Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RfC: Fox News

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

The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News (hereafter "Fox").

In regards to the areas of politics and science, there is strong disagreement over whether Fox has a demonstrable record of reliable reporting. Those opposed to Fox as a reliable source pointed to many instances where information was misrepresented, misinterpreted, or incorrect (what some might call a "spin first, issue corrections later" attitude for breaking news reports). Those in favour of Fox make the argument that everyone makes mistakes, with Fox correcting them if/when necessary and with no more mistakes than any other news outlet. With the exception of sensational headlines and doctored photographs, however, there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts. In areas outside these two subjects, as well as reporting from local/affiliate stations, Fox is generally seen as reliable; there were little to no complaints made about these areas of coverage, with some of the opposition agreeing that they were acceptable.

In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable.

The closers would also like to remark on a few points that, while not directly in the purview of this RFC, should be mentioned.

• The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC, and thus were not considered in the close; they have their own section at WP:RSP.
• There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious).
• Parallel discussions (such as the "Also CNN & MSNBC" section, predictions on how the discussion should close, etc) should ideally be kept to a minimum in contentious RFCs such as this one, not only to save on the word count but also on the amount of side comments and sniping that frequently accompany them.

Signed

• Primefac (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

Additional questions:

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

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

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

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

Responses (Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related: World's Smallest Political Quiz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture manipulation by Fox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further evidence of recent malign behaviour by Fox News

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

Studies on the reliability of Fox News

General (Fox News)

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

Climate change (Fox News)

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

COVID-19 (Fox News)

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

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

Dangerously duped.

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

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

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

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

Discussion 2 (Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News: reliability in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification requested (Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  John Cummings, I see it as:

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

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

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

I would break it down with;

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

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

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

Hypothetical consideration on Fox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Quick Two Cents (about Fox News)

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

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

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

What smart people who are not me say about Fox News

(Because Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post started out so well with the opening parenthetical comment

Because Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A question to Fox's Friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References (Fox News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Call for close (Fox News)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also CNN & MSNBC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News pushing misinformation about George Floyd protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

François Robere,

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

@Sphilbrick:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News crops Donald Trump out of Jeffrey Epstein photo

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

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

• Video
• Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current tally

A current rough tally of votes is

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

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

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

References

Post-close pre-result comments

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

  Guy Macon, the top (correct) box is {{Closing}}, and the smaller one inappropriately still soliciting comments is {{RSN RfC}}, it seems. RSN RfC says it should be removed while a close is taking place, so I've gone ahead and taken it out. If you or anyone else want to fix up the messages it displays, they're encoded in the {{RSN RfC status}} subtemplate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Question about close

@Rosguill, Primefac, and Lee Vilenski: Feel free to move this elsewhere; it's unclear to me where questions about the close are best posted, since there are three of you. My question concerns: In areas outside these two subjects, as well as reporting from local/affiliate stations, Fox is generally seen as reliable (emphasis mine, of course).

Most of the people participating in this RfC did not mention local affiliates, and some of those who did (including me) argued that they shouldn't be included here. I'm wondering how you found an active consensus in favor of considering them generally reliable. I think what you meant is that there was no finding that they are necessarily problematic just because they're Fox affiliates (or that they don't necessarily suffer from the same issues that Fox News does), which isn't what the closing statement says. They are separate newsrooms, and I don't see consensus that all of those affiliates are generally reliable. Could you clarify (or modify)? Maybe even just "Consensus to apply standard WP:NEWSORG reliability criteria to Fox affiliates"? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, your reading is correct. Our intent was to convey that this discussion's outcome did not apply to local affiliates, and that NEWSORG therefore continues to apply there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sharing this more widely?

I must have missed the watchlist notice, the signpost entry, or any attempt to make others aware of this !vote. I don't disagree wtih it, but seriously, what happened to the notices? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It was posted at centralized discussion, used the RfC format, and took place on the noticeboard where source discussions happen. Signpost will report on it after the fact. I suppose a watchlist notice is something that could be discussed, but I've never seen a watchlist notice used for that purpose? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)? MEMRI has been cited around 560 times on Wikipedia per memri.org   and memritv.org  .

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (MEMRI)

• Option 1 Yes there were some controversies in the past but but there was some controversies with other WP:RS doesn't meant we should disqualify it.It widely used by others WP:RS [150],[151],[152],[153] and I could find many more.Yes it have agenda like many others so it maybe best to attribute --Shrike (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Generally reliable, they do a very high volume of translations with only a very small percentage ever shown to be misleading or erroneous, and are heavily used by others. I don't think it's necessary to attribute because they aren't giving their opinion, just a straight translation of primary source material. However, that also means that, as Memri is a primary source, it doesn't lend weight unless the quoted material is covered by a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its an informal Israeli agitprop organization with strong Israeli defense connections. The question is, has MEMRI's documented methods, and purposes, which created the ruckus back then, changed, when it was exposed for altering a Palestinian child saying:'(They/Israelis) are shooting at us' to 'we will annihilate the Jews' Despite the protest of Arab translators, its founder Yigal Carmon, had the chutzpah to go on Glenn Beck's programme and defend the distortion as, yes, accurate, though he doesn't know Arabic. These are the precise words. He overrode the objections of CNN's translator, and insisted they translate it differently:

'You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. .. Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word "Jews" at the end and it also means it is something to be done to Jews not by Jews.'

As independent experts on translation have noted.

Carmon does not just challenge the expertise of CNN's Arabic department here but also ignores what all Arabic grammars have to say on the structure of Arabic and the mobility of the object in Arab syntax.(See Mona Baker, 'Narratives of terrorism and Security: "Accurate" Translations, Suspicious Frames,' in her Researching Translation in the The Age of Technology and Global Conflict: Selected Works of Mona Baker, ed.Kyung Hye Kim, Yifan Zhu Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-0-429-65670-5)

The man who refused to admit the translation was falsified, even when it was proven to be such, i.e. Carmon, still runs the outfit. He was a military intelligence colonel who had been the effective military governor of Palestinian territories for several years, and who was stoutly opposed to peace agreements with them, its method is to select the worst they can find on numerous Arab media outlets, and highlight the putative content, to create a sense of chronic terrorism in that world. They have upgraded their accuracy since, yes, but not changed their selectivity, and the aim of publishing whatever looks bad, however parochial, to skewer the 'Arabs'. The results are predictable. If any Arab organization imitated their tactics, they could produce the same hysteria by excerpting and translating from English motherlodes of stuff from Fox News the Drudge Report, and any of the thousands of shock jock radio programmes in the US, like those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and take them as representing a threat to the world. A sense of proportion of what dickhead said what, where, and in what context is lost from view, as is invariably the case in intelligence disinformation operations like this, which use raw material that has some basis in reality, to influence public perceptions. Memri's translations should only be cited through secondary sources written by competent area scholars, and should never be used as a Primary Source, which is an open sesame to the usual wiki editor engaging in original research, usually for BLP articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishidani's link above goes to Mona Baker, who once said[154] that "I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances." Adoring nanny (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Option 4 This is literally MEMRI... This is the poster child for a bad source which we use as a derogatory comparison for other sources. They have a long history of publishing both false translations and false analysis, I literally cant think of another organization in their space that does a worse job (if anyone can then name them). If MEMRI isn't a 4 nobody is, they’re the bottom of the barrel. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

​I'm not so familiar with this source. When I look at its WP page, it seems like most specific incidents mentioned in the article occurred back around 2007, and I don't see a source that obviously talks about the reliability of MEMRI in a general sense. Do you know of sources that talk about MEMRI on a timespan longer than a single event, or that makes general statements about the source? If MEMRI is a poster child for this issue, then I assume I'd be able to look at articles about the issue somewhere. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you catch the "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation” part? MEMRI faded out of relevancy in the early-mid twenty teens due to their hijinks, they are not currently regarded as reliable by anyone I know of and if you do a google news search for MEMRI you will find that they are no longer used as a source for translation or anything else by WP:RS as they once were. The news organizations all got burned by MEMRI, they’re not trusting them again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2002 we had the Guardian do a whole story on how unreliable MEMRI was, “Selective MEMRI” [155] which is still a good read. This sort of thing is why I’m surprised we’re having this conversation, we knew MEMRI was garbage two decades ago and they’ve done *nothing* to dispel that notion since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Lets not forget that Guardian has its own bias yes they selective but as many other biased sources that we do allow.And you own source says Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output. Shrike (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of reliability not bias and the Guardian's reliability is not up for dispute here. You will be overjoyed to learn that since 2002 there has been dispute over the general accuracy of Memri's translations as is covered extensively on the page. They got worse, not better. Nobody has yet made an argument that MEMRI satisfies WP:VERIFY, if you would like to then go for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 at least and probably Option 4, according to Middle East Media Research Institute. We will mainly be using the translated documents and in fact often using MEMRI for the translations, because this is the English Wikipedia. The fact that those translations have been found to be be selective is a pressing concern. Guy (help!) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their bias and they regularly used by respectable WP:RS.I don't see any difference for example from Btselem if we allow such partisan sources with clear agenda there is no problem to allow Memri--Shrike (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bias or partisanship, this discussion is about reliability. They also *used* to be regular used by WP:RS, they aren’t anymore (its down to maybe two Israeli papers and even then its infrequent). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly Book from 2017 [156] Book from 2018[157],Book from 2018 [158] Does it recent enough? Shrike (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be from general commercial publishers not academic publishers. Try a google news search limited to the last month, thats always the easiest way to check relevancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look again Routledge and Walter de Gruyter are academic publishers --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Shrike (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't recognize de Gruyter as it was rendered. Routledge is borderline with a more commercial outlook post 1998 although I’l give it to you if that moves the discussion along. My question still stands, they aren’t as widely used by WP:RS (particularly news outlets). Can you name three reliable news sources that have used them in the last month? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is picked by the media but here is an example from NYTIMES on last year [159] and washPO[160] from April 2020, BBC used their clip on their program [161] I think its recent enough.If they use it there is no problem that Wikipedia will use it--Shrike (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those first two feature quotes from the head of MEMRI and discuss their published reports or soon to be published reports but they don’t make any comment about MEMRI’s reliability nor do they adopt those assertions as their own. MEMRI is certainly a notable think tank/advocacy group (thats why they have a wikipedia page) but neither of those speaks to their reliability. Can you specify when in the 27 minute audio clip the MEMRI bit is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the article about radical islamic groups exploiting Covid. Shrike. Yeah, MEMRI would report that. Neither it nor the mainstream media reported that Israel smashed a structure set up for a clinic in the poorest area of the West Bank, one that could have served Covid testing among Palestinian herders. Yes, B'tselem did report it, but of course that is, as you say, as biased as MEMRI, with the difference that the IDF itself recognizes B'tselem's accuracy, and B'tselem always reports Israeli casualties and deplores terrorism, from either side. Mainstream reportage is already notorious skewed to one partisan narrative without adding insult to injury.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment No one is saying that they translate everything, which would anyway be impossible. I don't see how being selective about what they cover is evidence of unreliability, but then again I don't think this source grants any due weight per WP:PRIMARY. If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? Random WP editors translate stuff all the time without attribution and they certainly have much less evidence of being reliable. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

'If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? .' If we had the option of being allowed to use any source simply because we have no other available, Wikipedia would be chaos.(b) I've long seen them translating an extensive quantity of obscure crap (my analogy with shock jocks). Who establishes what is newsworthy, MEMRI, an informal arm of Israeli intelligence? No, reliable secondary sources that establish relevance, notability and WP:Dueness.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 and I'm curious why this user is opening up RFC's on specific sources all of a sudden. What is the impetus behind it? I don't see any discussion on talk pages or anything drawing it to an RFC that preceded it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Quoting Federico Zanettin's 2016 paper, [162], who notes some criticize MEMRI's selection of which pieces it translate but that:

  "The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

  MEMRI's translations are used widely. That MEMRI, as a media watchdog, is selective in choosing which pieces it covers is to be expected. In any event, the translations themselves are considered accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. I'd be open to the argument that MEMRI had turned over a new leaf if they apologised for providing twisted translations, but in fact they doubled down on them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Some instances of controversy don't warrant a deprecation. Yes, they are selective in the same sense as for instance SPLC is actively scanning for hateful content. As for political ramifications or controversy, you can't really blame them for Arab language TV channels broadcasting such content. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

SPLC doesn't just focus on extremism coming from one racial group. If they did, we'd call them racist. MEMRI is dedicated to making Arabs and Muslims look bad. Hard to believe that in 2020 we are still not taking racial bias seriously.VR _talk 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 without independent confirmation. They took an interview with Norman Finkelstein on Lebanese TV and edited it so that he appeared to be a Holocaust denier. This episode alone proves that they cannot be trusted. The very reason MEMRI exists is to misrepresent the Arab (and Persian) world to the advantage of Israel. Zero^talk 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 maybe 4, seems there is enough smoke for a fire here:

Mona Baker (25 October 2018). Translation and Conflict: A narrative account. Taylor & Francis. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-429-79645-6.

Full text for free here. Zero^talk 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Christopher A. Bail (2 August 2016). Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-0-691-17363-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

• Option 4: MEMRI "translated" a child's response: ""I'm going to draw a picture" to "I will shoot". And they translated the child's "The Jews are shooting us" to "We will annihilate the Jews". (See Mona Baker, 2010, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames), Worse than that: when confronted by their mis-translation, Yigal Carmon stated: "Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation." (see Tomorrow's Pioneers#Translation_controversy. Mistakes are one thing; pretending your mistakes are correct is immensely worse. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, per above comments, this org has clearly published fabricated content deliberately and systematically, and therefore they should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Fairly simple, imo. The degree of misinterpretation points towards disinformation, further affirmed by the long form publications presented above. Not to mention the ties with the Israeli intelligence community are not endorsements. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 This seems pretty clear to me just based on what others are saying. If they did anything like what Zero or Huldra are saying they did this is unambiguously a 4, and the supporters of 1 frankly don't seem to have a lot of evidence backing them up. Loki (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Did people here actually read Mona Baker who is cited above? Ignoring the fact she is a leader in the boycott movement (The Times: Don’t play the nutty professor with David Irving, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law : Boycotting Israeli academia: Is its implementation anti-Semitic?), her article after noting one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, is all about narrative complaining that MEMRI highlighting hate speech in terrorist-run TV promotes a narrative). Baker concludes with the opposite point on translation: "more important argument that I have tried to elaborate here is that attempts by Arab and pro-Arab activists to challenge neo-conservative organisations such as MEMRI by casting doubt on the accuracy of their translations miss the point. A group called MEMRI Watch for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 ... but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement". Baker herself does not contest MEMRI being accurate. Other editors above have pointed out sources showing use of MEMRI translations by both media and scholars. It is used by others, and even ideological opponents admit that the translations are generally accurate. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Very astute comment, I would like to add that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow any user to translate content without infringing on reliable source or original research. No one arguing that the source should be deprecated has been able to show that it is less accurate or reliable at translating material than the average Wikipedia editor. One disputed translation certainly doesn't do it. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you are refering to Baker (2010), I did read it and I think you're missing the point she is making as well, the question isn't about mistranslation but misinterpretation or in her words "misleading narrations". It is very much possible to produce factually incorrect translations with accurate translations, however odd that might sound. The point she is referring to in the quoted line is present in the introducing lines of the "Narration theory" section.

The model of analysis adopted here, and which makes it possible to demonstrate how narratives elaborated about Arab and Muslim communities through translation do not have to be ‘linguistically inaccurate’ to be misleading, is elaborated in greater detail in Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) and elsewhere.

For example, in english one can say "I want a hotdog" which can be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's hot" which can also be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's attractive", etc. This gets even easier and much more confusing when you add another language to it. There's an example of it in Baker (2018) long form.

MEMRI insisted that Bin Laden 'threatened each U.S. state, and offered an election deal to the American voters - a sort of amnesty for states that don't vote for Bush', and that 'the U.S. media have mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S'

(Ball 2016; linked above) and Harris 2003 make similar observations as well. The Baker (2018) long form has referenced the latter. (Bolding is my own)

Harris (2003) similarly insists that 'MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israel's] occupation as religious extremists or Anti-semites'

It should also be noted that the MEMRI Watch that is referenced to by her in your quoted text has still also found instances of direct mistranslations and doctoring albeit perhaps not as much as expected. At the very least MEMRI is an advocacy group with questionable reliability and questionable independence in relation to a belligerent party in a conflict zone. I don't see how this is of any value for encyclopedic purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris(2003) is a Counterpunch essay, hardly a high quality source. Baker is a leader in the boycott movement, she has her own narrative. Both are are relatively dated. In contrast, Zanettin, Federico. "‘The deadliest error’: translation, international relations and the news media." The Translator 22.3 (2016): 303-318, is a later academic work by a neutral party who refers both to Baker and Harris (whom Baker cites) that states:

"Various commentators have, however, questioned MEMRI’s impartiality, both in view of its covert ideological standpoint12 and in consideration of the apparent bias in the choice of source material it translates. Harris argues that ‘MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israeli’s] occupation [of Palestinian territories] as religious extremists or anti-Semites’ (Harris 2003) This ‘selective appropriation strategy’ is also discussed by Mona Baker (2006, 108–109), who similarly contends that the choice of material translated contributes to the elaboration of a narrative which portrays those who oppose neoconservative politics as extremists. The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

In short, the translations themselves are accurate even according to detractors.11Fox11 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't access The Translator so can't comment much on Zanettin 2016. Nevertheless, the quotation doesn't tell us anything; it just repeats a summarisation of Baker 2010 as in that MEMRI's accuracy of the translations of particular texts aren't disputed but not that MEMRI's narration of a particular piece as a whole isn't. Further, disregarding Harris 2003 and even if we consider Mona Baker to be partisan, there are still a number of academic sources which do support their assertions. For instance the concluding findings of Hijjo, Nael F. M.; Kaur, Surinderpal; Kadhim, Kais Amir (20 April 2019). "Reframing the Arabic Narratives on Daesh in the English Media: The Ideological Impact". Open Linguistics. 5 (1). De Gruyter: 81–93. doi:10.1515/opli-2019-0005. make these observations.

In this regard, the findings of this study reveal that MEMRI-translated titles are a complete reframe to the original...MEMRI makes several ideologically motivated lexical choice decisions. The findings clearly illustrate how translation agencies of international media outlets employ narrativity features to insert their perspectives and agenda in the target text. They also explain how narrativity features are used by MEMRI as devices of (re)constructing, (re)framing, and (re)negotiating the Arabic source narrative in favor of the meta-narratives ‘terrorist Islam and Muslims’ and ‘the War on Terror’.

The translations of text in isolation of context may be accurate but the interpretations are not which is still a form of disinformation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how you're getting "disinformation" out of that. "translation agencies of international media outlets" are likely considered RS and according to this source, they also use "narrativity features". (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Narrativity features" only refers to semantic attributes in a language. The "translation agencies of international media outlets" are not being considered in the same vein as MEMRI in the study; the former might insert their perspective or agenda through minor inconsistencies in semantic meaning but not to the extent where the rendering of source material has been completely deconstructed and reframed as is the case with the latter, which would produce a misinterpretation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - MEMRI's reputation as a poor source is well established literally over decades. Examples: [163] [164] [165]. It is a propaganda outlet, and I dont think that is even in dispute. As far as the absolutely nonsensical line about Baker writing about one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, no, what she, in a peer-reviewed journal article (which oh by the way matters more than the well-poisoning above about leader in the boycott movement), what she writes is that MEMRI fabricated entirely what a subject said, which CNN's translators also agreed with. We have well-poisoning and gas-lighting in defense of a propaganda outlet. Great. nableezy - 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your three examples, the Guardian and MondeDiplo are both complaining about what Memri chooses to translate, and the Guardian one actually says the translations are generally accurate. In the WaPo source, if one clicks through to the Memri translation the WaPo is complaining about, it is clear that Iran's parliament did put nine conditions on its approval of the JCPOA. The WaPo takes issue with the characterization of these conditions as "amendments", but, well, look at the actual conditions to see for yourself. So what we are left with is a complaint of selectivity. But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, please do not misrepresent what these things report. What the Le Monde Dilpomatique source says is

Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not”. Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.

Halim Barakat, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC, also suffered from this approach. He claimed that an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, “The wild beast that Zionism created: Self-destruction”, was reproduced by Memri under the hate-inducing headline, “Jews have lost their humanity”. Barakat denies having used that phrase. “Every time I wrote Zionism, Memri replaced the word by Jew or Judaism. They want to give the impression that I’m not criticising Israeli policy and that what I’m saying is anti-semitic.” As soon as the translation was posted on the Memri website he received threats. He was told that he had no right to teach at a university (he has taught for more than 30 years) and that he should leave the US. Another Georgetown professor attacked him in an article based only on Memri translations, without checking the Arabic texts.

In June 2004 Memri triggered a campaign against a London visit by the well-known Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, commissioned a study of the “Islamic conspiracy dossier” to obtain an impartial view. His counter-dossier concluded that the campaign was part of an “apparent rising tide of Islamophobia” aiming to “close off any dialogue between London and mainstream representatives of one of the world's great religions”.

The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi's works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel's military intelligence service”. It concluded that Memri systematically distorted facts, not only relating to Qaradawi but to many other Muslim leaders, and the report was intended to set matters straight.

Memri is also guilty of basic factual errors. According to its “experts”, Abdel Karim Abu al-Nasr is a Saudi national, because he is a leader writer for a Saudi newspaper, whereas he is a prominent Lebanese journalist. In a long paper on Saudi Arabia, Memri wrote that Crown Prince Abdallah Ibn Abdel Aziz (now king) belonged to the Sudeiri branch of the royal family, which would surprise anyone who knows the country.

