BLOG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No celebrity gossip source is Reliable Simple rule of thumb, as far as I am concerned. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång made an error in their search. Here is the correct search:

I am inclined to start going through the list and removing it as an unreliable source, keeping the exceptions such as BLPSELFPUB. Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose any blanket removals mainly because it makes tracking more difficult, but also because it causes loss of content which may be covered by other sources. Citations to should be replaced with more reliable sources if available (such as when the website cites another source for its article), or tagged with {{unreliable source}} if the content it supports is unlikely to be controversial. Finding more reliable sources to support article content is quite easy. E.g. [55] [56] [57] [58]
Content cited to this website should only be removed if either: 1. it is of a controversial nature that requires a strong source, such as with claims about living people; or 2. it is of a trivial nature and would constitute WP:Undue weight in the article. Many of the articles which cite are not BLPs or even biographies, so the requirement for sourcing is lower. feminist (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No objections. It's a gossip website and not a reliable source. It definitely should not be used in BLPs. Natureium (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've started going through the citations to PerezHilton to see if they should be replaced or removed. Note that instead of blanket removing them, I check each PerezHilton article to see what it contains, what it cites, etc. so that I can find more reliable sources for the same content. feminist (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Axios (website)[edit]

Is a reliable source? Here is their About page. They have been cited by Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, New York Times, Washington Post. They've issued corrections of their own articles. [59] [60] [61] Thank you. starship.paint ~ KO 02:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Usable. Axios is a relatively new publication with a focus on American politics. As a newer publication, their reputation is somewhat weaker than The Hill or Politico, but they appear to be OK for uncontroversial facts. MBFC ranks it as left-center and Ad Fontes places it between "skews left" and center. However, they admit to using native advertising on their About page, so this is something to beware of. feminist (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Usable Most definitely. Axios was founded by two people from Politico, and the quality of work is comparable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Generally reliable. Axios was co-founded by Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz, a former Politico exec. It has serious journalism chops and quickly became well cited by the reliable media shortly after its founding in early 2017. As usual, reliability must be determined based on the specific source and fact, but I'd presume Axios sources to be reliable. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Runway Girl[edit]

Is Runway Girl Network a reliable source for topics relating to aviation? feminist (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on their staff list,[62] it seems to be. But as with any other publication, that applies only to news articles, not opinion pieces or readers' contributions. And Weight must always be considered. You can't for example add information from this source to the article on American Airlines that has not received broad coverage. TFD (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report[edit]