What the Guardian supports is that MEMRI is a propaganda outlet. What the Washington Post says is that MEMRI straight fabricated a claim that Iran did not pass the JCPA when they in fact have. That is, MEMRI said a black and white lie, 4 pinnochios by they way are reserved for "Whoppers". nableezy - 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. MEMRI is an unreliable source with a lot of questionable reporting. I don't think that can be debated. On the question of whether it should be "outlawed" or not, I lean towards being inclusive, i.e no outlawing. Thus, my vote is for option 3. If preferential voting isn't yet a thing on Wikipedia I'll have to vote for option 4. ImTheIP (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is no real dispute that the translations themselves are accurate, this is acknowledged even by Mona Baker (who showcases her own axe) and neutral parties such as Zanettin note accuracy and use by news outlets. Baker stresses narrative, and I don't think there is a real dispute that MEMRI promotes a narrative. MEMRI is selective in the pieces it translates. Thus, if a piece appears on MEMRI's site we can generally count on MEMRI's translation to be accurate. However, we can not count on MEMRI's showcasing to be representative of the Arab language media it is presenting.--Hippeus (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Baker very specifically says that MEMRI totally distorted a translation, giving it an opposite meaning than it had. This canard that she acknowledges that there is no real dispute the translations are accurate when her paper opens up with what she calls an example of blatant mistranslations has no grounding in fact. nableezy - 14:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 I have read the discussion above. There seems to be consensus that (a) MEMRI's translations are mostly accurate, and (b) MEMRI is a highly political and biased organization. I agree with both these statements.

I therefore strongly support full deprecation because “mostly” accurate in a politicized organization is nowhere near good enough. The same test applies to all sources we have previously chosen to deprecate – all our deprecated sources are also "mostly" accurate.

Let’s say that MEMRI are 95% accurate in their translations, which sounds great, and is likely as statistically accurate as a translation made by an average Wikipedian speaker of the translated language (referencing a point made above). But what about that 5%?

First, it is likely that a reasonable portion of the 5% inaccuracies in a MEMRI translation are politically-driven spin. Second, is quoting out of context – MEMRI may have translated the part of a speech which fits their narrative, but not translated parts which add nuance or context.

Because they translate niche publications, we usually cannot verify any of this. The existence of these gaps in our knowledge, combined with certainty that they are a biased organization, make it negligent for us to use a MEMRI quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 – MEMRI does not produce its own content, only translations, and some of the original content cannot be found elsewhere online. Therefore, at the very least, it's a reliable repository of third party content, where the sources are clearly stated, which is also helpful in practice. As for the translations, I think it is telling that despite being extremely controversial among those who hold opposing views, they have only managed to find a small number of possible mistranslations, out of thousands of MEMRI clips throughout history. This is an extremely low rate of mistakes, likely lower than any major publication we commonly cite. For example, yesterday I found an article in a leading economic newspaper about Israel's energy sector, with a number of obviously bungled facts – does it mean the entire source is bogus? In any case, since translations themselves aren't the source, even if theoretically a translation was inaccurate, it would be within Wikipedia policy to cite the video with a note on the translation. However, this should be done on a case-by-case basis, if there is doubt; by default, the translations should be accepted as reliable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ynhockey: Thats not true, their translations are packaged as “reports” which contain original analysis and content, in fact some of them are almost entirely analysis and original content with only a snippet or two of translation. Their four most recent pieces [166][167][168][169]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 From an article attacking MEMRI[170], we have the following: "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output."(Emphasis added) The part I've bolded above really cuts to the chase. The article then goes on to state concerns that in one case the newspaper being translated might have lied, which, if it did, is obviously not a reflection on MEMRI's translation. It also says that MEMRI's founder and several people who work there have former connections with the Israeli military. Which would point to bias, but every source is biased.Adoring nanny (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That article is from 2002, 18 years ago, and is entitled “False MEMRI” which should tell you everything you need to know about their reliability. "General accuracy" isn't good enough, if even a small fraction of the information published by a source is false or misleading and there is no mechanism by which errors are corrected and no reputation for correcting errors either then its an option 4. Since 2002 we’ve had clear cases of them publishing false and misleading information, what are we supposed to do about that? We aren’t given much wiggle room here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

When I follow the link, the title I see is "selective Memri". But every source is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read more than the title. A title which is a pun on "selective memory" and not a comment on how selective MEMRI is. nableezy - 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy I did. Please strike the first part per WP:NPA, and see my discussion above of the fact that the article is in fact saying that Memri is selective. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 One of the best source when it comes to information about middle East and a large number of scholars trust this source. Excelse (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4; they're very biased in what and how they translate, and cases of outright falsification / misrepresentation and fabrication of information have been cited. Our main citation should be to the original news report if it is (independent of MEMRI's selection of it) due weight. We might (on a talk page or, perhaps, even in an article) compare our translation of a non-English source to any other available ones, including MEMRI's, and take it as evidence that we have the translation right if they line up, and seek further assistance if they don't. But I wouldn't take their word for anything (whether their translations or their original content), especially anything controversial or in the topic areas (of politics) where they are biased, or about BLPs. -sche (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 You might not like MEMRI's agenda, but they translate Arabic accurately. They don't make up remarks by Arab and Muslim personalities. The truth is above everything.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. The examples of patiently deliberate mistranslation listed above are compelling, and the arguments against them (which mostly seem to consist of either ignoring the worst examples, arguing that Mona Baker is biased, citing much more vague / general statements that they're mostly accurate, or saying that everyone translates with an agenda) are weak. While they have been widely criticized for selective translation (which would already raise WP:DUE issues), and a lot of the coverage focuses on that, the deliberate mistranslations go way beyond what we could accept from a WP:RS, especially given the total lack of any sort of corrections or retractions, and nobody seems to actually be willing to directly disagree with the examples given, which have been cited in peer-reviewed papers as examples of manipulative mistranslation. As I mentioned in similar cases, we allow WP:BIASED sources, and we allow sources that sometimes make mistakes; but when a source has a clear, overriding bias that seems to define its entire mission statement, and has constant serious "errors" (always in the direction of its bias), that suggests a systematic problem that makes them unusable as a source. An additional concern is that many people are saying things like "well, if we remove MEMRI as a source, we will have no alternative to replace them" - that, to me, is a red alarm. A WP:BIASED source that has been accused of deliberate mistranslation in peer-reviewed papers, and which everyone at least agrees selectively translates things to present an inaccurate picture, being used as the sole source for things that are not mentioned anywhere else at all? Not just no, but hell no. EDIT: After quickly glancing over how it's currently cited, I would also point out that even though nobody seems to dispute that MEMRI is, at a bare minimum, WP:BIASED, it is repeatedly cited for statements of fact about its ideological enemies without an in-line citation, and is sometimes even used as the sole source to attribute statements with clearly-negative implications to WP:BLPs. Regardless of the outcome of this RFC, its usages are going to require massive cleanup efforts - as a WP:BIASED source, it should at the absolute bare minimum never be cited for anything that has to do with Islam, Israel, or mideast politics without an inline citation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Based on the published criticisms, this seems to be simply a biased organization. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Claims of actual inaccurate translations are few and far between. Even the published criticisms, some of which are by a biased author mainly known for firing Israelis on the basis of their ethnicity, point out MEMRI's wide use and that the point isn't accuract. The criticisms do lay the charge that MEMRI translates content that is extremist, and that the selection itself is biased while the translations are accurate. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - MEMRI has made mistakes, but let's not conflate that into saying that all their translators are unqualified. Like others have said, MEMRI is widely quoted by sources far more reliable than Wikipedia. If a reliable source says that MEMRI's translation is wrong, then we shouldn't include it. However, if we don't have a specific reason to doubt, then absolutely use it.Resowithrae (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - a big problem with MEMRI is how its used. MEMRI is mainly a WP:PRIMARY source and it is often used to make claims about living persons. Yet WP:BLPPRIMARY strongly discourages using primary sources alone for BLP material. But taking a look at its usage there are far too many instances of it being used for BLP material. This problem is compounded by the fact that MEMRI has a tendency of selectively publishing the most derogatory comments about living persons.VR _talk 23:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - MEMRI should be evaluated like any other primary source. It is best used when cited by a secondary reliable source, expert in the field. When there are conflicting reports among reliable sources, both reports should be included with attribution according to weight. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: at least 6 editors here have unusually short editing histories to be coming along and "voting" on an obscure noticeboard discussion:

• • Excelse: 683 edits
  • Bob not snob: 594 edits
  • 11Fox11: 827 edits
  • Aroma Stylish: 746 edits
  • Resowithrae: 125 edits
  • Infinity Knight: 933 edits

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MEMRI)

MEMRI has been substantially discussed three times, but these were between 2007 and 2009, over a decade ago. 1 2 3 Given that much of the controversy over MEMRI's translations is over a decade old, so I would like to know if anything has changed since then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

They’ve gotten worse not better, its bottom of the barrel sludge and I say that as someone on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment personally unsure but I don't think Mona Baker's works on the matter should be used as an argument.--Calthinus (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No kidding. Closer is encouraged to check out [171] and follow the links to see exactly who is being used to make the case for options 3-4. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An academic expert in the field of translation writing in an academic, peer-reviewed journal, or a literal logical fallacy. Yes, the closer should consider how this is being argued, I agree. nableezy - 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nableezy You are arguing that she is WP:RS even though she removed two Israeli academics, Dr. Miriam Shlesinger of Bar-Ilan University and Professor Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv University, Israel, from the editorial boards of her journals Translator and Translation Studies Abstracts, based on their affiliation to Israeli institutions.Israeli boycott divides academics and subsequently announced that Translator will no longer publish any research by Israeli scholars and will refuse to sell books and journals to Israeli libraries.Mona Baker's double standard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, she is a reliable source on translation sciences. Her stance on BDS has exactly zero to do with her qualifications. See WP:RS#Scholarship for why a director of the Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at the University of Manchester writing in the area of her academic expertise is a reliable source. Your objections to her politics has zero bearing on her reliability. nableezy - 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is her own words and actions make her WP:QUESTIONABLE. Note in particular her complaints about the "Jewish press"[172]. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, several MEMRI employees are Israeli. So Baker, by her own words and actions has an axe to grind with respect to both Israelis and what she considers to be the "Jewish press". No word on whether or not she considers MEMRI to be a part of that "Jewish press", but it's a reasonable supposition. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes her questionable. WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; a WP:BIASED source can still be usable, though we would use in-line citations when citing them in the article case. It only becomes unusable (as in MEMRI's case) where there is substantial reason to believe that their bias interferes with their accuracy on a systematic level. Do you have any reason to believe that published statements by Mona Baker cannot be relied on? That is, do you have evidence showing that she has distorted or selectively manipulated translations herself? EDIT: And, more generally, given that she's being cited in numerous peer-reviewed papers here - do you think those journals are WP:QUESTIONABLE? It seems baffling to hold her bias against her to the point of trying to discredit her entirely as a source even in peer-reviewed papers from high-quality journals while arguing that MEMRI, which is not peer-reviewed and which has been accused of far more serious distortions, can be still used. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is Academic analysis of the Mona Baker views[173] by Judith Butler(who herself a vocal critic of Israeli policies) she clearly can't be used to assess Memri --Shrike (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See what I said above. If being WP:BIASED alone were enough to disregard a source we would obviously toss MEMRI in the wastebin instantly with no need for further discussion; no one disputes that they have a point of view. The question is whether a source can be trusted to tell the truth and make valid arguments, or whether their bias systematically overrides their reliability. The reason people are citing Mona Baker is because she's made that argument (although she's not the only one to do so); do you have any comparable sources throwing her accuracy into doubt, rather than simply ones that disagree with her politics? Obviously the idea that participation in the boycott alone would render an academic unreliable in their area of expertise is absurd - it might qualify them as WP:BIASED and require in-line citations when citing them, but saying that someone isn't an WP:RS requires a reason to believe that they distort the truth, publish factually-inaccurate material, and so on, not just that they expressed an opinion that others find objectionable. (In a few cases I suppose there are opinions that might render a source WP:FRINGE, but for the better or worse, her opinions are not that far outside the academic mainstream - disqualifying her based on this alone would disqualify huge swaths of academia.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, The thing she in not just biased she make antisemitic premises as described by Butler.Do you really thing that person that espouse racist premises could be WP:RS Shrike (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Butler specifically says "(which does not mean she is antisemitic)"; she is criticizing one specific action and statement by Baker for (possibly inadvertently) playing into anti-Semitic tropes, not describing her as WP:FRINGE. "They once said something that another person took issue with as racist" is obviously is not sufficient to completely and permanently disqualify a source when nobody is actually raising issue with the accuracy of her statements or research. Saying that she make antisemitic premises is a massive stretch from what Butler says - she isn't accusing Baker of engaging in scientific racism, or advancing conspiracy theories, or other things that would call the accuracy of her work into question; and she certainly isn't accusing her of deliberately manipulating her results to obtain a specific result, which is the far more credible and far more serious allegation made against MEMRI. More generally, yes, of course a source who previously said or did something that another person criticized as racist could be a WP:RS; we don't require that sources be unbiased or fair or good people. What matters is whether the views they're accused of taints their research to the point of rending them WP:FRINGE or unreliable, which is light-years away from what Butler is saying there. Or, in other words - if you wanted to disqualify Baker, you need to find sources describing her published research as either inaccurate or WP:FRINGE, not just ones that took issue with the wording of a statement she made. Above, you said (in defense of MEMRI) everyone has their bias, but you have to understand that the key question is does their bias taint their research. Nobody (that I can see) is accusing Baker of that; numerous sources, to varying degrees, say that MEMRI's translations are fatally-tainted (and, I'll point out again, you still haven't really answered that accusation beyond repeatedly trying to shoot the messenger.) That is the key difference here. The idea that you would disqualify a respected academic with significant expertise in the field in favor of a think-tank with a reputation for manipulative translation is simply baffling. Sources like Baker are the ones we ought to be using (with caution, of course, with in-line citations when her WP:BIAS is relevant, and focused on peer-reviewed sources so we can trust the review process and not just Baker herself.) Rando stuff published by MEMRI with no further fact-checking or review belongs in the wastebin by comparison - we ought to rely less on advocacy-groups like that in general, but especially in cases like this where there have been numerous accusations of outright distortions on their part. Also note that the distortions by MEMRI have been reported by numerous WP:RSes, not just Baker, eg. [174][175][176][177]. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The articles you cite complain about MEMRI's framing and reframing (see Framing (social sciences)) of their translations, and about the translation of the Arabic word Jihad to the English word Jihad, among other things. But WP:RS like the NYT and PBS describe their own work with the same term [178][179]. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Library of Congress summarizes "Critics charge that despite portraying itself as neutral, it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light through the production and dissemination of incomplete translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions." Sounds about right as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier: that summary isn't by the Library of Congress; it's attributed to the DBPedia abstract, which is derived from an old revision of its Wikipedia page. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • True, they are reporting it, however, just as any other rs reports stuff not by them. I assume they give it some credence and it as well fits with the other material identified in this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:CIRCULAR --Shrike (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one of the MEMRI quotes I've run into on Wikipedia: "You haters, you midgets, you little insolent people – whether in America, in France, or in Denmark ..." Since MEMRI is the only source, who knows if it is correct or false? Incorrect translations from Arabic has been used before to smear Palestinians. See f.e Dareen Tatour's poem. In the supposed quote from Salah is he really talking about people of short stature? If so, perhaps the correct translation would be "dwarves" or "little people"? Is "you midgets" some kind of Arabic figure of speech and would better be translated to "you prejudiced people?" It just makes no sense. ImTheIP (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If certain content can only be sourced to MEMRI, and no other reliable sources can be found on it, then it should not be on Wikipedia per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.VR _talk 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

IvoryTower123 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @IvoryTower123: I see you posted this !vote in the Discussion section about MEMRI. Did you mean to post it either in the MEMRI RfC above or the PinkNews RfC below (I saw your edit summary was "pink news")? Armadillopteryx^talk 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews

PinkNews is a British online LGBTQ+ newspaper. Its current assessment at RSP reads: There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation. If PinkNews republishes claims from a reliable source, cite the original source instead of PinkNews.

Two of three previous discussions on this source (here and here) focused only on whether it should be considered POV for claims about a subject's sexuality (or homophobia), but for the most part they did not discuss the publication's reliability in general. Consensus was that information about those topics can be sourced from PinkNews so long as it comes in the form of a direct quote from the individual. Another discussion, which focused on a different topic, contained five comments that mentioned PinkNews. Of those, three suggested it was generally reliable, while two suggested it was generally unreliable.

I looked up PinkNews' editorial policy, which describes their procedures for article inclusion and fact-checking, specifically in the "Political stance", "Historic content", "Right of reply" and FAQ sections. In the "Political stance" section, they disclose that their position influences the tone with which they report on politicians they consider homophobic.

I've written an article, Honey Davenport, where I include a quotation from the subject that appears in this interview they did with PinkNews. Should PinkNews be considered trustworthy enough to not fabricate quotations or interview responses? My reading of past discussions is that quotations should be fine, but the exact phrasing at RSP says this is only okay in the specific subject area the publication was found to be POV in. I assume this is not intentional, but I would like to clarify this explicitly. My questions:

1. Should PinkNews be considered a reliable source for quotations from individuals about any topic, not just about the individual's sexuality?
2. Should PinkNews be considered reliable for third-party claims in general—except when making third-party claims about a subject's sexuality (or about whether they are homophobic)?

Thanks, Armadillopteryx^talk 03:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I just went to the PinkNews website and clicked on "news". One of the top stories was

Politicians in the Netherlands have voted to enshrine protections for LGBT+ people in the country’s constitution for the first time.

I don't see anything wrong with using that story as a source for such factual claims as "the Netherlands has said it will no longer specify the gender of citizens on ID cards." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Question: Would the following be usable as sources?

• Parents of trans kids reject JK Rowling’s ‘offensive’ suggestion that supporting their children means supporting conversion therapy
• JK Rowling deletes praise for Stephen King after he declares unequivocally that trans women are women

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

My thinking is along the lines of your first comment: I would not say it is acceptable to use these as sources for claims like "J. K. Rowling is transphobic", but I don't see an issue with using the first article as a source for a statement like "J. K. Rowling said [text of Tweet quoted in article] in a Tweet."

Do you think there is an issue, in general, with using PinkNews as a secondary source that accurately reproduces quotations? In my example, is it okay to include a quote from a subject that appeared in a PinkNews interview? Armadillopteryx^talk 06:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not DM, I think it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't fabricate quotations. (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the decision to make it generally unreliable was a mistake. Pink News, as a newspaper specific to the LGBT community, covers quite a bit of news that doesn't reach general circulation, was at the very least historically reliable, and enjoys a decent level of trust to the point that Prime Ministers of both parties will write for the paper. Maybe a "use with caution" should suffice, with warnings that their output will be (understandably) biased, but "generally unreliable" seemed to be a bit of an overreaction to a few retracted stories. Sceptre (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• You mean something along the lines of the treatment TMZ gets? Armadillopteryx^talk 18:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose changing the first sentence of the PinkNews entry at RSP to: PinkNews is reliable only for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact. I don't presently see a rationale to limit the source's use to only quotes from living people about their sexualities. Do others agree with this? Armadillopteryx^talk 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the evidence that was provided last time this was discussed it still seems to be generally unreliable. I suggest you find alternative, reliable sources for the topic you need to source. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• What is the reason for saying quotes about sexuality are okay but quotes about other subjects are not okay? The comments above seem to suggest there's no real issue with quotations in general.
• I also think wording like PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact. would solve the problem.

Armadillopteryx^talk 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think they should be upgraded to generally reliable in context. Retracting stories suggests they do exercise care to correct mistakes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but retracting could mean they exercise care, or could mean they respond to other external pressures (e.g., potential legal action). Retractions do not, in themselves, demonstrate the exercise of care. Grandpallama (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The fix mistakes just like other media outlets regardless of who points out the mistakes, just like other media outlets. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with @Gleeanon409. I would say its generally reliable when it comes to LGBT topics, like gay and lesbian characters in shows, for example. Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Spy-cicle💥  brings up the previous discussion, but there was really no consensus on whether it was a good source or not. Historyday01 (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose / generally reliable. They should be listed as generally reliable or, at worst, yellow "reliable, but requires inline citations for controversial statements" instead per Gleeanon409; the previous discussion was improperly decided and didn't get enough people weighing in. Issuing two retractions (which seems to have been the only reason it was categorized as red) is a sign of reliability, not unreliability, provided it is done promptly and isn't part of a larger pattern of problems. Obviously this is a WP:BIASED source, but there's no real indication that this gives them chronic reliability problems. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of helpful comments above; I support the new language proposed by Guy. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree it is generally reliable. Would it be better to instead of singling out specific examples (sexuality and homophobia), to be more general with something like "Care should be taken when using it for BLPs"? Or perhaps to add that to the specific cases? CMD (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: In addition to Armadillopteryx leaving this alert at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and alerting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, I alerted Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I concur with Chipmunkdavis‘ wording. LGBTQ media are usually experts in reporting on sexuality and gender matters, in practice I see them correctly attributing to the original source. And rarely are they alone in reporting this type of information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; generally reliable but use caution; see my comment earlier. Sceptre (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly agreed but opinions in the source may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles. Unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality other than direct quotes. Particularly useful for interviews, or basic facts that are not covered by other sources, but not for establishing significance, or for speculation of any kind. Use prose attribution where contentious. — Bilorv (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  (Comment duplicated below in RfC.) — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. works for me, and would also agree with "may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, per Guy Macon. That said, to some extent, "is this persoon homophobic/transphobic" is always going to be subjective (with the obvious caveat that in spectrums, there's going to be cases 99% of reasonable people will agree are examples). Generally speaking, "Pink News stated that X's statement on transgender people was transphobic" is always going to be more encyclopedic than "X is transphobic." We can state things in Wikipeda's voice sometimes - Anita Bryant was very openly an anti-gay rights activist. But we have levels we can go through, and one single, newspaper source saying it is NOT going to reach "in Wikipedia's voice" level, whether it's Pink News or The Times; newspapers aren't scholarly works. it'd be a WP:RSOPINION situation. While it might be worth reminding people of that, it's not really any different than not quoting The Telegraph's opinion of Labour in Wikipedia's voice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC?

Given the range of views and points raised so far, would this discussion be better framed as an RfC from here on out? It appears there have been no previous RfCs on this source. Armadillopteryx^talk 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, do you want me to format one? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If you do, please insure that "Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes" is an option. It seems to have at least some support. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

These can be expressed in the responses section Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PinkNews

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the PinkNews? pinknews.co.uk   has been cited around 1,500 times on Wikipedia.

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

Further questions:

• 1. Is Pink News reliable for statements about a persons sexuality or attitudes toward LGBT issues?
• 2. Should citations to Pink News be attributed and/or have an inline citation?

The current text at the perennial sources list, which has been contested, is:

There is consensus that PinkNews is generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation. If PinkNews republishes claims from a reliable source, cite the original source instead of PinkNews.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (PinkNews)

• 3 or 4 - according to previous RFCs, PinkNews has been caught publishing fraudulent stories. This is why it is on our “not reliable” list in the first place. This needs to be addressed before we can change it to generally reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 I have to agree with the notion of depreciation. This publication has already been caught out on here allegedly "outing" people who aren't actually homosexual and publishing other fake news. We cannot take that chance here and should follow the precidence that was set with the Daily Mail ruling (I don't agree with it personally but it has consensus so we should follow it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The C of E, any examples you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 While it's not reliable for speculation about someone's sexual orientation or being LGBT-phobic, it is reliable for quotes from the subject and non-controversial facts. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: You mention speculation. Is ANY newspaper reliable for speculation? I'd be inclined to say that's a common flaw of all newspapers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Most newspapers are not in the habit of speculating about someone's sexual orientation without evidence. (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: Is there any real evidence of a pattern of them doing that? I'm pretty sure that you can find some horrible examples for any long-running newspaper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• I understand what @The C of E God Save the Queen! and @Blueboar are saying, but I tend to fall in line with the viewpoint of @buidhe, meaning that I'll have to side with Option 2. I've used PinkNews before when it comes to sexual orientation and gender of characters in animated shows, and I trust it on that, so perhaps it should be used only a case-by-case basis? That's my thought at least. Historyday01 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on statements of fact, Option 2/use caution when talking about actual people. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, and in context will dictate if qualifiers are needed in the articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't think there's many newspapers who haven't gotten a few things wrong. It sees to be generally reliable and respected. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 This source clearly has fact-checking problems. For example, they published a source where the Israeli Health Minister said that the Coronavirus outbreak was a punishment for homosexuality. A user in a previous RFC brought up other issues of untrustworthiness related to PinkNews. I've done further research, and have concluded that PinkNews is significantly less reliable than the more reputable sources, because they continue to publish untrustworthy information. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, PinkNews fact-checked itself on that article mentioning the Israeli health minister, updated the article with corrected information, and appended a correction notice. This is a common practice by reputable news organizations. Sometimes the earliest info reported is wrong or incomplete, but the publication takes responsibility for making corrections as new information becomes available. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point there. I was unaware of the correction for the story involving the Israeli Health Minister. For that reason, I have ruled out deprecation. The other examples in the previous RFC seem pretty convincing to me though. Obviously, these aren't the only examples. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. It made me think to go back and read through the other examples as well. I wrote my thoughts about them below. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence they are untrustworthy? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on statements of fact, Option 2/use caution when talking about actual people. There isn't a publication in the world that gets everything right 100% of the time. Well - outside North Korea, anyway... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on statements of fact; Option 2 use caution or attribute when talking about sensitive matters (such as BLP). daveout 👾 ^(talk) 23:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1, generally reliable, (exercises editorial oversight, issues corrections, etc), as Aquillion says in the subsection above; the previous discussion indeed seems to have been improperly closed or decided. (I would agree with Adam Cuerden, in the same subsection above, that statements that a person is transphobic/ racist/ etc are often more encyclopedically phrased as "Source says Person is transphobic" rather than "Person is transphobic.^[Source]", but this is true regardless of what the source is and is not any more salient with regard to this source than others AFAICT.) -sche (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• My comment from above: [reliable for quotations and uncontroversial statements of fact and] opinions in the source may also be usable under normal WP:RSOPINION principles. Unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality other than direct quotes. Particularly useful for interviews, or basic facts that are not covered by other sources, but not for establishing significance, or for speculation of any kind. Use prose attribution where contentious. I believe this is best covered by option 2. I echo comments above that no source is reliable for speculation on sensitive issues involving living people, or for saying in Wikipedia's own words that a person is bigoted, and evidence hasn't been presented that PinkNews publishes more falsehoods than any green RSP source. Its issue with claims about sexuality is one of a particular kind of speculation. — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the 7 examples of unreliability, some of which involve accusations of homophobia or describing the sexual orientation of fictional or real persons, that are given in the April 2020 discussion. Per WP:APPNOTE (Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic) I am pinging all the participants of that discussion, excepting Buidhe and The C of E, who have already voted in the RfC: Guy Macon, David Gerard, JzG, Eostrix, MarioGom, Genericusername57, EvergreenFir, and Only in death. Regarding the "further questions": (1) it is not reliable for statements about a persons sexuality or their attitudes toward LGBT issues, unless it is a direct quote from the subject, and (2) citations to it should be attributed and have an inline citation. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Bad set of options: close RfC and restart. We were in the middle of a discussion, and Generally reliable, requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes. was gaining support, when suddenly an RfC was posted that doesn't have that as an option. --Guy Macon (talk)

The source has to be put into one of the four standard categories for color-coding and categorizing at RSP, right? I support your proposal to be the description that goes there. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Aquillon and sche, and because we don't need a note saying to use caution about using this particular source for information about actual people because that's redundant with the general Wikipedia policy of always using caution about any source when talking about actual people. Loki (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or option 2. My feelings are described well by Guy Macon's summary above. That is the language I think should appear at RSP. My reasons:

• Of the three previous discussions on PinkNews, the first and third focused narrowly on whether the publication's assertions about individuals' sexuality or homophobia are reliable; they did not discuss reliability in general. Guy's proposal that sexuality/homophobia claims can come only from direct quotes handles that.
• The second PinkNews discussion contained 3 comments calling the source generally reliable and only 2 calling it unreliable.
• Of the six pieces of evidence that gnu57 presented in the most recent discussion:

1. Only two of the PinkNews pieces mentioned actually contained concrete errors. The one discussed by these two outside articles [180][181] and the one discussed here noted that PinkNews retracted the two problem stories; issued public apologies in both cases; and, in the first case, also made a charitable donation as further compensation. This, to me, indicates that PinkNews is like any reliable news source that values fact-checking, owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record.
2. I think the analysis in this one is itself dodgy at best, and I'm happy to go into why if anyone wants to discuss it. I also read the PinkNews article it was referring to and found only the headline to be misleading—but headlines in any publication are generally not written by journalists and are not held to the same standard as the article text anyway.
3. This link is dead and apparently not archived, but the URL appears to reference the Israeli health minister claim, which I addressed above in my reply to Scorpions13256. It was another case of PinkNews catching itself, correcting itself, and appending a corrective comment to the article in keeping with the practices of a reliable news source.
4. The only issue here was, again, a clickbait headline, but headlines are useless for encyclopedic content anyway (more at WP:HEADLINE).

TL; DR: Half the "problem" articles linked in the last discussion weren't actually problems, and the ones that were saw PinkNews showing accountability and proving it takes fact-checking seriously. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ruled out option 2 per Adam Cuerden's comment below. The level of caution required here doesn't exceed the treatment that encyclopedic tone requires of any other source. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, I would think reliable sources would be accurate before they get a letter from a lawyer or attacked by a celebrity on Twitter. Also, nobody's addressed the fact they make stuff up when it comes to the identity of fictional characters, which is concerning when people are specifically saying they want to use this source for identifying characters as LGBT. Are we going to become SlashficPedia? This is addressed in the "17:13, 26 April 2020" comment in the previous discussion by Guy Macon. Not sure how he feels about that now. It's also noted there that the outlet itself repeats stuff from bad sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 on statements of fact. Attribute. Looking at the discussions of its supposed bad journalism, they all seem to be cases where it turns out it corrected itself in the manner expected of a WP:NEWSORG - this discussion has improved my opinion of PinkNews - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (almost 1), generally reliable on LGB (sexual orientation) topics PinkNews it acts like a reliable WP:NEWSORG it exercises editorial oversight and owns up to its mistakes, and corrects them on record. As per Guy Macon....use inline citations for controversial statements and any claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia should be supported by direct quotes. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, with the normal restrictions on newpapers as a whole. I don't see how Guy Macon's restrictions (or anyone else's suggestions) wouldn't be true of any other news organization. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You already voted. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • • @Crossroads: I commented up above, but I certainly didn't vote here, or choose an option. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Hm, I imagine some of the confusion is because there was already one !vote going on and then this RfC was started, but Ctrl+F "22:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)" for where you did comment in support of option 1 in this RfC section (and not just the earlier "Proposal" section) yesterday. -sche (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. A news organisation actively and openly posting corrections is preferable to one that doesn't. No news organisation, including sources almost universally viewed as reliable (such as the BBC, Reuters and the FT) often issue corrections – the fact that they need to do so does not make them any less reliable. I strongly support adding Guy Macon's qualifier ("requires inline citations for controversial statements, unreliable for claims about a person's sexuality or homophobia other than direct quotes") to the text box. Domeditrix (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree about adding Guy Macon's qualifier. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. As has been demonstrated above: the publication has shown editorial discretion when it has made errors. They publish their editorial policy, including a commitment to correcting errors and offering subjects "an unreserved right of reply". I think usual caution about using news sources and sourcing material about living people suffice rather than restricting use of Pink News as a source outright. Ralbegen (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The people disagreeing with the previous consensus have certainly changed my mind on the issue. It's clear that their fact-checking is about as good as sources like The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal. All sources make mistakes at some point. PinkNews is different from the British tabloids in that they actually issue corrections. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - they have published some bad stories in the past, but have issued corrections, and they provide valuable, accurate coverage in the space where they operate. It isn't difficult to identify and ignore the more sensationalist stories or headlines, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Options 3 or 4. I've actually used them as a source before multiple times, but it's unfortunately hard to deny that they are not real media these days, having descended into clickbaity, obviously biased, opinion pieces more than "news". Heck, they don't even pretend to be legitimate media anymore. The last article i saw from them they actually accused someone of being a racist, with no context, merely to sway the readership opinion. It's garbage these days, only marginally more reliable than the Daily Mail. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds interesting. Can you provide a link to the article in question? I ask because we found above that previous claims of journalistic malfeasance on their part didn't check out at all when we looked into them and discovered they'd actually handled them in an exemplary fashion. So if you're going to claim this, it would be useful to see precisely what you mean and verify your claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd hate to promise something and not deliver. We're talking about a specific example someone pointed out to me last year, on a website i no longer read or visit. I contributed to their article a bit in the early days, but this was when i was a regular reader and found their journalism to be worth defending, probably 5+ years ago. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. I think this is a legitimate media outlet, or at least I'm not seeing any substantiated sources to prove otherwise. In general, no I wouldn't personally require attribution in cases of statements of fact. IvoryTower123 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 per examples cited in the previous RfCs (last in April). It seems clear to me that they are a quite recent online newspaper with lower standards than established newspapers. I went to their webpage and read this article: UK’s biggest cervical cancer charity shuts down disgustingly transphobic lie that ‘only females get cervical cancer’ which has a quite inflammatory title. It details a controversial issue in an opiniated manner, and the story mostly consists of tweets by random non-notable people. And importantly, when they are the only publication digging stuff like this from Twitter, WP:DUE should be considered. At best, this is clickbaity soft pop news. --Pudeo (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Google[182], pinknews.co.uk has called someone a "homophobe" 2,940 times. For comparison, nytimes.com yields only 468 results (an considering this includes their archives from the 90s). I do think some of these articles are WP:BLP nightmares because the stories are built on tweets but detail such controversial issues. --Pudeo (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PinkNews)

Should the comments from the proposal discussion be moved into the responses section of the RfC to avoid redundancy? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this would make sense, since virtually everyone used the language of the four options above in their rationales (though a couple didn't). How would it work procedurally, though? Many of the comments state their official position as "oppose", since they were replies to a different question. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "Oppose" can simply be removed, I won't move peoples comments without their consent, though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Armadillopteryx^talk 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just ping them, and suggest they move their own comments? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

D'oh—yes, I think that's the best idea.

Guy Macon, Buidhe, Sceptre, Spy-cicle, Gleeanon409, Historyday01, Aquillion, Chipmunkdavis, Bilorv, Bastun, Adam Cuerden: would you like to move your comment from the above discussion into this RfC? Armadillopteryx^talk 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Historyday01 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The conversation has changed enough that new comments should be made.

@Hemiauchenia:, the current text should be removed from this as it unfairly and negatively taints the source. Especially as others have already noted those discussions were not complete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a note about the wording being contested, hope this is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry I will make new comment under the RfC, though it seems unnecessary launch one considering there is has no or little evidence to show there has been a shift in their reporting (last disscussion was in April). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can move my comments around as they see fit. We aren't newbies here, and everyone will understand my position no matter where it is placed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sticking a WP:DNAU here (tentatively for 3 weeks) since this should be 'closed'—whether by formal closure or simply by updating WP:RSP, which currently says "this disputed entry is currently under discussion", to reflect the consensus here—before it disappears into the archives. -sche (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More attempts to promote the fringe theory that Anne Frank was LGBT
See Talk:Anne Frank#Yet another attempt to classify Anne Frank as LGBT.
This particular fringe theory is pretty much only found in PinkNews. Alas, I cannot point to the list of perennial sources until this RfC is closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

On a basic google search I got: As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer (Haaretz), Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero (Arre), Newly discovered pages of Anne Frank’s diary reveal her uncle was gay (Gay Star News), Here’s something you never knew about Anne Frank that will blow your mind (Gay Star News), Omitted: Anne Frank Would “Go into Ecstasy” at the Sight of Female Nudes (AfterEllen), Re-reading Anne Frank’s diary as a queer Jewish person (Special Broadcasting Services), Imagine Anne Frank at 90 (Religion News Service). Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what? Fringe theory? Seriously? Can't remember when or where I first heard or read about this, but yeah, hardly "fringe". It was briefly discussed on the article talk page in 2014. Surprising, actually, that it hasn't been included on the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it definitely wasn't from PinkNews. There's a lot of secondary coverage from other sources that say the same thing. Some of Gleeanon's links quote relevant sections of her diary, which, well, speak for themselves. Not sure where this idea came from that it's PinkNews' invention. Armadillopteryx^talk 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is CNN usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News?

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

---

In this edit, @Levivich: argues that a user should receive a six-month topic ban for, among many other things, citing (non-opinion) CNN piece here for something potentially negative about Fox News; Levivich argues that because CNN is a commercial competitor to Fox, they cannot be cited in that context. I've seen that statement before, but never from an established editor; since it seemed shockingly wrong to me, and unlikely to get much in-depth discussion as just one small part of a larger debate over a user's broader history, I thought I'd bring it here to get a more specific answer.

If we accepted this logic, we couldn't cite any news stories at all in relation to news organizations, nor any books in an article about a publisher or author, nor any academics in the same field in an article about academics or even academic concepts - publishers would effectively be at least partially immunized from having critical information covered in their articles. The extent to which a conflict-of-interest matters depends on how narrow and specific it is, on the reputation of the individual or organization in question, on whether the statement is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and so on; "operates in the same general market" is not sufficient to automatically discount an entire massive, high-profile, top-tier news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is especially true given that Fox and CNN infamously target different sections of their market - CNN aims for general mass-market appeal, while Fox targets a conservative audience specifically, eg. [183] says "Fox News has achieved considerable financial and audience rating success byusing ideology as its core branding strategy ...Fox News’ ideology-based branding strategy differentiates the network from CNN and MSNBC, which aren’t branded along ideological lines."

I mean, if we were going to count conflicts of interest this broadly, major media companies nowadays have such large and tangled ownership structures that such notional conflicts of interest would run between every major source available - eg. CNN is owned by WarnerMedia which owns HBO; does this disqualify them from any commentary on TV? Fox News also has former House Speaker Paul Ryan on its board, does that disqualify it from talking about his political opponents? News Corp owns HarperCollins, does that disqualify it from commenting on books by rival publishers? Beyond a certain point, as long as a source is a high-quality WP:RS, has a general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and hasn't given us any specific reason to doubt their ability to write impartially, we have to trust that reputation in situations like these. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitting at the 60,000ft level, we know nearly no media source is "neutral" when it comes to talking about Fox News, so yeah, the stance that was taken sets off alarms. Looking at the specific CNN article, ignoring its last two paragraphs (which I do think are "snide asides" by CNN), the CNN article is completely neutral to support the added content in the diff, and there's no issue of CNN's bias to worry about here, as it doesn't touch those last two paragraphs. I would agree if it was a CNN opinion piece about Fox, that might be more a problem, but that's not the case. --Masem (t) 17:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN and Fox News are the two largest cable news networks. They are both for profit companies, directly competing for market share, with a financial incentive for making the other look bad. We shouldn't use CNN, alone, as a source for negative information about Fox News in the article Fox News any more than we should use Fox News as a source for negative information about CNN. Similarly, we shouldn't use The New York Times as a source for negative information about its direct competitor, The Wall Street Journal, or vice versa. Same with Washington Post and Washington Times. Same with Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Same with one political candidate as as source for negative information about their opponent. Now, it is OK to use NYT as a source of negative information about Fox, or Washington Times, or CNN, etc. But not direct competitors in the same market. Really, we shouldn't be using journalism as a source for negative information about other journalism. We should be using academic sources instead. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a side point but the Washington Times shouldn’t be used because its a pathetic rag founded by the second coming of Jesus Christ (Korean) and still owned by his family (yes Korean Jesus is dead, but he lives in all our hearts now). We don’t actually treat them as generally reliable, do we? That would be preposterous... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Its definitely usable, but whats the point of this post? It seems like you're calling out Levivich for making a bad call which probably isn't appropriate in this venue. This should have been discussed on Levivich’s talk page rather than publicly shaming them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My intent was not to call out Levivich specifically; it's more that I've seen this argument made several times and want to make sure it is properly-settled. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that your intention was not to call out Levivich specifically. I wish you had perhaps phrased the fist paragraph differently but if it that wasn’t your intent then I don’t have an issue with it.

On the point of using rivals for information about each other I’ve seen this argument made before although I will admit this is the only time I’ve seen it made by an editor of Levivich’s status. I don’t buy the argument that reliable sources become unreliable when talking about their rivals, the only case I see thats makable is that a reliable source could become unreliable when discussing themselves or a corporate parent/sibling. Thats not really the same thing though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you HEJ for your kind words and Aquillion for the clarification.

My contention is that this edit should be reverted (as it was, not by me) because it is improper to source negative information about Fox News (e.g., "Fox News made an error and apologized for it") to CNN, because CNN and Fox News are direct commercial competitors, being the two largest US cable TV networks. I think our policies and guidelines support this:

• WP:RS guideline, at WP:BIASEDSOURCES: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
  • In this case, CNN has a financial incentive to report negative news about Fox News, and thus its level of independence from the topic is low.
• WP:NPOV policy, at WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
  • This case is an example of recent events that may be in the news, and CNN's article is an example of criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
• Most importantly, WP:V at WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.^[9]
  • CNN in this case has an apparent conflict of interest because Fox News is its direct competitor.
  • That Footnote #9 reads (emphasis mine): Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promotes the holding company of the media group or discredits its competitors. This case is exactly that.
  • Footnote 9 goes on to quote The New York Times: Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas. They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company.
• Mostly per WP:V footnote 9, but also WP:RS and WP:NPOV, I don't think we should use CNN as a source for negative information about Fox News. Per WP:V footnote 9, we should not use articles by any media group that ... discredits its competitors. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• The obvious solution here is that wherever one media outlet is cited for its reporting on another, the outlet doing the reporting should be identified in the text. For example, "According to CNN, [x]", or "According to Fox News, [y]". BD2412 T 19:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Levivich: The same story appears in The Guardian because The Guardian is a British publication, can it be considered acceptable? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, I think so, yes. The Guardian and Fox News aren't direct competitors: different media, different markets. This is as a matter of sourcing of course. There's still the question of whether the content is WP:DUE, but that's a separate question from what source is used to source the content. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  If we went with this strict interpretation of the above in the relationship of CNN to Fox and specifically the CoI issue, then I would say that immediately follows from that that CNN and a whole host of sources up to and including the NYTimes cannot be used as sourcing to discuss anything about Trump due to Trump's attack on them as "Fake News" and their own responses back. Which, I think most editors would agree is not going to happen here. I think this is reading too far into the COI part. We generally are looking at when there's more than just that a source is in competition or has some other area of conflict with another - we're generally more focused on when the source has closer financial ties with the topic - eg a puffery piece from CNN about Jason Kilar (the current CEO of WarnerMedia which owns CNN) would be more a problem for us than a report on Fox News from CNN. When the COI is around the conflict between source and topic, this would be more at a deep political level where we know there were fundamental flaws in the logic, eg using German sources in from the 1940s to source an article about Poland. --Masem (t) 21:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  If we went with this strict interpretation of the above in the relationship of CNN to Fox and specifically the CoI issue, then I would say that immediately follows from that that CNN and a whole host of sources up to and including the NYTimes cannot be used as sourcing to discuss anything about Trump due to Trump's attack on them as "Fake News" and their own responses back. - No, because WP:V, footnote 9, says competitors, not "critics". This is about money and market share, not ideology. CNN has a financial incentive to trash Fox News and vice versa. There's no "slippery slope" here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  They also have a financial interest to go after Trump and maintain their reputation against calls of being "fake news". I can play devils-advocate and give logic in that direction several different ways, and that's why the COI aspects we consider is not simple market competition or financial association, at least in as diluted the cable news market is, would not be a trigger here. If it were a clear duopoly, okay, maybe.