Is the Mueller Report a reliable secondary source for its investigative findings? It certainly seems that the news media is treating it that way. There are many, many reliable sources summarizing and analyzing Mueller's findings with little to no attribution. R2 (bleep) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ideally we should be citing the report itself as little as possible for WEIGHT issues, regardless of reliability concerns. It is not for Wikipedia editors to sort through a 400 page report and decide what the important bits are. People who do this for a living should do that, and we should rely on their coverage to determine the appropriate weight given here. GMGtalk 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Certainly we should avoid cherry-picking from the report in order to skew an article's emphasis. Although those sorts of neutrality issues are very context-specific and really shouldn't be addressed here at RSN. I'd like to focus specifically on reliability. If we can obtain a consensus on that here then it will head off a whole bunch of acrimonious disputes in the AP space. R2 (bleep) 18:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I’d consider it reliable, but I’m pretty sure it’s a primary source, not a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaylockjam10 (talkcontribs) 19:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Reliability is also context dependent, and there doesn't seem to be any current dispute over reliability. GMGtalk 19:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I mean generally. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Well here's what I have a hard time understanding - how would reporting by NYT and WaPo, citing anonymous officials, be any more reliable than the Mueller Report? There's no way that RS resources or investigative abilities would be able to outdo the team of professionals that Mueller put together. If the Mueller Report is not reliable, then nothing is. Maggie Haberman, who wrote so much of the NYT pieces about the Russia thing was known to be a somewhat biased reported ("tee up" and "shaping" stories per Podesta emails) , is considered a RS and even won the Pulitzer Prize! Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
We don't generally assess reliability that way, but point taken. It's well documented that the Mueller Report was subject to intensive fact checking from the Intelligence Community. R2 (bleep) 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: I strongly disagree. When the NYT or WaPo cite anonymous officials, we attribute whatever claims the officials make to those officials. It would be wrong to quote the claims of an anonymous official without attribution, as fact. The Mueller Report represents the views of a prosecutorial team. Among other things, it contains unproven accusations against various people. If reliable sources report a particular claim in the Mueller Report as fact, then we can treat it as a fact, but the Mueller Report itself is not a reliable source. If we accept the Mueller Report as a reliable source, then I'd like to know if we're going to start considering other reports by prosecutors as truth - and not just in the US, but in Western Europe, in Russia, in China, and so on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • By definition the report would have to be a reliable source about its own findings, but I think it probably would be considered a primary source. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No I don't mean its conclusions. I mean is it reliable as a secondary source to say that such-and-such happened during the 2016 presidential election? I think the answer is yes. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said, my gut reaction was that the report itself would be considered a primary source, but looking over our definitions of primary and secondary sources at Wikipedia:No original research, I would say the report could be considered a secondary source for that purpose. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The report is a primary source for our purposes. We should not pull material from it, without secondary sources first establishing the importance of that material.- MrX 🖋 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
MrX, what's the basis for your statement that the Mueller Report is a primary source for "our purposes," by which I presume you mean for all purposes on Wikipedia? Is this based on the fact that it's a government report rather than a something published by the private sector? Based on WP:PSTS I'm pretty sure that the report would be considered a secondary source for most (but not all) of its content. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ahrtoodeetoo: Because it was written by the people involved in the investigation, as opposed to researchers independently analyzing and writing about the investigation. For the same reason that we should be careful about using court records or vital records, we should avoid using the report directly, especially since there is no shortage of secondary sources properly digesting it for our consumption.- MrX 🖋 21:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I would call it an extremely reliable, but primary source. We can cite it in limited circumstances, but the usual cautions apply... use it only with great care. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary? The evidence and law it relies on is primary, the report is secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that OR forbids us from independently (from RS) searching the Mueller Report, the Dossier, court documents, other primary sources, etc., for any content we think should be used here. It is not in our remit to determine the notability of content for inclusion in existing articles here. RS do that for us, and then we certainly can cite the (parts of) primary sources when RS have done so. (I am not speaking about the "notability" criteria used to judge whether a topic is worthy for creating an article here.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, and please ping me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. - MrX 🖋 21:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not because it is primary or secondary but as the first responding post suggested above, WP:NPOV is a different inquiry then whether it is primary or secondary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It can be used, but only with attribution (ie. according to the Mueller Report...) After all, some of the things it says are still disputed by both sides.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Reliability isn't about whether things have been disputed by "both sides." Wikipedia community standards don't hinge on partisan politics. R2 (bleep) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It is an reliable primary source. While I do not question the professional approach of the authors, the report is designed to assemble evidence of guilt or lack of guilt, but it is up to courts to determine the reliability of the evidence. All kinds of people are now digging into it and coming to widely divergent conclusions about what the report says. We can't summarize what is in the report without synthesis. That is best left to experts reported in reliable secondary sources, i.e., news media, whose writers will present the varying interpretations and the degree to which they are accepted. I don't look forward to disputes on talk pages about what the report actually says. TFD (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In a slightly more nuanced fashion, I believe we should treat the Mueller Report as a primary source for opinions by investigators, and as a secondary source for their reporting on testimony that they assembled. — JFG talk 08:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This is still a group of prosecutors writing a report on their own findings. Though it's much more notable, I think it should be treated the same as a federal criminal indictment. We would never use a criminal indictment as a secondary source for discussions of the crime or investigation. The entire document is definitely a primary source. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be reasonable to pull a direct quote or something for color, but a bunch of reliable sources have put together extensive summaries and annotated versions, so if we can't find outside commentary on some part of the report then it's probably undue and/or synth to cite it directly. I assume WP:BLPPRIMARY could apply here as well. Nblund talk 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
No it is not a secondary sources, it would be used as a source for itself. Having said that I see no issue with this, it is not going to tell lies about what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Although the Mueller report is obviously reliable as to the content of the Mueller Report, it is not up to us to determine which parts are more worthy of inclusion. Given the enormous secondary sources available, there is no need to use the primary source directly. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable Source - the Mueller Report is a summary review of researched material gathered by investigators not unlike the NYTimes publishing a summary review of information provided by anonymous sources. We are not the ones evaluating the original research - we are simply citing the reviews of original research; therefore, the report is a secondary source. The dosier, on the other hand, is a primary source as it is a compilation of actual memos, the majority of which are unverifiable. Citing material to a particular memo in the dossier would be OR; therefore, we should cite the RS that reported on the dossier and/or any of the memos in that compilation. Atsme Talk 📧 13:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary source - In my view any prosecutorial report (in any country/period) is a PRIMARY legal document. The same applies to court verdicts. In both cases one can claim the prosecutor/judges made a secondary analysis of the evidence before them (however such evidence isn't always publicly available or at least not easily available) - however in almost all cases this will be an account by a person(s) directly tied to the event itself (e.g. in the case of Mueller (or Starr - Starr Report) - Mueller and the investigation itself were a political issue with various back and forth). The credibility of such reports and verdicts vary - at times - reliable sources will see the findings as credible and endorse them (and then, so do we). In other instances, we may have reliable sources that challenge the validity of the findings. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary source and thus should be discourages from being directly sourced, particularly anything BLP related. Its like a court transcript, but here, lacking yet any judicial oversight of its contents. Content discussed by reliable third-party sources is fine but through the lens of the 3rd party. --Masem (t) 14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Kasem Ajram/Kasem Khaleel[edit]