  A factor to add is exactly what is being reported, and how we are using it, eg context (as I first replied here). CNN is not the originator of the story about the cropped photo or Fox's response; the originator would be a site that is a far weaker RS (one we'd need to have its info blessed by another RS to use in the first place) that as written was an attack piece against Fox claiming the photo crop was purposely done to protect Trump (for all purposes). Now look at how CNN has actually written about it and they have cleared out nearly all of the non-neutral facets of the story, simply reporting the basics that "Fox published a cropped photo and later apologized for it." To me, regardless of how much of a financial interest that CNN may have in reporting negatively on Fox, that they did not originate the story, but they appear to be the best current RS reporting on it but not the only one, this is not an issue at all in this case. Something like this report digging deeper into Tucker Carlson poses issues as that is original criticism from CNN and that's a problem with the COI facets. --Masem (t) 22:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  CNN is not the best source for this. We have better sources like The Guardian, The Independent, and The Hill, and equal-or-worse sources like People, The Week, and The Wrap. CNN's conflict of interest with Fox News shows up in its reporting. CNN's article includes negative information that none of the other articles include like Fox News' egregious cropping of Trump from the photo drew criticism and prompted unflattering media coverage for the conservative cable network and It's not the first time in recent weeks that Fox News has acknowledged a significant error related to photos accompanying news stories. In mid-June, Fox News expressed regret after it published digitally altered and misleading images of the "CHOP" demonstration in Seattle. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  But if you put all those sources side by side to what info they state, exactly what is wrong with the CNN source? Have they exaggerated or manipulated the story? If anything, they are the most conservative (not in the political sense) in writing up the event, outside of the last two paragraphs that we can safely ignore. Sure, we could replace that with the Guardian as it the only other source you have there that is at least as good as an RS as CNN, but the Guardian, despite being a UK publication, would still be vested to see Fox News go down and eliminate its web presence - same with these other sources. (And the Guardian is also a known liberal source). It might have less of the COI issue you're concerned about but it doesn't make the COI issue go away fully. That's why I'm stressing the context of what's being reported and to what others are reporting being a critical part of the evaluation here. --Masem (t) 00:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, in a perfect world, I wouldn't use journalism to critique journalism. I would use academia to critique journalism. Or reputable non-profits and think tanks, like Pew. I wouldn't include this content in the article at all as undue, unless I could source it to something better than popular press. If I was going with popular press, I'd want to go with multiple top-tier outlets, like BBC, NYT, and WSJ. If they didn't cover it, I'd say it's UNDUE. But if I am to compromise further, and accept less-than-top-tier popular press, I would want multiple middle-tier outlets like The Guardian, which at least aren't the single biggest competitor, as Fox is to CNN and vice versa. So "less of the COI issue" is the reason I'd prefer The Guardian over CNN, although I'd prefer academia over any popular journalism for critiques of journalism. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  But is this critique? Or factual information that happens to be, end of the day, egg on Fox News' face? CNN always labels opinion pieces and that label is absent here, and there's clearly no indication in the prose this is written in a personal critique style. I mean, I agree that the solution is, if the cropped picture story is deemed to be DUE, that sing the Guardian over CNN probably is better, but I am more cautioning that I think we don't want to start with an overzealous treatment of COI in this specific case when the context shows nothing that specifically calls that COI into issue. --Masem (t) 01:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I'd say an article that describes it as Fox News' egregious cropping constitutes critique. :-) And I know you said ignore the last two paragraphs, but that's like a third of the article. That's the "proof" that COI is skewing CNN's coverage of Fox News's error. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree - we're talking financial COI among competing United States cable news and broadcast networks (ABC-NBC-CBS-FOX) so exercise caution. Check to see if they are part of the same media conglomerate. Also check to see if they own local broadcast stations, radio and television, and/or internet publications, and if found, find better sources to cite. If it's a notable enough story, it will be on the BBC, NPR broadcast and/or published in The Guardian and other RS online. A wire service may also fit the bill but if biased, it should be noted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• No COI for our purposes per Masem's excellent comment. We should apply a grain of salt to all sources. However, many smaller news organizations would be impossible to write about if not for articles by themselves or their competitors, since smaller news outlets are less likely to be the subject of academic analysis. Take this argument further—I've written many articles about academic books; usually the sourcing is reviews from other scholars who have written similar books, which may be in competition for the same readers. No, clearly this is taking COI too far. (Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that CNN and Fox are really aiming for the same audience). (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, I recommend adding The Week as one of the sources as it’s a news aggregator reflecting what the majority of sources state on any issue. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Sure it is I reject the idea that news outlets that operate in the same space can't report on each others faux pas, frankly that is ridiculous. Who else is going to call them to account? Of course, this needs to be an actual news piece, not opinion. It would be good to back it up with a source not operating in the same space like The Guardian, but it isn't necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Sure, it can be used (CNN is generally reliable, and simply "both being new outlets" is not a COI), per buidhe and the OP. We could, of course, discuss whether it's due if only CNN is reporting it, and as bd2412 says it's likely to be appropriate to attribute their statements unless the statements are confirmed by many different sources (if CNN, the NYT, WaPo, the BBC, the Guardian etc all reported that "Fox did XYZ", we could typically just say "Fox did XYZ"). Likewise, Fox criticizing CNN would not be blocked from being added just because they are both news organizations, though again things like WEIGHT and ATTRIBUTEPOV would be considered. -sche (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Usable; I think buidhe's comment is pretty spot-on. That CNN chose to include a slightly different context than other sources is possibly interesting but, for judging whether their story is a suitable source, immaterial. XOR'easter (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's usable. Just because CNN competes with Fox does not mean we should expect them to publish false, defamatory stories about them. In fact the article is based on a release by Fox where they say it was a mistake. Anyway the two networks don't compete over the same audiences. The demographics. of their viewers is widely different. If you like Sean Hannity you're not likely to switch to Rachel Maddow because her network said Fox is unreliable and vice versa. TFD (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, with attribution. They are a commercial rival so bias is a clear factor, but bias is not what we reject, its inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but we should keep DUE in mind as well as being clear what is commentary vs actual clear fact. It certainly seems CNN has an unhealthy interest in FOX news (well both target each other [[184]]). As such I'm not sure I would consider a CNN article about Fox to be much more than sniping and certainly not something that establishes WEIGHT. Most of the CNN vs Fox stories seem to be light weight, commentary type articles or articles that are cheap to produce in order to fill space on the website and generate clicks. Thus in most cases we should treat them as tabloid noise even if the underlying facts are likely true. Springee (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Certainly usable, although this is not the only consideration as to whether something should be included (due weight, etc.). --JBL (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• It comes off as a technically yes but not a great idea and most likely undue. Given they have major financial motivation to discredit each other I would be careful. Look at it another way, would you use Fox to discredit CNN? I also disagree with the Pepsi & Coke comparison. I would use Coke to criticize Pepsi since Coke is far superior! PackMecEng (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the present discussion related to Fox News' general usability, and in light of my comments above, if Fox News were to report on some situation at CNN (and this would arguably be a case like January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation) and similarly kept to neutral factual reporting of the events than critical commentary, I don't we why would not, if they were the more reliable source repoting on the matter compared to mid-range RS. But that said, these events (CNN being caught in a media faux pas and Fox being the only mainstream RS reporting on it) would seem far far less likely to happen than the reverse. --Masem (t) 16:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, what news sources would you use for information about Fox News? TFD (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I would probably head to something like Columbia Journalism Review or the like. Something a little more removed from direct competition and takes a bit of a larger more authoritative view. Also for some reason I did not get a notification about your ping. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Everywhere is usable as a source for unflattering information about Fox News, as unfortunately there's precious little else that can be cited about them. Levivich's concern is understandable, but I don't think COI plays a role in this particular case. This does not mean, however, that the question wasn't justified in the context where it was raised (see the exchange between Aquillion and Horse Eye Jack above, as well as Levivich's original message). François Robere (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but with attribution if necessary, and due weight. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes generally, though occasionally additional considerations may apply, such as if CNN is the only source and not a supporting one, attribution may sometimes be necessary. They’re generally considered the most reliable among the many cable news outlets, and as others have pointed out, they’re one of the few sources that report on the organization itself, and not just the personalities associated with it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. The argument about "competition" because they're both news channels seems maybe one step removed from the arguments that, say, all sources that don't agree with source X are "biased" and so criticism can be dismissed as partisanship. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• DOES NOT MATTER - If CNN is the ONLY source to mention something negative about Fox, then I don’t think reliability matters - it is UNDUE to mention it. If other sources do mention that negative something, then the reliability of CNN does not matter - since we can cite the other sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. A bizarre understanding of reliable news sources. This would effectively exclude all news sources from being sources on articles about other news sources since they're all in some vague sense competitors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. CNN is a reliable source. Opinion pieces should be attributed, factual pieces can be stated as fact. This is factual reporting, and the underlying fact is not even in dispute. Guy (help!) 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Being a competitor does not prevent CNN from reporting on Fox News. The same would apply if Fox News were to report on CNN, or the New York Times were to report on the Washington Post, or if ABC News were to report on NPR, etc. Calidum 15:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously, and per Rhododendrites. The COI argument presumes that reputable journalistic entities, as a practice, attack other journalistic entities in order to drive profits. That's just not the case, and the most reasonable place to find criticisms of professional work is from other professionals working in the same field. This stretches the COI argument too far (and perhaps means a closer look should be taken at the cited footnote in WP:V to see if it really reflects policy thinking in this area). Grandpallama (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, per Guy. Whether CNN's reporting of facts reflects poorly on Fox or Trump is irrelevant, and believing so shows a troubling adoption of Trump's specious definition of fake news, IOW any reporting, regardless of how true, that reflects poorly on him. No, any source that generally reports facts accurately is a RS, regardless of whether those facts reflect poorly on someone or something, such as Fox News. We don't ban the use of opposing POV reported by RS. We don't ban the use of sources that accurately document when Trump or Fox News shoot themselves in the foot by lying and pushing false agendas yet again. If anyone in that equation should be banned it would be the ones who are lying, not CNN, which keeps us tethered to the same reality that most other mainstream RS also document. -- Valjean (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• largely irrelevant Nobody disputes that Fox did what was reported, so there's no actual question of reliability involved. The real issue is whether the incident is important enough to memorialize here. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course, per Guy and Rhododendrites's very good points. Neutrality^talk 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Baidu Baike

Should Baidu Baike be deprecated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Baidu Baike)

• Support Baidu Baike is a chinese language user-created encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and holds a essentially analogous position to Wikipedia in mainland China alongside Baike.com, being ranked (as part of Baidu) #4 on the most visited internet websites by Alexa, with over 16 million articles as of 2018. This inherently makes Baidu Baike an unreliable source, as like Wikipedia it has no fact checking or any other indication of a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu Baike has been noted for its hoaxes, like Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures, as well as wholesale unattributed copying of Chinese language Wikipedia articles.[185] Its usage on Wikipedia is an issue, as it has been cited nearly 2,000 times per baike.baidu.com  . There was unanimous concensus (of 5 people) in a discussion in 2018 on this noticeboard to blacklist and have bot removal of this source, but this seems to have not been carried out due to it not being a formal RfC. Other discussions of the source on this noticeboard 1 2 3 As well as at the Village Pump A B have noted the same issues with reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike essentially represents what would have happened to Wikipedia if it had become a commercial entity, with all the issues that entails. As a response to the point that the text recives moderation before addition, this is true, but while this is likely to remove outright vandalism, it is unlikely to remove non-obvious factual errors that would require checking the sources. The copyright of the text volunteered by contributors is reserved by Baidu. This article in The Point Mag also goes over other issues, including support of commercial COI editing of articles as an inherent part of the operation of Baidu Baike:

Unlike Wikipedia, Baidu Baike unashamedly hawks opportunities for “content collaboration” to celebrities, companies and media outlets, emphasizing that Baidu Baike can incorporate a prominently placed external link or insert entire sections of content into an entry

(EDIT: Baidu Baike appears to have denied this). It also documents numerous factual errors, one of which involving statistics misattributed from one street to another simarly named one which were subsequently incorporated by other websites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support – Should be treated just like Wikipedia is treated as a source here. Should only be acceptable as an WP:ABOUTSELF, in very rare occasions, on our article about the website itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike WP, the work is reviewed, first by their " expert team with over 2,500 members, including university professors" and second by the political censors. The censorship makes it of course of dubious value in some fiels, but not all, DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m confused by this argument that political censorship leads to reliability, can you elaborate? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Baidu Baike has over 16 million articles, far more than could ever be adequately reviewed by a team of experts (which is suggested to be around 2,500 people per the SCMP) The Perennial sources entry states:

Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support deprecation its a under-created encyclopedia, as any Wikipedia editor knows those are inherently unreliable sources. I would add that I feel the political censorship and messaging detracts from their reliability, not the other way around. The 2018 consensus also appears clear, RSN discussions which were archived but never closed having less weight or not being implemented seems to be a recurring problem. Perhaps there should be a discussion about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This should not even need to be discussed. A source edited by anyone and controlled by a company closely linked to China's government. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation: user-generated content, corporate links to government. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above—absolutely no way we should use it as a source, ever (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation, certainly not a reliable source and there is already a consensus on it. I'd recommend a WP:SNOW close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support depreciation per WP:USERGENERATED. Baidu itself describes it as user-generated. The idea that the addition of political censors could exempt a source from that policy is certainly a... novel interpretation, but there's no evidence that whatever review does exist is sufficient to make a wiki of its size reliable, especially given the large-scale copying from zhwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with limits. Pace DGG, who makes an excellent point, it looks to me as if this is not so much peer review as "appear reviewed". The obvious bias issue aside, this looks like one of the many projects set up to compete with Wikipedia because we reflect the world as it is, not as some interest group wishes it to be. With the risk of ideology-driven editing both by users and by the moderating editors, and the ever-present problem of control, I can't see this being usable generally because I don't trust that any random article will be factual rather than reflecting some ideological spin that I'm unaware of. However, I think that if an article is noted by others as being credible then we should not second-guess that. So if, say, the NYT praised an article as a good analysis of some facet of Chinese culture, there should be no bar to using it here. Guy (help!) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support deprecation. I can imagine circumstances where review and oversight could help a source climb out of the WP:USERGENERATED hole. Political censorship is not the kind of review that could make that happen. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support since this is user generated like Wikipedia, with possible additional censorship.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support an edit filter, because I can't imagine any situation in which this would be useful. (pinged by Hemiauchenia) feminist (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not our decision Baidu Baike is not an asset of the Wikimedia Foundation; and we are not accountants; so we cannot depreciate it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Whoops, corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Based on description, this is not an RS about anything. It could be just left alone, but it was actually used for referencing on ~2,00 0 WP pages. So, yes, making an official depreciation (meaning there will be a warning message every time when someone is trying to include such source) would probably be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It's basically Baidu's Chinese Wikipedia. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Baidu Baike)

Pinging currently and recently active members of the 2018 discussions @SchmuckyTheCat: @JzG: @Feminist:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging the proposer of the village pump discussion @GnolizX: Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: YouTube

Should YouTube be subject to a warn edit filter, and/or added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which reverts the use of a source in <ref>...</ref> tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old (EDIT: Youtube is already subject to a XLinkBot filter) (Per the IMDb and Facebook discussions) to discourage misuse? YouTube is currently cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per YouTube.com  . YouTube is currently described at RS/P as:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (YouTube)

Please state clearly if you support or oppose the use of an edit filter, XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, or both

• Support edit filter These filters are intended to reduce misuse by inexperienced and new users, and are not a total blanket ban on YouTube use. Obviously per the RSP entry, videos by news organisations and similar are fine, but many other uses of YouTube are problematic, and are likely added by inexperienced users unfamilar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Adding these filters will discourage problematic additions of YouTube links to articles, while more experienced users can add YouTube links with discretion. EDIT: It's worth noting that any edit filter for YouTube would likely be a custom edit filter rather than the standard depreciated source filter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 170,000 should have been the flag to stop this. Of course we're not going to have a warn filter for YouTube or deprecate it. We link it all the time. It's not a source, it's a platform, and it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources. See for example Killing of George Floyd which links to half a dozen videos or more. This deprecation thing at RSN is going too far. I find the growth of RSP in 2020 to be alarming. YouTube shouldn't even be listed at RSP. It's like listing "television" or "paper" at RSP. It's a medium not a publisher or author. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I explicitly did not mention the word "depreciation" because it was not meant as one. One could make the same argument for Facebook, which there was consensus to add a warn edit filter for. Obviously the citations to YouTube videos for George Floyd are acceptable, but they should be added with discretion, which presumably many of the over 170,000 added links were not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would make the same exact argument for Facebook and Twitter, neither of which should be listed at RSP because both are platforms. You might not have used the word "deprecation" but a warn filter is a very obvious step in that direction. These RSN evaluations of publishers outside of actual content disputes are inappropriate. It's just not right for a small group of self selected editors to assume the role of a publisher review committee. As an editor, I'm not going to start making time to vote on the general reliability of every source under the sun. Personally, I do not recognize any of these RSN "generally reliable"/"deprecate"/"filter" threads as representing anything other than local consensus (with the exception of those that were properly widely advertised, such as Fox News). This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not the Publisher Review Noticeboard. We should only be discussing specific sources--that means individual works used to cite a statement in an article--and only in the context of the specific instances in which they are used. RSP should only list true perennials--meaning publishers whose sources are often discussed at RSN. Platforms like YouTube and media like social media shouldn't be discussed here at all, and shouldn't be listed at RSP. Deprecation and edit filters should be extremely rare steps that only happen with policy-level consensus, eg Daily Mail. I just don't recognize the validity of a dozen editors saying "not reliable" and then it's red at RSP and suddenly a hundred thousand editors are barred from using it. Sorry, that's just not valid process, and I feel like it's getting out of control on this board this year. At a minimum, warn filter proposals should be advertised at CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I added this to CENT. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot Those are completely reasonable measures, though I would have definitely opposed a blanket ban. --tronvillain (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Even WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Youtube is used by many expert sources and blanket measures such as filters and XLkinkBot are indiscriminate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: "YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? As I stated previously, experienced editors are not affected by XlinkBot, and the edit filter is likely to be a custom one not simply the same as the depreciated sources filter. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Lindsay Ellis, Nicholas Moran, PBS Spacetime, PBS Eons CGP Grey, Baumgartner Restoration, Caitlin Doughty, Alton Brown, etc., etc., etc., Need I continue? those are just from the first page of my recommendations. "not likely to be" is not reassuring and even IP editors are allowed to link to actual experts on YouTube by policy. This just increases the barrier to entry for no good reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is CGP Grey an expert in? I think his videos are interesting, but his "Americapox" video has recieved criticism for paralleling Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel which has been heavily criticised by historians. I don't see how he can be classified as an "expert" as he has no credentials in any of the topics he makes videos on. I don't see why PBS videos should be cited for facts either, they're again interesting, but they are not subject matter experts themselves and Wikipedia should cite the underlying source material. Nicholas Moran has no actual credentials as a historian either per this Military Times article. Lindsay Ellis is a media critic with a film school degree and therefore the question of citation is one of WP:DUE rather than of reliability. As for Alton Brown and Ask a Mortician, I think there are likely to be better sources for the information in that these would be relevant to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. PBS Spacetime is hosted by an astrophysicist, PBS Eons by the Curator of Collections for the Museum of the Rockies. Moran is a Lt. Col in the US Army and paid for his historical research which makes him a working historian despite whatever Military Times wants to say, and you implicitly recognize the credentials of Ellis, Doughty, Brown. Don't like those? How about an Oxford PhD in astrophysics or Baylor College of Medicine or the Harvard School of Public Health or a professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh or Freakin' NASA, for pete's sake. "I think there are likely better sources" is pure speculation and this speculation and over-generalizing applies to the entire RfC; rather than actually examining the sources, like we're supposed to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot. CGP Grey is an educator, "What exactly" he is an expert in is...education. What are his videos? As it so happens, education. I find it richly ironic that a Reddit thread was cited for source criticism on RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think CGP Grey videos are unusable as sources. YouTube is WP:SELFPUBLISHed; being considered an expert sufficient to pass that policy requires more than just a breezy "oh he's a professional X." The requirement is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does he meet that standard? Beyond that, his videos generally summarize part of a particular published work (which he cites at the end), so you could just cite that work directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently CGPGrey being an "educator" makes him a subject matter expert on everything? WP:SPS states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

(emphasis not mine). CGP has no relevant expertise on the vast majority of topics he covers, and therefore isn't a subject matter expert. The specific reddit thread I brought up was from r/AskHistorians, which is notable enought to have its own wikipedia article and largely staffed by subject matter experts. As for the PBS stuff, it consists of simplified explanations for laymen and the production of web television like the PBS Digital Studios involves staff who are not subject matter experts, like researchers and script writers, who may introduce errors. Per WP:SPS again:

Exercise caution when using [self published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources

For what it covers we should be citing higher quality sources like review papers or high quality secondary sources like Quanta Magazine, the same principle applies to other creators you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I've stricken Grey because it's clear that channel is becoming a distraction. (Although I think from context you meant "...are usable as sources.") That doesn't refute any of the other 12 creators I linked and if I were so inclined I could find hundreds or thousands of Youtube creators that incontestably comply with the SPS requirements and clearly support the claim I made earlier about "many experts". The point is that blanket lumping these in with bad sources just because they exist on the same platform as BTS fanvids and 9/11 conspiracy nonsense (or whatever) doesn't actually comply with the RS policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC) EC This is nit-picking at its nittiest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"YouTube is used by many expert sources" can you provide some examples? WHO NIH NASA Nature BBC Smithsonian Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, respectively 1525, 639, 4932, 72, 11944 and 2890 videos. That is a exceedingly minor fraction of the material on YouTube (I thought I saw 1.3 billion video's on YouTube, but that was a wrong number, I now found 7 billion in 2017, of which these 6 channels would only make 0.0003% of the material, but now it is 2020). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to analyse on a case-by-case basis, but I dare to say that 99.9% of the material on YouTube will not be suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Dirk Beetstra, except that he doesn't go far enough. 99.9% of the material on the Internet is not suitable as a source, and 0.09% of the rest maybe as a primary source. I'm sure you all agree? So we should put in an edit filter for anyone adding any Internet reference whatsoever. Not ban use of the Internet, mind, just, you know, a warning. For experts only. Keep the others on their toes. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, :-) a nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but totally missing the point. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter and XLinkBot A good way to caution editors without banning or "deprecating" YouTube. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with everything Levivich wrote. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as overreach, there are many good sources in the official channels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. YouTube is a self-published source in almost every case, and the majority of citations are of the form "X said Y on YouTube, source, X saying Y on YouTube". This is always a terrible idea and a warn filter is entirely appropriate. Guy (help!) 21:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is, hopefully, a well-meaning solution in search of a problem. Over time YouTube has increasingly worked to reduce all manner of fraud and corruption it faces worldwide. Meanwhile it’s used by more and more entities as an official news outlet for their views. Let’s find actual problems first then get creative in addressing those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because, as Levivich noted, YouTube is a platform not a source. ¶ Of course, if we required editors to create an account ....  Self-trout   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, my concerns are echoed by many editors above, YouTube is a platform, not a source, it is home to many official news stations and professionals whose channels are perfectly good sources and who use it to widen their appeal. Also, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist, in my experience when YouTube is sourced it is either to a reliable source which just so happens to be on the platform, as a WP:PRIMARY source, or as blatant self-promotion. The last instance is the only problematic one, and putting an edit filter on YouTube will not stop them in the slightest. Even if these problems do occasionally pop up, this is a massive overreaction to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as stated by many editors above Youtube is a publishing platform like a book, radio, television, etc. Editors should not be seeing warnings if they should be allowed to use Voice of America, France 24, or the BBC. As Levivich has stated above, this board and its perennial sources list has begun to overstep its purpose in the wikipedia community. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. YouTube is a platform. It's not a source, and YouTube videos are not intrinsically unreliable as sources. Increasingly, good reliable-source information is from video (e.g., news or newscast video) rather than print these days, so an edit warning is overkill in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a slightly parallel discussion on WT:V about what actually is a "self-published source" and in alignment with "opposes" here and discussion there, YouTube is not the publisher in these videos - it is the person that prepares and uploads the video that is "publishing" it and that's where the self-publishing needs to be addressed. For example CNN and other media sources have videos uploaded, which clearly have been through news desk editors, so these are published, but not self-published, and thus 100% fair game as a reliable source. On the other hand, CoolGuy99 talking about his favorite Pokemon would be a self-made video and self-published. While the majority of videos on YouTube are probably in this latter category, a good chuck are competely valid sources and thus using an edit filter is a bad idea. --Masem (t) 04:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter and XLinkBot. I don't think Youtube can be RS, yes we can watch and listen to a historian's lecture there, but it's not paper. Where are reviews here? Some editorial hierarchy and control exist in the newspapers, while on YouTube it is mostly non-existent. If we consider a local TV news or CNN presented on Youtube as information source it is OR. Article, comment, interview etc, we can read and on these portals(CNN etc..) and use as a source. The whole world publishes some of its truth through Youtube and for controlling these informations we need an army of people. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How can it be that this NYTimes video at YouTube, this WaPo video at YouTube, or this NBC video at YouTube are not RSes, or are OR when we cite them (as we currently do in several articles including Killing of George Floyd)? They have been subject to editorial review and have been published by a reputable publisher (NYT, WaPo, and NBC, respectively). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • His last recorded(TV, etc) moments and spoken words are OR, and his last moments and spoken words in some comment from a journalist published in newspapers are RS, but even this RS can be challenged by someone on Wikipedia. Ultimately only after end of trial we will know the specific facts. After these facts are published in some newspaper or some book then it is a quality RS for Wikipedia. I see it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Each video is narrated by a journalist and was published by "some newspaper", e.g. NYT, WaPo, and NBC. So this meets the criteria you are describing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
        • You see that journalist throughout video telling dozens of details and facts, but we don’t know if this details and facts are true. We'll know that in a couple of years when the trial is over. I'm talking about that. If the same is said in the article of that TV house (portal) it is RS although it is the same thing but in that case exist some visible editorial control, name of the journalist, responsible editor, date, additional confirming official sources in writing (police etc), etc. In the video reportage it may or may not be controlled, we do not know whether this information has passed editorial or the journalist has his personal conclusions. I look at the bigger picture(Youtube) and a million videos without any control, not only CNN and NBC. I'm from the Balkans, when we would start entering informations from YouTube there would be a mess on Wikipedia, and it is only for two or three countries. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 

• Oppose both - As people have said, YouTube is a hosting site, not a source in itself. The individual videos hosted on YouTube are the sources. Some are reliable, some are not. Think of it this way: with printed texts an author and publisher (which affect reliability), and we have a bookstore or library where the text can be located (which do not affect reliability). YouTube is equivalent to the bookstore or library. It is where the video can be located, but is not the author or publisher. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You raise a good point, @Blueboar:. Legally, Youtube only receives protection against civil and criminal actions specifically because it is not an author or publisher. If it is not an author or publisher, it is not a source as our policies define one, reliable or otherwise. Any discussion of Youtube as "a source" (singular) is predicated on a gross misunderstanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This reminds me of the whole debate that kicked off why the US has Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because to distinguish between "distributor" like a bookstore that has no control on the content that is in the books it offers, and "publisher" which does. And I think our model that we're trying to get here is trying to get to that point as well. We want to tag things that are SPS where the person making the content is also the one that does the publishing (even if the "publisher" is a third party like Forbes.com or Amazon Book Printing services), and that we need to ignore the "distributor" like YouTube when it comes to that evaluation. (Again, tying to the ongoing WT:V discussion). There is a tiny tiny fraction of YouTube content that is made by YouTube employees (like YouTube Rewind) but that's less than 0.01% so not enough to call it an SPS. It is all on who is uploading and what relation they have to the act of publishing that content, if it has gone through what we'd usually consider appropriate for an RS w/ fact-checking. --Masem (t) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both (well, addition of the EF and retention of the XLinkBot rule). Reliable content hosted there is very much the exception rather than the rule, and other hosts should be preferred for the small portion of reliable content when available. Video citations should be avoided anyway, in my opinion, since they're hard to skim, not easily used without a fast network connection, and may not be available captioned. On the rare occasions that the only reliable source for something is only available through that Web site, and someone new needs to cite it, can make an edit request to get around the XLinkBot. (Although if something's not covered in any textual source, it probably is undue weight to be talking about it anyway.) Otherwise this should help cut down the amount of those references. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both for the same reasons as Goldenshimmer: 1) the vast majority of YouTube video are not reliable sources, and 2) even when a youtube video is published by a reputable entity, it's almost always preferable to use some other, written-down source as more verifiable and reliable. The current setup seems bitey because it reverts new users without giving them a reason. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Buidhe. I know it seems lazy to just quote the support directly above you, but it's exactly what I was going to say. I can't remember the last time I found a reference to a YouTube video that couldn't have been easily replaced with a more reliable source, a proper secondary source, or a more accessible print source. ----Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has written a featured article with such instances, not every interview or primary source is necessarily going to have a viable substitute. And as others have mentioned, reliable sources like the New York Times and Variety Magazine are on YouTube as well. While there are usually replaceable sources outside of YouTube, this is not the case 100% of the time. Definitely not enough to go nuclear and instate an edit filter, which should only be used for sites that have no business being cited under any circumstance. Darkknight2149 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. WP:RSP is not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the edit filter. YouTube is sometimes usable for interviews and primary sources, so the idea of an edit filter is kind of dumb. Darkknight2149 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• A warning is fine for new editors using YouTube channels as a source. The majority of the warning's recipients will actually learn something new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Warn filter would serve as an education tool for new editors. For clarity, no appetite to depreciate as there are clear occasions when it is the correct source to use, but it clearly needs to be cited with care. Best, Darren-M talk 22:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose autoreverting (removing) youtube links: A bot cannot decide the context of a post. As an occasional editor, tried to post a youtube link to a TED talk on the Wikipedia page about the speaker. TED is owned by a nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation, and its overall mission to research and discover “ideas worth spreading.” This youtube link was not like an official music video, for profit, or controversial hearsay, as the speaker was the subject of the Wikipedia page, the primary source. The XLinkBot reverted (removed) it. Then I posted the same content by a link containing ted.com, which was happily allowed to let stand. I posted another youtube link of a TED talk, because not all TED talks are on ted.com. This was also reverted (removed), even though I was logged into my user account, which is older than 7 days. The web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot/RevertList says, "The bot does not revert when the account is older than 7 days (except when the rule is on override)". So I don't know why it was removed. This sort of discourages editing of Wikipedia pages. A more technical issue with the bot is that if you add a youtube link, and in the same edit make a minor change to another entry, say to remove some punctuation, the bot removes both entries, without showing this on the history page. Another thing is that even though ted.com is an alternative site for this content, it seemed to serve the content slower, so youtube would have been the preferred link. Lindamarcella (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • TED talks are not reliable sources in many cases. They're reliable sources for what the person says but may or may not be reliable for facts depending on the topic and whether the person is a subject matter expert. New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
    • New users cannot be expected to understand these nuances. What? Are you under the impression that new users don't understand the nuances of sourcing? You realize that new users aren't children or students? In many if not most cases they are scientists, researchers, professors or other professionals who already knew what a reliable source was and how to use and cite it long before they ever edited Wikipedia. Similarly, there are editors who've been here for 10 years and have less experience with sourcing than other people who aren't even editors at all. I doubt there is a connection between age of account and understanding the nuance of sourcing. Sourcing is a real world thing, not a Wikipedia only thing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have editors who determine the validity of sources and of videos. New users have to fumble around as it is, learning the acronyms, policies, guidelines, and then learning that WP:IAR is a policy. All of this is inadvertently difficult. There are many youtube videos - tours of lakes, tours of businesses, interviews...this is the 21st century and people are not going to the card catalogue and using the Dewey Decimal System to find a physical book. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many individuals and companies have their own legit Youtube channels. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose edit filter, Support keeping it on XLinkBot (disclaimer, I am bot operator). Yes, there are MANY good sources on YouTube, many respectable publishers, news agents, libraries, repositories use this medium. Unfortunately, ALSO many people who upload material in violation of copyright do, and there are regularly copyvio links added. ALSO a lot of other people upload videos there (which is the far, far majority of the material): your personal movie of your dog is neither a source for wagging tails, nor a suitable external link on dog (I am sorry, the majority of material on youtube is not an RS for anything, and not suitable as external link). Then there is a lot of purely promotional material there (it is not so long ago that we had loads of spambots spamming links to youtube, up to a level that we had an adminbot block them). Then there are the regular cases of people who think that we are a repository of social media links. Links to youtube are needed, but should be used with care. It is good that we remind new users of those policies and guidelines. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, I totally agree with user:Levivich that youtube itself should not be on RSP. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We should not be going out of our way to discourage the use of videos as sources. There is nothing inherent in videos that makes them less reliable than print media. Like all potential sources, it depends on the originator of the source, not the type of source. Yes, much of the videos on YouTube are self published, but that doesn't matter. I acknowledge that inexperienced editors may use self published videos as a source, but if a user doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V, than they might use anything as a source. There's nothing about YouTube per say that warrants concern. Reliable sources can use it as a place to publish videos from their verified accounts, and non-reliable sources can use it as a place to self publish. That right there just about sums up the internet in general. Inexperienced editors are just as likely to accidentally include unreliable tabloids as a source. If anything, we should be more concerned with abuse of print sources, since in the mess of Google search results, it can be hard for an inexperienced editors to tell whether something is reliable or whether it's just a blog/tabloid. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• NOTE - There is another caution about using YouTube videos that may make a warning template appropriate... the issue of COPYRIGHT. If a specific COPY of a video is posted in violation of copyright laws, we can not link to that specific copy (although we might be able to link to a copy of that video on some OTHER YouTube channel.) This, however, has nothing to do with the reliability of the original. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Given the number of opposes for a warning, should there be a separate discussion about removing it from the Xlinkbot list? Without having given this too much thought, I think I'd oppose auto-reverting even while supporting a warning. Wouldn't many of the opposes also oppose auto-reverting? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  Calliopejen1, you realize that the far majority of material on youtube is crap, spam, promotional etc. The reliable, useful material is a far minority of the material. Moreover, as I stated above, it is not too long ago that we had spambots spamming youtube (through the redirect service). People here are, imho unjustly, focussing on that little bit of good material, forgetting the spam, copyvio material and useless crap.

  I would like to see an analysis how often the bot reverts references which should not have been reverted (and how often the youtube references are actually copyvio), then I could be swayed to remove it from the revertreferences list. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that auto-reverting a new users comment is somewhat WP:BITEY as it is done with no warning, which is why I wanted to add the edit filter. However, if youtube links were enough of an issue in 2008 that they were added to the filter, they would likely be even more of an issue now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, the situation with YouTube has changed since then. E.g. most people nowadays have mobile phones with reasonably fast internet at reasonable prices so that they can stream video reasonable, in 2008 many people around the world were still using slow (expensive dial-in) internet where streaming video was not really a possibility (note, also the video size has increased since 2008, but they can be automatically downsampled). In 2008 the use of youtube by 'respectable media outlets' was minor, most was user uploads. Now it is extensively being used by BBC, NYT, etc. etc. Comparable, in 2008 advertising on YouTube was minor, now it is also extensively being used by advertising media, health fanatics, organisations with an agenda and similar. Yes, NYT and Washington Post use it, but they do not appear in List_of_most-liked_YouTube_videos or List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels, nor are they even a reasonably representative number of the videos on YouTube. That will be worrisome if that is a reflection of the YouTube material that people will use as a reference on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. Pretty much all of the major news organizations that we list as reliable sources have official YouTube channels where they upload news reports to. Preventing any citing to these reliable sources' channels on Wikipedia would be absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Levivich. I'm struggling to even wrap my head around this. We could do the same thing for all videos I guess? Why just those on Youtube? Hobit (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't really have a blanket ban on something like this. It needs to be delt with on a case by case basis. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support While YouTube is a platform, we don't have a way to whitelist specific channels that might be reputable. Almost every use of YouTube as a citation that I've seen was in violation of WP:SPS, so I think the warn filter is not only appropriate but not enough to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. This is no different from using any other sources and links. Of course all participants must respect copyright, exercise good judgement if the link improves the page, etc. But yes, it should not be generally used as an RS to support any statements on a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A blanket ban this wide, not accounting for factors as simple as news organizations not listed as "verified" on YouTube is unreasonable. 0qd (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich. Also, a link to a video on youtube can sometimes be the best primary source to verify something. -- œ^™ 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as there is thoughtful wording for the edit filter, noting that YouTube is platform that hosts diverse content, including unreliable non-expert self-published content (most hosted video on YouTube), reliable self-published material from expert sources, and content from traditional publishers, so the editor needs to assess whether the specific YouTube video that they're linking to is a RS for the specific WP claim that the video is being used to support: is it SPS? if so, does the creator have relevant expertise for the specific WP claim being made? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivitch and anyone else. Sturgeon's law applies to more than just YouTube, no reason to single out YouTube. --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. I can't tell you how many time I've seen new users just use Youtube carelessly as a source. This is a recent discussion spawned by such behavior: Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Resolution_talk_post_ANI/EW_result/suggestion_2.VR _talk 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons provided by Levivich. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube)

Don't agree with how my earlier comments were hidden away, but I think you are on to something here. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I archived it to avoid prejudicing this discussion, as I felt I worded it poorly. Would you like me to add your comments to this discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to add my comments here. I think this is a better proposal. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that YouTube has been on the XLinkBot list for a very long time (prior to February 2008) so its placement in this RfC isn't necessary, my apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (YouTube) - reputable material

A lot of focus by the 'oppose' field above is 'it's a platform used by reputable publishers like The New York Times and the Washington Post to post videos that we link to as sources' (quoting the first oppose, User:Levivich, who is quoted a lot, and similar opposes are there). Note: I oppose a filter, but I think it should still be on XLinkBot due to other reasons than being 'unsuitable as a reference' (which it is not, and which is not the reason why it is on the revertlist).

But by the numbers. A number I could find (probably not reliable) is that YouTube hosts 1,300,000,000 (1.3 billion) videos. The New York Times has 9804 video's on their channel (about 0.00075%), and the Washington Post 15,870 (about 0.0012%). BBC (my guess) has about 12000 videos. Yes, I agree that there is quite some good material on YouTube, but I guess I am safe to say that good material is less than 0.1% of the material on YouTube is due to reliable sources. Except from some primary sources, the rest, containing personal videos of dogs, birthday parties, pure advertising, clickbait material, beach parties, copyvio material, etc. etc., is likely not suitable as a source, not even primary.

I do feel that above !voting is completely undue because of that. The above would have been a much fairer discussion if people would have presented an analysis of a non-acting filter for youtube references of a couple of days, and an analysis of the last 100 youtube reference reverts of XLinkBot (I found 0 in the last ~1500 reverts ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: the 1.3 billion I saw was not the total number of videos. I can't find any number for 2019 or current, I did find 7 billion in 2017 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-videos-are-on-YouTube-2017-1). You can divide the number by a factor of 5, e.g. it becomes 0.00014% for the New York Times if you take a 2017 number, the number in 2020 is probably different. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I think many Wikipedia editors have very little idea about how important maintenance of the edit filter is and how much effort goes into fighting spam and other problematic links, and I regret not providing adequate evidence based on this. Can you provide a link to the Xlinkbot feed for youtube links? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, there is no special feed, I got that from Special:Contributions/XLinkBot. If you limit to mainspace and look for 'Reverting reference addition(s) by' in the edit summary shows reverts by XLinkBot that were done because of the 'RevertReferences' list. If you then check if it is a youtube revert (further down in the edit summary) you can see what I mean. Most reference reverting is due to discogs, fandom, reddit, not youtube. If you ignore the references, you see things like diff, where the user is spamming their own YouTube channel.

That however does get convoluted because some newbies do not format references as classical references but just as inline links (see e.g. diff).

The above proposal gets even further convoluted, because people who reference to a New York Times report often link to the New York Times link that embeds the YouTube upload of the report (https://nyti.ms/2T981nS vs. youtube.com/watch?v=pdUzzXpWg8c). (In my opinion the former link should be used as it puts a context on the video ('Indian authorities say life is returning to normal in Kashmir. ...'), but then there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the latter). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the use cases is avoiding paywalls. The example I've cited repeatedly in this discussion is Killing of George Floyd, where NYT and WaPo analyses of videos are used extensively as sources. We link to the official pages at NYT and WaPo, which have the videos plus some introductory text. But those are both paywalled. However, both NYT and WaPo uploaded their videos to YouTube, where they are available for free. So our citations link to both: the paywalled official websites, and the free YouTube videos. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree to that solution as well, but I think hat many people will just link to the NYT link, Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the overwhelming majority of videos on YT are not reliable sources. But that's also true for the overwhelming majority of websites. And television. And radio. Hell, go into a bookstore and the majority of books won't be reliable sources (the majority will probably be fiction!), yet we do not have filters for citing books or radio programs. Even NYTimes.com is filled with unreliable op/ed. But we don't add a filter for it. I don't see what good a warn filter for YT will do; it will only be an annoyance. Focusing on the platform is just the wrong way to go about it. I don't see how YT is different from any other platform or media. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on Levivich basically: there should not be restrictions on the use of YouTube videos broadly, but obviously editors must be assure of the channel owner, their relationship to a reliable source, and other issues related to copyright before using a video, and with all that considered, maybe <1% of the videos on YT would even qualify as usable sources. But they do qualify. Blacklisting youtube.com thus is not right, but having an edit filter that takes one or two extra steps for editors that know what they are doing , is that reasonable, to prevent editors that don't know what they are doing from adding random YT videos all the time? It would be nice to have stats to know how bad this "problem" is - how many bad YT links are added to good ones, because I'm certain that it's far less than 99:1. If for every proper YT link addition we had to deal with 2 bad ones, that's probably not a point to add an edit filter, but 10:1 would be. --Masem (t) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and Levivich:, exactly, but that is not what is done here. It is here bluntly stated by many that because there is some good stuff, there can’t be a problem. That is what I am now arguing, we ignore the point that we may have 25 bad insertions for each good one. We may have 25 good additions for 1 bad one. Even if it is a ratio of, non negotiable, bad copyvios to good links of 1:1 we here say: we don’t care, there is good stuff. We don’t know, so the plain argument ‘but there is good material’ wins.

I have done these stats once for XLinkBot for one site, likely youtube, on the external links. I don’t recall numbers, but I remember that 20% were copyvio.

This RfC feels to me like a poison test ... it can’t be bad, we have one survivor. We need numbers. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, data > opinion, especially my opinion. :-D Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, for reverting references we don't have anything to go by, XLinkBot did not revert any youtube links that were properly used as references (i.e., within ref-tags) for over a year. For the other things, it reverted a youtube spammer just yesterday (Special:Contributions/Weeble69), and one 4 days ago (Special:Contributions/Anjyog), and someone promoting himself 5 days ago (Special:Contributions/Pakkepunjabi). I know that there it sometimes reverts youtube links which were meant to be a reference (new editor not knowing how we format references; see e.g. diff), but the number of times that happens does likely not outweigh the number of spammers that get reverted, the number of questionable linkfarms in external links, marginally related youtube links, and copyright violations. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Realtor.com as RS for edits in articles

This is a question that Tacohead1000 asked me on my talk page. I think it would be good to ask it here. What level of reliability weight can be applied to an article published by realtor.com in their news section.? Example, Realtor.com says Blake Bortles bought a house in 2015 and sold it in 2019. [[186]]. Is Realtor.com reliable for such information? If so is it WP:DUE?