I am not sure what this person's real name is, since he seems to use both. His book "The Miracle of Islamic Science", also titled "The Miracle of Islam Science" or, when credited as Kasem Khaleel, "The Arabian Connection: A Conspiracy Against Humanity", is used as a source on History of infrastructure, History of road transport, Mirror, History of the petroleum industry, Oil well, and Road. His books are available on Google books in snippet view only, and the only online thing I can find linked to him is this, which is just an excerpt from the book: Any ideas? Dragoon17 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

According to his bio at "Media Monitors Network," which you cited, his name is Kasem Ajram and he is also known as Cass Igram, Kasem Ajram Khaleel and Kasem Khaleel.[63] You can also see this by clicking on his name in your link. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, that seems acceptable. TFD (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

RS possibilities for John D. Zeglis[edit]

Article: John D. Zeglis

The article is weakly referenced, but he appears to be notable based on this which appears to be independent of the author, but of dubious reliability. The [Google search] brought up a bunch of sources. I'm curious to see which ones you all think would be helpful to establish notability or reliably used for facts (I believe the first 3 are okay):

  1. Landler, Mark (1997-07-17). "After 9 Months, AT&T President Quits Under Pressure". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-20. -- this one looks okay to me.
  2. "Articles about John D Zeglis - latimes". Retrieved 2019-04-20.</ref> -- this also look okay to me.
  3. Martin, Dick (2004-11-26). Tough Calls: ATand T and the Hard Lessons Learned from the Telecom Wars. AMACOM. ISBN 9780814428467. -- this one seems okay
  4. Koo, Carolyn (1999-12-06). "Reaction Muted to AT&T's Tracking Stock Announcement". TheStreet. Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  5. Stern '01, Seth; July 1; 2001. "Not Your Father's Harvard Law School". Harvard Law Today. Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  6. Rosenzweig, Phil (2014-01-07). Left Brain, Right Stuff: How Leaders Make Winning Decisions. PublicAffairs. ISBN 9781610393089.
  7. Bloomberg
  8. " Forbes Executive Pay 2004". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  9. "John Zeglis Net Worth (2019) –". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  10. "John Zeglis Profile | University of Illinois 150 Years". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  11. "St. Joseph E.R. 'vital' to Culver, says board chair Zeglis | The Pilot News". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  12. "HP Company Profile & Executives - Helmerich & Payne Inc. - Wall Street Journal". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  13. "5 Questions With... - Business People". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  14. MarketScreener. "John D. Zeglis - Biography". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  15. "ZEGLIS JOHN D Insider Insider Trades". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  16. "Former trustees chairman, AT&T CEO discusses leadership". The GW Hatchet. 2007-03-26. Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  17. "The Seattle Times: Business & Technology: Biggest Northwest buyout to alter wireless landscape". Retrieved 2019-04-20.
  18. Evers, Joris (2003-11-18). "AT&T Wireless launches EDGE service". Network World. Retrieved 2019-04-20.

I got up to page 8 of the Google search before I got tired of posting. I think some of these should be reliable, but I wanted to hear what other people think, especially for future reference for notability and reliability. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This might be better over at the notabilty notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: What's that and where might I find it? I have never heard of it. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (Not really a noticeboard, but a discussion page - still useful though). Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Black Kite. That doesn't really seem the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of individual sources for notability, but I will put a notice to this discussion and see if anyone from there wants to comment here. I have reviewed a number of the subpages like WP:NCORP, WP:NOLYMPICS, WP:NARTIST, WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPERSON, WP:NPERSON, WP:NORG, WP:NALBUM, etc., but have seen nothing that answers the questions I have above about the kinds of very specific sources mentioned above. Of course, I didn't read every one of those page completely, so maybe I missed something... --David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice now placed here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Discussion_of_specific_sources_for_notability --David Tornheim (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Birjis Qadr[edit]

This query is regarding Birjis Qadr article. Can I use this website to cite Qadr's date of death and full name? The website claims that it is being maintained by a descendant of Qadr. The current citation in the article for Qadr's date of death is unreliable and will be removed. Also, currently I do not find any other source mentioning Qadr's date of death. RRD (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say no... not reliable. The cited webpage claims to be run by a descendant of the subject, but that does not mean he knows what he is talking about. It is still little more than a personal website. Not having reliable birth and death dates is not a big deal. Just omit it. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
For a start as a decedent (assuming it is true) it is not independent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Dexerto[edit]

Should Dexerto be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per a previous discussion[64]? X-Editor (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes per previous discussion linked above. X-Editor (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad Question. Linked discussion didn't establish anything about an edit filter, and edit filters are discouraged when there is little use of the source (see WP:AF, and RfCs are usually for resolving a dispute (which doesn't exist), and WP:RSN is for discussions about use of a source in an article (which isn't stated), and "deprecate" has become a misleading term (the real effect of the filter is far beyond the dictionary meaning "not approve"). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Dexerto is used frequently as a source for Internet and YouTube related articles, so you're wrong there[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]. Also, If you want to complain about how the term "deprecate" has become "misleading", please don't take it out on me and take that discussion somewhere else. X-Editor (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)