My feeling is realtor.com doesn't pass our wp:RS criteria for a generally reliable site. As a large real estate site it might be acceptable for factual statements about home's purchase history or related details but I don't see how we would consider their information to establish weight absent some other RS raising the issue in context of a BLP or other article. If the article is about a famous home, for example Ben Rose House or Herbert and Katherine Jacobs First House, I can see using realtor.com as a reference for information like last sale date/price. In that case the home is the subject of the article so such transnational information is inherently relevant the way birth date, location and parents are by default part of a BLP. Springee (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Tough one. It's reliable for the listing/sale of a house, in the sense that if Realtor.com says such-and-such a property sold for $1M, that's almost certainly accurate. It's also non-controversial information that is readily verifiable in any number of public sources, so there's probably a better source available for it. For example, a celebrity mansion sale will usually be reported in a newspaper.

A bigger concern is that Realtor.com stories about specific properties are usually advertisements, as is the case here (see disclaimer at the bottom of the article). For obvious reasons we shouldn't cite advertisements, even if they're factually accurate (eg, for price).

Yet another aspect is that Realtor.com is also a trade organization and publishes industry news, for which I think it is reliable (eg, a story about house sales rising in the US, or about broker commissions falling because of Redfin). For industry news I think it's reliable but should be attributed, and it should count as DUE. For individual sales, a better source should be found, and it should not count as DUE, because even if reliable, it's an advertisement. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• • In this particular case Realtor.com has a "news" section. At least in the case of the Blake Bortles article it appears the house is for sale at the time the article was published. That is a problem as it becomes a clear advertisement. If the article was talking about a home that was off the market I would still question DUE. Anyway, I agree the specific, fluffy information is likely accurate but WEIGHT is a serious concern. Springee (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand WEIGHT. And I don't understand why realtor.com News isn't considered a 'generally reliable' site. Realtor.com News is a separate section of the site for real estate news. The News section of the site is not bought and paid for by realtors. It does have banner ads and other advertising -- as do most other publishers on the web.

If content is sponsored, it is clearly labeled as paid. See here: https://www.realtor.com/sponsored/newlywed-first-time-home-buyer-journeys/

These articles about noteworthy people buying and selling homes are not advertorials -- the articles are not paid for by anyone -- listing agents, brokerages, or the celebrities covered. They are reported articles. If you're referring to the disclaimer at the bottom of the article, that is for disclosure of affiliate advertising links and is legal practice to disclose.

This question stems from Tucker Carlson article. If his house in Washington DC that was protested outside was deemed worthy enough for inclusion in his article, why isn't the fact that he's selling that very same home a fact that should be included in his article?

realtor.com News was the first to report about this sale. Is it only newsworthy if a newspaper regurgitates a story realtor.com reported on first?Tacohead1000 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Tacohead 1000

• Generally unreliable ("News & Insights" section only, excluding "Research" section). Realtor.com's "News & Insights" is a group blog written solely by freelance writers. It serves as content marketing for its core real estate listing business. Realtor.com does not provide a list of staff members or any evidence of editorial oversight. — Newslinger talk 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Painting with such a broad brush? Sure, part of Realtor.com's "News & Insights" is a group blog... but another part is their Research section, which is staffed with economists whose reports are cited by The New York Times. I don't think all of Realtor.com is generally unreliable... there's too much nuance to declare the entire website "reliable" or "unreliable". (For those who can't access the NYT article, the relevant quote is: "Housing supply was already tight in recent years, especially for first-time buyers, because of the sluggish pace of new construction, said Danielle Hale, chief economist for the listing site Realtor.com. Then uncertainty because of the pandemic gave buyers cold feet, leading some sellers to pull their homes from the market. Home sales in April were down about 18 percent from a year earlier. Declines were particularly steep in the West. But Realtor.com reported this week that there were signs of improvement in May, “setting the stage” for continued recovery over the summer.") And here is an example report by Ms. Hale and another Realtor.com economic analyst, about US housing market in June 2020. I think it'd be a perfectly good RS to use to update an article like Home-ownership in the United States, among others. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, the link to the research team is helpful. I've narrowed my previous opinion to the "News & Insights" section, which does not appear to employ any of the researchers. Articles in the "News & Insights" section have URLs beginning with https://www.realtor.com/news/ or https://www.realtor.com/advice/, while articles in the "Research" section have URLs beginning with https://www.realtor.com/research/. The "Research" section looks usable to me, although some of the insights are primary. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed about primary. But note that if you hover the mouse over "News & Insights", "Research" is one of the entries under "Insights", so it appears Research is a sub-section of "News & Insights". There are a couple dozen other sub-sections, I haven't explored them all. The "Celebrity Real Estate" sub-section is what I was focusing on in my original post. Those articles look like advertorial; they contain the disclaimer at the bottom "The realtor.com® editorial team highlights a curated selection of product recommendations for your consideration; clicking a link to the retailer that sells the product may earn us a commission." (example). Same with the "unique homes" subsection. However, the "Housing Market Predictions" subsection is also in the /research/ folder and seems to be done by the research team, and includes, e.g., this analysis of the impact COVID has had on the housing market, which I think could be usable for, e.g. COVID-19 recession. So it seems "News & Insights" includes both reliable (research, housing market predictions) and unreliable (celebrity real estate, unique homes) subsections. I think you're right it looks like /research/ is the good stuff and /news/ has the rest (/advice/ redirects me to /news/). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Since "Research" is under "Insights" on the menu, but not under /advice in the URL, it looks like the URL is the simplest way to identify whether an article is under the purview of Realtor.com's research team. URLs are also less likely to change than the menu layout, since moving the directories could disrupt the site's SEO. http://www.realtor.com/advice/ does redirect me to https://www.realtor.com/news/, but the "Insight" categories linked from the menu (e.g. https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/) seem to list articles that remain under the /advice subdirectory. — Newslinger talk 05:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  When I posted this I was debating NPOVN or here since often a source raises a question on both. For all the information on the site how would we handle a question of DUE? In general I think if something else in the article is raising the question/issue etc then citing an article at Realtor.com is probably OK, possibly including home listing information. Conversely, I don't think information is DUE in basically any article if WEIGHT is justified because Realtor.com had an article about it. Does that align with the views of others here? Springee (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Your original comment referred to "Life’s a Beach: Jaguars QB Blake Bortles Buys Oceanfront Home in Jacksonville" as an example. Since that article is under /news and also concerns a living person, I would consider it unreliable, which means that I would also consider it undue (as due weight only takes viewpoints from reliable sources into account). If another reliable source reported on the home purchase, that reliable source would be eligible for citation, even if the reliable source referred to Realtor.com in its coverage. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think we are in agreement. I started this after removing a number of edits sourced to articles such as the example I gave. I don't endorse using that link as either reliable or DUE (which are tied together as you suggest). Springee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  I also agree with the above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

chabad.org

chabad.org is a website affiliated with the Chabad movement of Hasidic Judaism. Some of its pages have recently been cited as sources in The Exodus article. Partly to cover Orthodox Jewish beliefs and practices, and partly to offer an extensive quotation by Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The article's talk page includes some discussion on the website's possible unreliability as a source, but without a clear conclusion. I could not find previous discussions on the topic in the archives of this noticeboard.

Should the website be deprecated as a source outright, or can we attribute statements to the website and/or its staff? Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've found the website to be accurate for the Chabad perspective on Jewish theology, although better sources often exist that's not enough for deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is a long-standing bugbear of mine. Chabad has a very specific perspective on Judaismn, but is used incredibly widely on WP including on articles where the Lubavicher perspective is way out of line with the Jewish mainstream. I think we should be very much more cautious when using this source, and there should be a presumption that it is not used for statements of fact without explicit consensus and not used for quotations / opinions unless there is third-party commentary establishing the objective significance of the stated view. Guy (help!) 10:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• My feeling is that it should be avoided unless we're stating something about the beliefs of Chabad itself, and even then there are probably better sources. I don't think either of the two things it's been used to source are particularly controversial - the Schneerson quote is fine, for instance, as expressing Schneerson's words. Whether we include Schneerson is a question of DUEness etc rather than a question of sourcing. I do not really think it's a good source for establishing what Sukkot is though - there are much better sources out there, and I'm trying to collect them on the article's talk page. The main problem with the additions at The Exodus is that they are actually unsourced rather than the use of Chabad.org (to source a long quote and a single sentence in three sections).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• They have a strict, rather dogmatic theological perspective on Jewish history. The Hebrew Bible is the true word of God, especially as interpreted by their Rebbes and other trusted insider rabbis. Their interpretation, in their view, is the last word on any Jewish issue broadly construed, including Jewish history, the Land of Israel (Palestine), and the State of Israel. On the latter also, their political views and actions are also rather right-wing radical. Their purpose, in the vast array of web sites they develop, is to propagate their views on Judaism and on Jewish matters as wide as possible. They are present on Wikipedia, they recognize its value and influence, and they use it for their own purposes also. They operate world-wide as a well-funded radical religious organization that aims constantly and primarily to expand their base of adherents and supporters; their presence in cyberspace is just an extension of their social and political modi operandi. All this is even before just briefly mentioning their extreme messianic streak, that seems to have been evolving since the passing of their last Rebbe in 1994. Their religious material should be used with extreme caution, with all the above in mind. As for the particular field of Jewish history, which is the one that concerns me directly the most, their material should be considered basically as extremely biased and unreliable for Wikipedia purposes, as a secular, non-religious encyclopedia. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ok for about self when it comes to the Chabad movement. For the given example I would not consider them reliable, the Lubavitchers play fast and loose with both facts and history. Its a movement built on internal repression and dogma not scholarship. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• As others have mentioned here, I would support this as a source for Chabad's viewpoints, however, users inexperienced with the nuances of Orthodox Judaism may encounter this website and use it as a more general source, when in reality, it is describing a very narrow viewpoint. Ultimately, the decision to include it in an article as a source for a general concept in Judaism, rather than something unique to Chabad, will have to be based on a judgement call by the editor that wishes to add it, and should therefore only be used by editors that feel confident enough in there understanding of the subject at hand to make that call. A Chabad article about Jewish Passover customs, for example, might very well just be a simple summary of mainstream customs, and as such, could potentially be used as a source. As for a Chabad article about Jewish theology, if used at all, it would need to be in a sentence such as: "The viewpoint of Chabad, a movement within Hasidic Judaism is that...". --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 14:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Victory in War of 1812

In "A Truly Pointless War ... The War of 1812" (History News Network), Jon Latimer wrote:

"So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless."

Is he saying that Britain won or no one won? Or is it cherry-picking to form any conclusion from this sentence?

TFD (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It's one person's opinion that even as an expert would need to be attributed, and would probably need to use that quote nearly in full to capture the intent (eg cherry picking otherwise). --Masem (t) 16:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

He is saying that in militarily and political terms Britain won, but in social terms no one did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If the sentence is to be quoted it should be in its entirety. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote has been presented as evidence that there are historians who say the UK won the war and the U.S. lost, so that the info-box can say the outcome is disputed instead of the outcome was a draw. TFD (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors who wish to comment should be aware that this one field in the infobox has been litigated for more than ten years, and the dispute is over the *military* outcome. Since we are here though, the reference provided for "draw" is problematic in that its quote essentially says that "most people call it a draw, but I think Britain won." Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The info-box has said the result of the war was inconclusive during all that time. Your selective reading of Latimer's statement is part of a ten year attempt to change that into saying the outcome was disputed. There are similar problems in articles such as intelligent design and climate change that unfortunately attract enthusiastic but ill-informed proponents of alternative interpretations. They are adept at structuring their arguments on one-sided interpretations of ambiguous statements in sources. TFD (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Listen here my man, I am not part of a ten-year attempt to do anything but improve Wikipedia, and not just on the talk page of the War of 1812 article btw. Do you seriously think this is some sort of sinister plot? Run report the question as a personal attack again! Meanwhile why are you asking this at the RS noticeboard? Shouldn't it be NPOV if anything? Oh wait, the people might have already read the two arguments you are in over there, or the one at fringe theory ditto, I guess. Why, if the question is sources, don't you produce yours, as I have suggesting? Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to your comments on your talk page. TFD (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No, if we are going to go through the reliability of sources, then let’s talk about your sources for the whole “all *quality* sources” schtick that you do. In particular, one of your references for “draw” in fact does not say it was a draw; it says that most Americans think it was a draw, but they are wrong. The source itself seems fine, but it’s not really a reliable source for what you have to say. Also, since the heart of RS is context, you really should mention that Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) didn’t use this as a reference; it’s on a list of a dozen or so reliable sources for his point of whereas you have yet to provide any for as long as I have been observing this dispute. At a minimum you really should have mentioned that this is about an info box entry, which is somewhat different than the body of an article. It could affect the way people answer if they don’t know all the facts. PS you also should have notified people on the talk page and a throwaway at the bottom of a section about something else really doesn’t cut it Elinruby (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing the Latimer source. If you want to talk about other sources or sources in general, please post to my talk page, the article talk page or set up a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

But I am telling you, as someone who has done time on this board, that something is reliable or not reliable depending on its context. The context here is a list of sources Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) drew up to demonstrate that the belief that the British won is not WP:FRINGE.Elinruby (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

In cases where the answer is not clear,; won/lost/draw becomes a matter of opinion, with no objective standard to answer the question. So it is not a matter of providing information, it would be deciding to put someone's opinion in in a contested area. So, IMO, completely remove that part of the info box. Put the facts in the article without any opinion-type characterizations. Plus include attributed info (including context) of what the best findable sources say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000, there have been many sources presented for the article. My question is whether this one source says that the UK beat the United States in the War of 1812 and the U.S. lost the war. TFD (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not by you on this topic. Not since I've been watching the page. You just keep saying it's the consensus of historians, and mocking anyone who suggests otherwise. Then when you are called on this, you misuse edit-warring templates and claim personal attacks at ANI. This is the RS board, so let's talk about those RS. Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing the Latimer source. If you want to talk about other sources or sources in general, please post to my talk page, the article talk page or set up a new discussion thread. TFD (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As per Slatersteven, Latimer here is saying that it had a high social cost, many people died, and it achieved little, but in terms of military achievements, Britain won because it achieved its goals. So yes, he is saying Britain won the war, but it was a stupid war that achieved little. Latimer wrote a whole book on the War of 1812 " 1812: War with America" and he says that he believes the UK won the war in that as well, its pretty clear what he thinks about who won, to quote from that, page 3. "“It was by no means a second war or independence, nor was it a war that both sides won. It was fundamentally a failed war of conquest. Americans desire to possess British North America dated back to the earliest days of the revolution and the ill fated attack on Quebec…for the United states in 1812 the goal was to conquer Canada, and more than two and a half years it tried and repeatedly failed to do so”…. “Britain was content to settle for the 1812 status quo, and that is what Britain got. The United states, in contrast, achieved none of its war aims, and in these terms, the War of 1812 must be seen as a British victory, however marginal.” So in fact, we have two quotes from Latimer, from two sources, where he says Britain won and the US lost.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to notify the other editors of this discussion? Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) is here because I told him (it's his source) but other people were involved in this on the talk page Elinruby (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided notification on the talk page shortly after creating this discussion thread.[187] TFD (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Way down at the bottom of a section on whether I can put citation needed templates in this field, a different, boring topic of limited interest. You got away with that when you did it for the ANI nonsense because that was my personal page so I was notified anyway. That is not the case here. Some of the other editors who have doing this for ten years may have something they want to say about this. I have made a general post at the talk page for you but other people who may wish to comment include Moxy (talk · contribs), Tirronan# (talk · contribs) and Yronen (talk · contribs), whose name I am probably spelling wrong and will correct if so Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The boring topic of interest was a discussion of the Latimer source. Now please note this discussion thread is for discussing the source, not a forum to air your grievances. If you need to do so you may post on my talk page any hour of the day or night. TFD (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

it isn’t some personal grievance that there is a rule that you are supposed to notify interested editors of notice board discussions, especially when you have been arguing with them for ten years about exactly this field. Stop playing victim. Shakespeare (talk · contribs) may or may not wish to comment, also Rjenson (talk · contribs), Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs) and Davide King (talk · contribs) Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps (talk · contribs) also in is that thread on the talk page.

Personally I'd say de facto British tactical victory; de jure status quo ante bellum. Just a suggestion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Ykraps (talk · contribs) and myself should have been notified, as we actually commented on the original post. But anyways, I think from the comments here, this would appear to be a reliable source. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained on the talk page, [[188]] that article is a poor summary of Latimer's book. Latimer is clear that in terms of the fighting, he thinks the war was a British victory but nobody profited in terms of what the war achieved. This is clear in the book. The two parts of the quote TFD has got hold of aren't together in the book and indeed, I don't think the second part appears at all.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: since I got his username wrong above Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of shopping for a result with Lambert. I have noted that while his area of expertise as a historian on Royal Navy matters is quite complete, his lack in other areas he ventures into was also noted.I have also noted that I was not notified. This seems to be an ongoing issue. I have also noted comments from "editors" whom I have never seen on the page showing up. It doesn't look good at all.Tirronan (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is about Latimer, not Lambert and the people commenting here are those that watch the page so they can offer an impartial opinion.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps, it's not something I got hold of but a quote from an aritcle that was presented in the discussion as evidence of Latimer's opinions. Of course as you seem to agree, the passage is ambiguous. It turns out that in his book Latimer says it was a "marginal" British victory. When someone presents a source, I read it. And if it doesn't say what they claim it says (which has happened a lot in this article), I challenge it. I don't think it is reasonable that someone can cherry-pick a sentence that appears to them to support their position, then expect other editors to read through everything that author wrote. Especially when with Google it is easy to mine for quotes that appear to support one's position. So I ask please be sure that before presenting quotes that editors are familiar with the sources they were taken from. TFD (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I know where you got the quotes from thanks and even commented when you first presented them. I didn't think they were ambiguous and nor does anyone here by the look of things. Yes it is easy to mine for quotes on Google, and present them, deliberately or otherwise, out of context. This is what you did here.[[189]] And you don't need to tell me what Latimer's book says; I have read it. A marginal victory is still a victory so now you agree that that is what Latimer is saying, perhaps we can close this as resolved.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps... yep! TFD If you want to look at his book, portions of the book are on Google books War with America , including the page referenced above. I'd recommend you buy it though. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• You've got no chance at all of marking the War of 1812 as a British victory on Wikipedia, even though it self-evidently was. I do suggest choosing a different topic area.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

guns.com

Would guns.com be considered a reliable source for firearms-related articles? I'm unfamiliar with this source, and I can't find any past discussion in the archives here. It's particularly relevant at the moment as the reliability of it is a point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazzeroni rifle. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. It is just a online website that connects gun buyers with licenced gun dealers. Assume that anything you see on guns.com is an ad. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh... while it is mostly ads, it does have a “news” section - which contains reviews of and articles about various firearms (modern and historical). I would say that this section may be borderline reliable. That said, having quickly read through a few of those articles, I would say that anything of value for wikipedia can probably be found in a MORE reliable firearms source. So... while I would not prohibit it, I would definitely say we should look for better sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: it's a commercial web site, as evidenced by a large banner on the home page: "Free shipping on orders of $500 or more". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Eh, the NYTs has worse for subscriptions. Hobit (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The difference is that NYT has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, while guns.com does not. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That I agree is the important distinction. I continue to disagree with your original reasoning--being a commercial website, in-and-of-itself, isn't a reason to call it "not reliable". That said, I wouldn't be surprised if guns.com does have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking wrt guns. Do you know otherwise? Hobit (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like they would be considered reliable, they have staff writers and editors.[190][191] So things from their news section I would see as fine. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as subject matter experts. Like many firearms sites we would need to be careful when using them for things other than technical information about firearms. They are probably good for a "firearm's owner perspective" on topics but in that regard I would treat them a bit like a SPS. So if a new law is passed and guns.com says "firearms owners are concerned about this law because of X" then I think we could use it. We should not use it if they are opining about will the law reduce crime or similar. Springee (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Quality sources for tentative haplogroups of historic people

Hey all! Recently I added a section to Haplogroup R1b about historic people who may belong to this haplogroup. I used mostly the page List of haplogroups of historic people to find candidates, but discarded some sources I couldn't find on Google Scholar and/or that did not explicitly state R1b. The list was framed as: "may belong to the R1b haplogroup, as suggested by the testing of descendants or other relatives". Doug Weller then deleted two entries from the list, the first because the article I cited says if "Niall was a real life figure, he may have belonged to this male lineage, but this is not certain" and the second because the article was "not peer reviewed and authors are not geneticists". My question is: what criteria for quality should we use? I think the point of the list, and the section I created, is simply to compile the names of people who may belong to the given haplogroup (namely as a way to get people interested in doing haplogroup high-quality research, such as this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943878/, which may emerge from people wanting to disprove a certain hypothesis), and in terms of the haplogroups of historic people list, very little will remain if we use a list of criteria as strict as Doug Weller is suggesting, which seems to be: 1) peer review, 2) geneticists in the team, and 3) a well documented genealogy from the historic person to tested relatives. After reflecting on Doug's arguments, I think that, because this is an easily polemic issue, I would require criterion 1, but would not require 2 and 3. Thanks everyone!, CriMen1 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to use quality RS or some genetics magazine or some newspaper. It would be best to use scientific paper but there are probably few such sources for now. Everything else is probable WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@CriMen1: great discussion! I have been thinking of the same issue in the past weeks. The debate is more conceptual than wikipedia's policy framework. The real question here is at which point are commercial testing and citizen science groups (whose work is fueled by volunteers who may or may not part of the interdisciplinary approach that would be required in a peer-reviewed environment) equally reliable to a peer-reviewed article. It's a fundamental question that arises from the fact that in population genetics the volume of research in volunteer groups which are usually supported by a commercial company (for example, FTDNA's DNA projects) is much larger than peer-reviewed studies. The exponential increase in volume in such groups means that ultimately their results are actually more reliable than a study published in a journal because sampling is much larger. In terms of testing enviroment, there is little actual divergence between the two because the labs that do the technical work follow the same standards. I think that we should be using these results in wikipedia with some attribution except for the case in which the descendants of these figures post the results themselves. Attribution is unnecessary in this case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to treat commercial organisations and amateur groups as equal to peer reviewed literature, this isn't the place to seek consensus, that would be Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not making a broad generalization, but I am highlighting that the line between reliable/peer-reviewed and "amateur"/non-peer-reviewed studies is getting increasingly blurrier in Y-DNA/mtDNA research, so we should assess this new reality in terms of policy.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There definitely is a big difference between (good) peer review and amateur/non-peer-reviewed (A/NPR) studies (see [192] for an example of peer-review's limitations) and most of it is actually post-peer-review (the fact most people consider peer review to be high quality means there is more scrutiny even after peer review, which is why Bem's study led to a crisis in Psychology and multiple rebuttals while most parapsychology studies outside canon journals have zero impact and reaction). But I think a resource Doug shared in our initial discussion in his talk page [193] does show that even non-peer-reviewed studies of enough notoriety can be reviewed by credible sources after they are published. Thus, I would lean towards including A/NPR sources if they are mentioned by newspapers, as TDF suggests below. Thanks! CriMen1 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say that Niall of the Nine Hostages might have belonged to the haplogroup then we cannot say that either, since it violates synthesis. I believe though that Nature is a reliable source. I don't see why we are discussing types of sources: the source used was an article in a peer-reviewed paper in a genetics journal. However there is no reason why otherwise reliable sources such as newspaper articles cannot be used as sources for the list. While some of these sources may rely on amateur research, we rely on writers of reliable sources to distinguish between what is accurate and what is not, something that policy prohibits us from doing ourselves. TFD (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not violate synthesis, but I think Doug's point was that that if the authors explicitly stated that they were unsure about such conclusion, then the quality of the statement was not sufficient for a Wikipedia page. But I think you're right and the best thing to do may just be to add all newspaper and journal sources, including any rebuttals when they exist (and people then can see which genetic haplogroup assignments have been polemic in the past). Thanks! CriMen1 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

bioRxiv (discussion on RS for haplogroups)

This discussion is relevant and related to another noticeboard report regarding whether can be considered as reliable for citation self-published preprint study from BioRxiv for the same type of information (see Gleb Svyatoslavich, Ingvar of Kiev, Rurik dynasty, Rus' people). It is not the authors own website nor their organization's server, it has basic screening and is checked against plagiarism, it is a repository for biological sciences in which are quickly shared preprint results (like in the case of COVID-19) before peer-reviewed publishing, bioRxiv has for a reason own Wikipedian [style template] and is widely cited on Wikipedia. The extensive study in question Population genomics of the Viking World (supplementary material) is credited by 85 experts in their scientific field whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, the first five authors have h-index of 17, 22 32, 25, and 44, the study already was in a review process 8 months ago (see comments), as well as the study was reported by third-party British Archaeology and NewScientist gaining news notability. Although a preprint study at BioRxiv is still not peer-reviewed it doesn't mean it is not reliable because per WP:RSSELF & WP:SPS & WP:USINGSPS the "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". It seems that per editing policy advantage has expert sources who are published in a peer-review journal or self-published preprints but the authors are experts from the relevant field whose sources previously were published in peer-review journals. Hopefully, this discussion will bring to a new explanatory supplement for the editing community regarding the use of self-published expert sources in preprint at bioRxiv. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Who owns the server hosting the material is irrelevant. Screening for Plagiarism is not editorial review. And it is entirely unworkable to claim that anyone who has ever published a science paper is then a reliable source for anything they put online anywhere. A scientific result that has not passed peer review is not reliable. Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's against what's written in the editing policy and guideline, and those 85 experts are not "anyone" like you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That is right, they are not 'anyone, like me', because my CV is better than many of theirs. Shouldn't that make me even more of an expert? And since everything such an expert says is inherently reliable, why are we having this discussion? Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In comparison to Joe Roe, or even me, I don't see where's written you have a degree, better CV or are an expert in anything. You made an exceptional claim about yourself, but there's no substance to trust you on the word. Anyway, nobody cares much if you're an expert or not, Wikipedia is edited according to RS which are independent from ourselves.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Wikipedia is not about the qualifications of editors, but I wasn't talking about that - I was talking about "anyone who has ever published a science paper [being] a reliable source for anything they put online." It was you who here decided to make it about me, saying "those 85 experts are not 'anyone' like you" (emphasis added). That would tend to suggest not only that you thought my qualifications were relevant, but also that you knew enough about them to compare them to those of 85 other people, yet now you instead insist that those same qualifications that you raised are irrelevant, and that you somehow managed to do that comparison without the slightest knowledge of what my qualifications are. Do, please, get your story straight. Or better yet, don't bother: it is unlikely to be productive to this discussion either way. Agricolae (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You started to talk about it, don't lie. I am only replying to what you were already saying. You are the one who treated and compared the experts in the talk pages to "somebody", "anyone", and yourself, downplaying the expertise and reliability of the experts.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if this paper had been peer-reviewed already, it would still be PRIMARY. It's not a review or meta-analysis that would reflect scientific consensus, which is especially important for contentious claims. Just because lay media are reporting on it (because it's going to get clicks, as would any papers relating to race) doesn't mean the results are reproducible or that the authors' conclusions are accurate. Policy aside, in my opinion even though a bioRxiv preprint is more likely to end up being reliable, it's actually worse to cite than something self-published on an expert's website, since the "journal" ref template automatically lends legitimacy to the results (and a lot of readers aren't familiar with aRxiv and so don't know it's not peer-reviewed). Why not just wait for the article to at least come out? I think Agricolae is correct here. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I expressed something similar to JoelleJay's point elsewhere - this novel result you have dropped into four articles and edit warred to retain is not just another incremental scientific study. Its conclusions fly in the face of the centuries-long historical consensus - it has the potential to be paradigm shifting. It would be best to wait and see how it is received by the field, rather than to report that the established consensus is wrong (either directly or by implication) using a single PRIMARY source - and that is the case after it has been formally published, let alone before it has been deemed worthy of publication. Agricolae (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The study doesn't have a single word about the consensus. It doesn't claim or point out that it is wrong. That's your OR interpretation. If bothers you the fact the two mentioned haplogroups are mainly related and present among the Slavic-speaking populations then that information can be removed from the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You want it both ways - you are putting it in two broader-concept articles, but claiming that any consideration of its implications for the broader concept is original research. Agricolae (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't. Why are you lying?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not. Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

PRIMARY has nothing to do with the issue. We are dealing with the genetic fact of the skeletal remains, not an interpretation, and no other studies can find another haplogroup from these which were found, they can only bring further the current results to more downward subclades of the same haplogroups on the phylogenetic tree. Per PRIMARY, it "may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", without any interpretation, as such the mention of the distribution of the same haplogroups and their subclades can be removed. However, the factual information about the Y-DNA haplogroups and atDNA should stay. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not dealing with a genetic fact. We are dealing with a genetic claim that hasn't yet passed peer review, and only time will tell how it comes to be viewed by the field. Agricolae (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you start playing with words? Why you ignore and don't follow what's written in the policy guideline? How the information will be be viewed i.e. interpreted by SECONDARY in the future doesn't have anything to do with information's reliability and verifiability. That's not of our concern.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Agricolae A scientific result that has not passed peer review is not reliable. You have example of Youtube and 170,000 informations on Wikipedia which have Youtube as a source. Where are these information "peer reviewed"? I agree with editor Miki Filigranski that in this case biorxiv is RS, experts are listed there and they control it. It is not a personal research of personal origin, personal ancestors, surname ancestors, relatives, etc on some private portal. I don't believe experts which exist on biorxiv support fairy tales by presenting something falsely through this portal. Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's...a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of both what Agricolae said and what scientific RS means. YouTube is not and should not be used as a source for scientific statements, obviously. bioRxiv is not appropriate for those either, per WP:NOTNEWS and the various guidelines surrounding MEDRS. The expert SPS considerations (which I believe are discouraged for scientific claims anyway) are generally for secondary or tertiary analysis of other people's work. Papers reporting experimental results are decidedly PRIMARY, even when they're published in reputable journals; in this case, the study hasn't even been published yet. Inserting uncontested, unattributed statements like "According to DNA from skeletal remains was of 71% Slavic and 24% Southern European ancestry estimate, belonged to Y-haplogroup I2 subclade I2a1a2b1a1a-Y3120 and mtDNA-haplogroup H5a2a" in wikivoice is entirely inappropriate when it's only based on a preprint that has been languishing in the review process for a year. I would also argue the sentence as phrased (and ignoring the grammar errors) is overly-technical and out of place in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite for everyone where it is stated at NOTNEWS scientific repository like bioRxiv is not appropriate? MEDRS is more strict to primary sources as generally should not be used for medical content but per MEDPRI "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources". The editor Agricolae brought out the issue of context and that primary sources should be used for statements of facts without further interpretation, but it is seemingly contrary to the MEDPRI advise the primary source should be presented with a context and together with secondary sources, possibly like in my edit at Rurik dynasty / Rus' people. As for the sentence you brought up, it is difficult to argue against or pro for the arguments you said, and nevertheless better phrasing, remind that Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? and Wikipedia:Biomedical information show that the MEDPRI was made with biomedical & health information in mind, and not (population) genetics, which makes the reliability issue more complex because these fields information don't have the same approach.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice finding by Mikola22 by the way, the study has been cited in two peer-review published studies The spatiotemporal spread of human migrations during the European Holocene by PNAS and Beyond broad strokes: sociocultural insights from the study of ancient genomes by Nature. It gives the study, besides the expertise and peer review publishing of previous studies of the experts, additional reliability. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, Headbomb, and Trappist the monk: since you discussed, cited, created or edited the sources from bioRxiv or bioRxiv citation style template it would be welcome to hear your rationale on the matter of reliability and usage of preprint scientific studies from bioRxiv per WP:RSSELF & WP:SPS & WP:MEDRS on Wikipedian articles. The scope of this discussion is reaching a clear consensus on the matter because some editors contest the reliability and verifiability nevertheless the expertise of the authors or institutions to which the authors are related.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

arXiv and bioRxiv are not peer reviewed. These are generally fine for routine claims like "X is a protein" or "Research have studied X" but not for "Research has shown that X". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Those two citations to the study are by the study's authors, citing themselves. Note the presence of Racimo and Sikora on all three. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

aRxiv is classified as "generally unreliable" here There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. The part about subject-matter experts is interpretable, but consider the apparent consensus here on using an arXiv preprint of another population genetics study. The circumstances that led to established SMEs sometimes being considered RS seem to have arisen from Grigori Perelman's Poincaré conjecture papers being published exclusively on the arXiv: if it was debatable for WP to use an SPS from someone with that level of expertise and notability, whose exceptionally groundbreaking work was covered extensively by secondary sources, I don't think this paper qualifies. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Good argumentation. However, the mentioned population genetics study had only a single expert with an h-index of 21 when we are dealing here with 85 experts with similar or higher h-index and from different institutions. Also, that source was controversial in its context and statements, while the source on Vikings has nothing controversial in its context and statements. Grigori Perelman doesn't seem to be a good example for exception and argument because per SPS its specifically stated that the expert(s) in the field need to have produced papers published in peer review journals, without any variation on the condition, yet Perelman did not publish a single peer-review paper and as such his self-published primary sources shouldn't be cited at all. Due to this reason, Perelman does not even have an h-index value to analyze and compare the reliability and notability of individual experts. In other words, its exactly the opposite of what you're saying, this preprinted paper with 85 experts who had papers published in peer-review journals qualifies more than any self-published paper by a single expert Perelman.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

True, although I think (declining) the Fields Medal supersedes the (self-imposed) publication requirements, especially since Science ended up honoring his work as "Breakthrough of the Year" (based on the input of open peer-reviewers--essentially qualifying as peer review) and independent mathematicians have since verified his results and built upon them using the frameworks he introduced. Regarding the 85 contributors to the Viking paper: it is hard to say what the definition of established subject-matter expert is, but my interpretation is the person should be well-known as an authority within their field. For example, generally when journalists seek expert opinion on scientific topics, or when high-impact biomedical journals need reviewers, they approach PIs, not post-docs or research associates (who almost by definition of their positions do not have an established track record). I think WP would do well to take this into account for SPS exceptions. On the other hand, there is the interesting question of whether having dozens of authors on a preprint increases the weighting towards being treated as RS, or if authorship position is more important and only first two and last two authors should be assessed. I don't know the answer to that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If is not stated in policy & guidelines and explanatory supplement that individual recognition supersedes the publication requirements i.e. the experts or published in peer review journals or received academic recognition, then its wrong interpretation and including the self-published source is against the editing policy. There could be made a good argument that the quantity of experts gives additional weight to the reliability. Their individual definition of expertise probably should be based on h-index because it is based on journal publishing and citation which is directly related to SPS condition on the experts. I wouldn't place any limit to which authors should be assessed because is prohibiting of correctly defining the expertise value of the quantity.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment @JoelleJay:. You heard my opinion, so I won't repeat myself. See article for R1a, examples: "the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran (2014)", "The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first noted by T. Zerjal and colleagues in 1999", "according to Pamjav et al. (2012), R1a1a diversified in the Eurasian Steppes or the Middle East and Caucasus region", "Ornella Semino et al. (2000) proposed Ukrainian origins"..etc, etc.. these are "peer reviewed" papers with most of the informations from the stone age. This does not mean that because of outdated informations we can put anything and everything in article(these are RS which we must respect), but genetic results change every day and this should be follow because of WP:AGE MATTERS, ie with something quality and new that we have, and this is and bioRxiv, or some similar media, genetic magazine, a newspaper article etc. Y-DNA R-M17 is from European Mesolithic time and the article speaks about spread of Indo-European languages? R1a has connections but younger mutations of the same not R-M17. Mikola22 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the haplogroup articles are poor quality in terms of how they use scientific sources. Citing them to justify source use elsewhere is like pointing to someone traveling in excess of the posted limit as an example to be emulated for road safety.Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should use more recent informations as far as genetics is concerned, that’s the point of my answer, so I won't talk about it anymore. As for bioRxiv is concerns, I found two genetic scientific papers(2020) which use information from that work. It's your right to dispute that source (all options are open to you) but I don't think there should be a problem. For me it is a very quality source especially when we see which institutions participated in it. Mikola22 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And I think the 'bleeding edge' of genetic research, or any science, is emphatically not where Wikipedia should be. I think we should wait on all scientific results to see how the field incorporates them into their broader understanding, rather than just chasing one overhyped, hot-off-the-presses publication (or in this case, pre-publication) after another, when a lot of them land in the broader research community with a dull thud and then are ignored, or worse, brushed aside as an unlikely alternative to the accepted narrative. It is far better to wait and be sure a result is seen as correct and noteworthy than to repeatedly incorporate and distribute, only to then have to remove, information that almost immediately ends up being viewed as insignificant or outright wrong. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The bioRxiv, like the arXiv before it, is not peer-reviewed and should be regarded as generally unreliable. Their own About page says, No endorsement of an article’s methods, assumptions, conclusions, or scientific quality by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is implied by its appearance in bioRxiv. Even statements that look like bare statements of fact ("the percentage of X was Y") can fall apart during the review process, if a reviewer finds a methdological error. There are occasions where pointing to the bioRxiv would be legitimate, just as there are times when we can cite an arXiv preprint, but those exceptions are rare — even more rare for bioRxiv than for arXiv. Pointing to some professor's lecture notes to provide a free-to-read explanation of a decades-old mathematical theorem, for example, is far less troublesome than promoting unreviewed work about human genetics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not supposed to reflect the newest scientific findings: Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). Instead, Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles.... This Wikipedia essay specifically states However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead.

Population genetics studies, like in every other science, can have methodological flaws (as well as interpretation/presentation issues (see the retracted article The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations)). Phase and SNP errors can cloud IBD analyses used for population structure imputation, as false positives increase substantially when you have a lot of unrelated individuals. Haplotype inference, particularly when phasing unrelated individuals and when sample size is low, is prone to switch errors (haplotype is misassigned), with the Beagle software and reference panel (1000GP) used in the study having the highest switch error rate out of 11 approaches assessed in this review (Beagle 4-something is very good for much larger datasets, though). See also the review "Seven common mistakes in population genetics and how to avoid them", this general review on depth and coverage, how small datasets can introduce extreme biases during haplotype reconstruction, and how imputation errors bias genomic predictions. I'm not familiar enough with population paleogenetics to comment on whether their 0.1–11X coverage depth, in conjunction with their sample size of 442 ancient individuals, is considered robust in this field (which I imagine has lower quality thresholds due to aDNA degradation). 30X coverage is the minimum in a lot of medical applications, though. All of this is to demonstrate how important it is for such a sprawling article to be thoroughly reviewed by other experts who can point out inference issues or software limitations etc. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree on recentism, partly on methodological review due to complexity of the research and interpretation of the data (aDNA), but not with stating a simple fact like Y-DNA haplogroup which data cannot be interpreted in different way.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay just explained how in certain circumstances 'Haplotype inference . . . can be prone to switch errors' where the haplotype is misassigned, so haplotype data can indeed be interpreted in different (or at least wrong) ways, and thus the haplotype is no more a 'simple fact' than anything else in such a paper. Agricolae (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Y haplogroup assignment is determined mainly via SNP-calling algorithms (in this paper, Yleaf), with increasing assumptions when phasing with unrelated individuals and when coverage is low (as in this study). Misassignment rate is a common parameter algorithms try to reduce (some of the more widely-used ones have an error rate of ~5%). This also already assumes that wet lab prep was satisfactory, that the Yleaf assumptions/constraints used were appropriate, and that any discordant marker results were correctly accounted for. JoelleJay (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• One can simply follow WP:RS. For example, the review article in Nature (at the top of this thread) is a good RS, and it can be used. Obviously, all methods have limitations and can produce wrong results, but that's beyond the point. Such info can and should be used as something reliably published. WP:MEDRS does not apply to history pages, but that source even passes WP:MEDRS. As about bioRxiv, please remember that RS is not only a place of publication, but reputation of authors. If authors are reputable scientists, I think there is nothing wrong with using bioRxiv. This is not politics or pseudosciaence; there is no incentive to lie; quite the opposite. Changes during the review process are usually not significant if authors have a good reputation. As about specific edits, like that one, the participant removes references not only to bioRxiv, but to a number of other sources, such as "European Journal of Human Genetics", which id definitely a valid RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, you are severely misinterpreting why the EJHG reference was removed there. The EJGH article never mentions the Rurikids, and once the BioRxiv material was removed, we would no longer have any other mention of the haplogroup that the EJHG material is there to explain. So it has to go if the BioRxiv material goes, for reasons having nothing to do with reliability of EJHG. As to the BioRxiv material not being politics or pseudoscience, or the authors telling lies, those are not the biggest concerns, although ti all does happen. What is a concern is the possibility of either flawed technique or interpretation, both of which can affect people at all levels of science, and this is best addressed through peer-review. Without that, all science is simply preliminary. (For that matter, even individual primary papers are preliminary, but at least there has been some level of evaluation.) Particularly with a big-science paper with 85 authors, it is simply not reflective of how the actual process of data collection, interpretation and paper writing works in the real world to suggest that the expertise of the most-published authors imbues the entire work with inherent reliability (which in the more seedy side of science can be the sole reason a well-known researcher might be added to a paper, trading a little resume padding for some second-hand credibility). In this case, the paper doesn't even mention the Rurik dynasty nor name any of its individual members, and it only mentions the Rus' in one sentence. Surely all 85 co-authors didn't add their expertise to that one sentence. 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Agricolae, I did not read these sources. This is just a general comment. Please see Definition of the source in WP:RS. I think you and some others overemphasize the significance of peer review. In science and possibly other fields, the qualification of authors and the quality of their work (2nd component of RS) means a lot more than peer review. The peer review is important, but it does not guarantee anything, including possible retraction of an article after publication, the significance of the work or whatever. "Surely all 85 co-authors didn't add their expertise...". Perhaps they did not, but they must read the paper and be responsible for whole content. Someone arguing that such source is better has valid point. But yes, one could say that "all science is simply preliminary". My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course peer review doesn't guarantee anything, but it at least provides a basic independent evaluation, which is totally lacking in a BioRxiv upload. When science itself considers such non-reviewed works not to be reliable, Wikipedia shouldn't be deciding it knows better because of the ambiguous interpretation of some one-size-fits-all policy. And because all science is preliminary, waiting for SECONDARY sources is even better than chasing every unconfirmed upload of anyone who has ever published a paper. Depending on where this was submitted, a review process going on 9 months is starting to look like there could be real problems with this work, and the thing is, if such problems are identified, that would prevent publication (it happens) the authors are never going to tell us that of BioRxiv, and are unlikely to remove that paper from the Rxiv, so we will be basing a Wikipedia article on material that has demonstrably been rejected, with no way of even knowing it. Yes, one can read that 'expert' provision in a way that says there is nothing wrong with this, but in the context of the way science and its publication process actually works and how unpublished science is actually viewed by scientists, we shouldn't be touching novel claims in non-peer-reviewed material with a ten foot pole, let alone picking one datapoint out of it to make a different point. As to [all 85 authors] 'must read the paper and be responsible for the whole content', let's just say that in actual practice with a big-science paper like this, the collective responsibility can be pretty nominal, and that is when everything is done properly: I have personally seen a high-profile person demand their name be added to a paper when they did nothing but have their post-doc FedEx a reagent, and they felt no need whatsoever to read the actual paper, while I learned I had been a coauthor on one paper two years after it came out. We are reading way to much into the fact that this paper has a small number of experts among its herd of authors. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I realize that was a bit of a wall of text and I didn't want this to get lost: The very first line of WP:RS (emphasis added) ways: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources . . .". When you combine a sub-sub-rule permitting SPS from 'experts' with this explicit top-level requirement for independence, I have to conclude this leeway given an expert for SPS is not intended to absolve their own work from the need for independence that applies to reliability in all other cases. Instead it is allowing a recognized expert to provide the independent evaluation of the work of others in place of the typical editorial or peer review process. There is no independence to a BioRxiv upload. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: For now this paper is used in four genetic scientific papers[194], I think it shows quality of the source. If this source is used in scientific papers, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used on Wikipedia as well. Mikola22 (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly what I am talking about. Consider this article [195] (from bioroxiv and your discussion on talk page). Is it an RS? Just looking at the names of the large group of authors and their scientific affiliations, the answer is obviously "yes". But the argument here is not something being cited in other RS (Kavkaz Center was widely cited, but not an RS), but the fact that a number of highly reputable scientists signed their names under the publication, and they are already fully responsible for it, regardless to any peer review. This is not a questionable personal opinion by a pundit somewhere, but a result of mainstream research. It is another matter that such info might be regarded as "undue" on the page, and again, I am only commenting on the source. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to rephrase, in the spirit of WP:RS, are these numerous people (who put their names) are known for "fact checking and accuracy"? Yes, they certainly are. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I think the same. Mikola22 (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

See, I disagree with automatically elevating the reliability of a paper based on its author number. More authors should imply more eyes on the paper, but in practice this does not happen. Even when all the authors read the entirety of the manuscript, the majority are decidedly not at the experience level of journal reviewers--is a paper really more reliable because four undergrads and a lab tech were added? Author number per paper is rising, but some academics argue this actually corresponds to a negative trend for credibility.

Many fields (like population genetics) have dozens of authors due to the demand for many different types of specialists, most of whom will have zero background in the other areas covered by the paper. A bioinformatician or osteoarchaeologist or cultural conservationist or historian is not going to have the relevant expertise to comment on the quality of wetlab genetics (e.g. DNA extraction, sequencing, phasing, etc.) performed by their coauthors, nor are the wetlab geneticists going to be proficient in the anthropological and sociocultural perspectives of the paper. Even the population geneticists will have experts on modern humans who don't necessarily have any background in how to impute bronze age haplogroups. The numerous subspecialist collaborators actually makes it more important that this paper is thoroughly peer-reviewed by independent experts in each field. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agricolae, you're giving yourself too much freedom of interpretation of what could have or could not have happened in the review process of the paper, making conclusions which go beyond the direct context and conditions explained by the editing policy and scope of this discussion. For such big studies, for e.g. The genomic history of southeastern Europe with over 200 samples it is normal that between received and published date passes almost a year. If we give ourselves the freedom of interpretation of why it is such the case with this study is due to having over 400 samples and review process coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic which influenced everything to be even slightly postponed. Saying that science itself doesn't consider this preprinted paper as reliable is simply not true, you're ignoring and neglecting the fact more than two peer-reviewed papers, two of which were published in highly reputable Nature and PNAS, cited the study implying the study passes scientific reliability for citation. Full stop. Also in another comment, you claimed that the study never mentions Rurikids nor the name of any its individual members. False. Perhaps you're not familiar with the study nor with how are written other big studies - alongside article body in which the samples are mainly named per sample code, there's an extensive supplementary material which is dedicated to the details of the samples, method process, figures, and so on. It has three supplementary files; Supplementary Note 1. Ancient samples and archaeological background mentions the names of the two individuals (Gleb Svyatoslavich, Izjaslav Ingvarevych), their history, anthropological-archaeological information, their DNA sample codes (VK541, VK542), and with a note saying they have this "Relevance for the Vikings: Rurik dynasty". There's Supplementary Note 2. Ancient DNA laboratory procedures and sample selection which is self-explanatory and has basic information on Y-DNA haplogroups which were cited, while Supplementary Table 1: Newly reported ancient individuals has tables in which genetic results, including the cited Y-DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA ancestry estimates.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Think about what you are saying - it is common for a paper like this too need a very long review to ensure it is up to snuff, you say. What does that say for the reliability of the paper when it has not been reviewed? Nothing good. And me giving a hypothetical example of how using BioRxiv could go dramatically wrong and we wouldn't even know it does not somehow represent 'freedom of interpretation'. As to digging into Supplemental information, there is a reason it is only in the Supplemental information - it was not deemed sufficiently noteworthy to be in the paper. Again, that should tell Wikipedia editors something about it. And that makes it even a step fartehr removed from being something we want to be citing, a throwaway line in a supplement in a non-reviewed non-independent self-published source - can we get any farther away from legitimacy? Agricolae (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop with this walls of extrapolations and interpretations which are getting more and more convoluted. You are making up every impossible argument on the way against the reliability of the scientific paper and its experts. If information is in the supplementary material of the paper it doesn't make it less worthy, it's still part of the scientific paper. The only reason it is in the supplementary material it is because specific individual samples and details, nevertheless how much are noteworthy, are not in the immediate scope of the paper thesis and that is population genomics of the Vikings in the general sense. Actually, it does indirectly mention aDNA results of WK541 sample, "Some individuals have strong affinity with Eastern Europeans, particularly those from the island of Gotland in eastern Sweden. The latter likely reflects individuals with Baltic ancestry".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sigh - they could have mentioned the Rurikonid Gleb in the text of the paper. They did not. Everything else is just your convoluted spin to try to justify an inappropriate citation. Agricolae (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider this article [196] (from bioroxiv and your discussion on talk page). Is it an RS? Just looking at the names of the large group of authors and their scientific affiliations, the answer is obviously "yes". Just looking at the disclaimer that is easily accessible from the abstract of that article, the answer is obviously "no".

Readers should therefore be aware that articles on bioRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

We shouldn't take the bioRxiv as more reliable than the owners and operators of the bioRxiv do. XOR'easter (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, this is a reasonable disclaimer, but it tells the obvious and does not disprove anything I said above. It tells:

"Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns.". Sure, everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that such review and the consent to accept does not guarantee the quality of the study. Only the hard work/research by authors of the publication can guarantee it.

"Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the bioRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before completing peer review and consequent certification by a journal. This allows other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. " Oh yes, this is actually a very good thing.

"Readers should therefore be aware that articles on bioRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." Well, authors certainly did their best to finalize their findings and fix errors prior to posting their work online in bioRoxiv. But it is true that their work "has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community". So it will not be necessarily endorsed even after the publication. The publication does not mean the endorsement by the scientific or medical community. Actually, in most cases their work is going to be corrected or refined by colleagues.

• Yes, sure, one must exercise caution, i.e. to look at the authors and their previous studies and affiliations. If they are reputable scientists known for "fact checking and accuracy", it is they rather than reviewers will guarantee the quality of their work. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I can say it differently. WP:RS discourage using the self-published sources, and rightly so. Why? Because it is implicitly assumed that an author has already tried but was unable to publish his work in any good place and therefore resorted to self-publishing. This is especially the case for publications by a single person or by someone who is not an expert. However, the situation with bioRoxiv is completely different: this is not "a cemetery of rejected", but simply an intermediate step prior to a publication in a scientific journal. Having a very strong team of authors who are all experts makes this an RS immediately. My very best wishes (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that confirmation of your claims is and fact that some scientific papers, (I have seen one) have bioRxiv papers as a source. In this genetic scientific paper I seen three sources from bioRxiv. Mikola22 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If they are reputable scientists known for "fact checking and accuracy", it is they rather than reviewers will guarantee the quality of their work. No, it isn't. It really isn't. This is a dangerous distortion of the scientific process. Nobody should be trusted on their reputation alone.

Yes, preprints can be cited. All that shows is that they are sometimes of interest. It's not a stamp of complete approval for their contents. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• A preprint on bioRxiv etc. by reputable scientists is likely to be a reliable self-published source and before too long a reliable published source. But we should still avoid using them because, even after they're peer reviewed and published, they're primary sources. We have a big problem of over-using and synthesising these primary sources in our coverage of ancient and contemporary human genetics. Archaeogenetics is a new field and for the most part its findings have yet to enter the scientific consensus. Recent papers are frequently contradicted by new studies with different sampling strategies. The interpretive framework in which their findings are presented is hotly contested by scientists from other disciplines that study the human past (e.g. archaeologists, historical linguists). Media coverage of them is next to useless as a source, and the circus of layman blogs and forums that follow them (which all too often find their way into our articles) are even worse. This means that even a superficially straightforward fact ("Person X belonged to Haplogroup Y") can indeed be controversial (Is that person representative of a wider population? Can we related that population to a cultural group? Why do we care what haplogroup people are in general?) and should be presented tentatively, in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, or better yet omitted entirely until it's ingested and summarised by reliable secondary sources.

There seems to be a rush to update aDNA-related articles with highly-detailed summaries of the latest findings. But that isn't what encyclopaedias do. We shouldn't be chasing the cutting-edge of science, we shouldn't be swamping articles on ancient cultures and people with walls of text on technical descriptions of ancestry, and we shouldn't be repeating the interpretations of geneticists in Wikipedia's voice without acknowledging the controversy surrounding them – because by doing so we skew Wikipedia's coverage of the human past towards a minority POV. There is good guidance on how to source this kind of article appropriately at WP:SCIRS and I think we should make a push to get that to guideline status and apply it to our archaeogenetics coverage. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is all reasonable, I agree, except that a typical research publication is hardly a primary source. Yes, the "Results" section of such articles should be regarded as primary "materials". However, the Introduction and Discussion sections always provide "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." This is a secondary analysis - per WP:RS, quite obviously. There is nothing wrong with using it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As about the genetic studies versus history/archeology, I agree 100%. For example, in this dispute, the actual issue is not bioRxiv, but the use of such genetic studies in pages on history. If this is a serious claim, I think we need sbome really good secondary sources (reviews or books) which place these genetic findings to proper historical perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the other sections can be useful resources for the authors' interpretation and contextualization of other primary papers, especially since frequently this secondary analysis is not yet curated in review articles. I think this is a reasonable exception to PRIMARY that ought to be clarified better in the guidelines (right now the wording on exceptions suggests primary sources can be used for statements of general facts, which I feel is incorrect since such "facts" should easily be found in and cited to reviews/textbooks instead). Even in this case it should be attributed in-text, however, since reviewers of experimental research are largely (basically 100%...) concerned with the methodology and conclusions of the paper on hand and aren't going to go about confirming every citation's summary is accurate. Review article referees do examine these claims.

Regardless, none of this impacts the issue at hand, which involves stating primary research results as wikivoice facts. I absolutely support what Joe is recommending re: WP:SCIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SCIRS is a good essay and deserves to be elevated to guideline status (modulo reasonable fiddling best discussed elsewhere). XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be citing pre-prints, period. I remember earlier in the pandemic we were having issues on the coronavirus related pages with people citing pre-prints for all sorts of claims, which is unacceptable considering WP:MEDRS, which is much more stringent than the usual RS guidelines. With the rushed peer review even published papers in prestigious journals have been found to have significant errors, like the Didier Raoult hydroxychloroquinine study. When academics complain about peer review I don't think that it is a rejection of review entirely, it is simply that having a public review of a paper where many people can contribute like PubPeer is better, rather than only a few reviewers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Per XOReaster BioRXiv itself would not endorse this.... i.e. their policy is "They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information". Until a paper is published, don't cite it. It takes a lot of scientific experience to evaluate the reliability of a preprint, including advanced degrees and significant relevant experience in the field of interest. Until scientific information has been thoroughly vetted it shouldn't be presented, if there are statement in other parts of the paper that you need you should easily be able to find verifiable information either in the original citation or in publications that cite that article. As a note, attempts by the paper's authors to include BioRXiv articles may fall foul of publication and ethical standards intended to stop promotion prior to peer review, and make the paper ineligible for publication in certain journals. I would even recommend a filter to stop citations. When preprints are cited in academic publications, responsible authors vet the preprint themselves, and carefully note the fact it is a preprint when describing it. 14:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Until a paper is published, don't cite it.? No, there is nothing wrong with that. I have seen citations of BioRxiv papers in newspapers. That's why people are doing their best to put only finalized and corrected version to BioRxiv. Placing your paper in open access online in BioRxiv is already a publication, with all consequences. I never saw anyone "complaining" about peer review. This is very good thing. But this is not "vetting" or approval by the entire scientific community. This is just a review by 2-3 experts which does not guarantee the quality of the publication. This is just better than nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering the arguments and proponents' opinion, it seems the outcome of the discussion is reaching a consensus that preprint scientific primary sources nevertheless the expertise of the authors should be avoided. In the end, this is an encyclopedia and as such, it should be based on primary + secondary reliable sources which reliability can be easily verified. If everyone agrees, as proposed editor XOR'easter, it would be great if SCIRS is elevated to guideline status, with the addition of better definitions and mention of bioRxiv based on conclusions above. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bild

Bild is Germany's leading tabloid newspaper. It has come up twice on the RS noticeboard, In 2008 and 2014. From what I understand Bild is quite controversial in Germany and is in many respects comparable to the british tabloids, editors in particular compared it The Sun, like which it formerly had the equivalent of page 3 girls. It has been cited on enwiki nearly 1,400 times per bild.de  . Going by what's on thelocal.de, Bild appears to have published false or fabricated information several times throughout the last few years 1 2 3, so much so that they had to appoint a fake news ombudsman in 2017. The repeated publishing of false or fabricated information arguably puts it in line for deprecation imo. Can our German speaking editors enlighten us about Bild's reputation in Germany and whether they think it is worth of a deprecation discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

English language sources about Bild:

• Germany's Bild: Political powerhouse or treacherous tabloid? Deutsche Welle, 2012
• Fake News Meets German Racism The New York Times, 2017
• Bild, Merkel and the culture wars: the inside story of Germany’s biggest tabloid The Guardian, 2020Am
• Why Germany's coronavirus 'guru' is being targeted by lockdown critics thelocal.de, 2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am for blocking Bild's usage in the Encyclopedia and expunging citations of it. –Vami♜_IV♠ 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose deprecation, but the newspaper does occasionally print valuable material, such as an essay by German historian Anna Hájková; I think the paper (unlike Daily Fail) is reliable enough not to misprint such an essay. (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Such a strange name for a German historian... As of the source in question, there are certainly much better sources in Germany, but this one is not yet on the level of Daily Mail (eg. they posted an apology for one of the incidents mentioned by the OP: [197]). Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

According to German Wikipedia she’s Czech, not German. The Bild is extremely unreliable and has a right wing bias. I would support blacklisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenrich (talk • contribs)

Being right-wing or not is not whether sources are reliable or not. We are a neutral encyclopedia but follow the reliable sources, biased or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is why the first thing I mentioned was that they are extremely unreliable. That is their reputation in Germany. They are a tabloid.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

datarabia.com

Datarabia.com is being used as a source in many articles regarding middle east, especially when it comes to biographical informations. I can't find anything information regarding this website, regardless the total lack of information about Datarabia.com's owner or owners, on Google and other tools. It looks like a blog and, although I'm not a specialist or a scholar working on issues linked to middle east, I've found a lot of misleading informations especially when it comes to biographies. So, for now, I suggest to undo all sections or sentences that rely only on Datarabia.com, until a consensus is find regarding their reliability. Thanks. --JamesK78 (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It was good enough for Sherifa Zuhur, when she used it in her book.[198] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

UBO is not the only critera we use to decide reliability... (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If UBO could not be the only critera (and btw datarabia.com's UBO is not quite impressive) can I consider this source as non reliable especially when an entire section relies only on it. In many cases, I think it could be quit problematic, and sometimes misleading. This website gives us very few details regarding the people who owns it, in terms of transparency it raises concerns. If I agree that datarabia.com is not merely a blog, I think, regarding all this elements, that it can't be considered as an encyclopedic one. Of course, I'll glad if others contributors could add their analysis regarding this issue. Thx --JamesK78 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Landas

Landas is a peer reviewed journal published by the Loyola School of Theology at Ateneo de Manila University. Roscelese has objected to using it as a source on Catholic moral theology. Is it a reliable source for that topic? (Full ref: Uy, Alberto S. (2003). "The Homosexual Orientation as an "Objective Disorder" and its Limited Meaning". Landas. 17 (2). Ateneo de Manila University.) --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing to debate here. We had a near-identical discussion two months ago about a source that was, similarly, an official arm of the Catholic Church and that, similarly, had an overtly POV aim. It is inappropriate to spam the article with this content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

They are not even close to identical. The previous discussion was about a manual published by a seminary. This is about a peer reviewed academic journal published by a university. Not everything with a Catholic affiliation is an official arm of the church. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole and Roscelese: I don't know if the journal is arm of the Catholic church. But I would think that an official arm of the Catholic church should be a reliable source on Catholic moral teachings, when properly attributed. Am I missing something? VR _talk 08:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Yes, you are. It's not the "is this verifiable" aspect that is a problem, it's the "does it reflect encyclopedic values to include it if sources that meet our standards (in terms of reliability and neutrality) haven't taken notice." Again, this is the same conversation that we had about the previous source. If what Slugger wants to do is dump large chunks of Catholic apologia from rubbish sources into articles, there are probably many Catholic fan-wikis out there that would appreciate his time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Ok, just so I understand what you're saying is that the journal accurately reflects the views of the Catholic church but not everything the Catholic church believes should be on wikipedia, and only the views of the Catholic church that have been covered by reliable secondary sources should be on wikipedia. Is that right, or am I still missing something?VR _talk 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not judging whether or not I think it accurately reflects the views because I don't think it matters. It's a non-independent source whose explicit goal is pushing a POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't like POV-pushing sources either, but apparently we allow WP:BIASED sources. Similarly, we seem to allow non-independent WP:PRIMARY sources. We also allow self published sources "as sources of information about themselves" (WP:ABOUTSELF), which is presumably how Slugger O'Toole wants to use this journal. Even if we didn't allow the journal WP:ABOUTSELF could allow self-published statements by the Vatican into Catholic teaching on homosexuality.VR _talk 02:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We could and we do. But there are limits to that, as the page you're linking makes very clear (one of those limits is "not unduly self-serving" and another is "the article is not primarily based on such sources"). This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Right, so could we not use Landas with those same limits? VR _talk 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In theory, possibly. In practice, AlmostFrancis and I have been working hard to remove fancruft garbage from the article, so attempts to add more feel very WP:POINTy. In practice, are there any statements sourced to this article that you feel should be included, and why, if they cannot be sourced to any reliable source? Since the entire purpose of adding it was, seemingly, apologia, I can't see it not violating the "not unduly self-serving" provision. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do you know what the impact factor of the Journal is? I couldn't find anything definitive and the vague one I found was incredibly low. Do you know the process for peer review at the journal? On the webcite all there are just check marks in a grid, and I can't find any thirdparty sourcing that they do legitimate peer review. As far as I can tell father Uy doesn't have any academic degrees just Sacred Theology degrees from various seminaries and Ecclesiastical programs, and does not have a terminal degree. He may though as it is hard to find information on him. Has anyone ever cited this journal article? Its 17 years old at this point so should be cited at least a couple times if it was seen as of value in the field. You are correct that not everything Catholic affiliated is church run, however, as far as I can tell this school and journal is admittedly church owned and run by the society of jesus. Did they gain independence at some point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
Formerly National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Formerly Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM)

Is this a WP:RS reliable source? Is it a WP:MEDRS reliable source?

Cited on various pages on the topics of medicine and alternative medicine. Example:

Turmeric#Medical research says

"Turmeric and curcumin, one of its constituents, have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, but the conclusions have either been uncertain or negative. Claims that curcumin in turmeric may help to reduce inflammation remain unproven as of 2020."

with a citation to [ https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/turmeric ].

(I ran across the above while investigating Ulcerative colitis#Alternative medicine, which paints a different picture:

"Curcumin (turmeric) therapy, in conjunction with taking the medications mesalamine or sulfasalazine, may be effective and safe for maintaining remission in people with quiescent ulcerative colitis. The effect of curcumin therapy alone on quiescent ulcerative colitis is unknown."

A bit different from what the Tumeric page says.)

Previous RSN coverage::

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (mentioned in passing)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (mentioned in passing)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 186#NCCIH -- discussed in 2015

Criticism from Science, The Journal of the American Medical Association, the Chicago Tribune, and Skeptical Inquirer:
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health#Criticism

Criticism from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Will a name change make NIH research center less controversial?

Mention in passing in Wired:
An Alternative-Medicine Believer's Journey Back to Science

Coverage in Science-Based Medicine:
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM): Your tax dollars hard at work]

Coverage in the Skeptics Dictionary:
NCCAM

Articles in Quackwatch:

• Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Should Be Defunded
• Why NCCAM Should Stop Funding Reiki Research
• NCCAM Studies of "Energy Medicine" Are a Waste of Money

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• NCCIH itself is not a MEDRS (though it funds studies which might be - it has spent, to date, something over $3bn trying to validate alternatives to medicine, with, thus far, zero success). Yes, they were founded to promote quackery, by people with a vested interest in quackery, but they have at least stopped even considering studies on homeopathy so they are not a total lost cause and now they are mainly advocates of the whole "integrative" bullshit (the idea that by integrating quackery with medicine you somehow make medicine better, in the same way that integrating horse apples with bramleys obviously improves your apple pie). I don't see a problem with a summary page that carries one of its negative conclusions, but obviously we need to avoid breathless press releases. Guy (help!) 09:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is NCCAM as was.[199] I would say it was a MEDRS of last resort (like WebMD, Mayo Clinic), okay for backing non-surprising knowledge, but definitely not okay for anything surprising (e.g. treatment efficacy not covered in other good MEDRS). Surprising claims for altmed are WP:REDFLAGs and need better sourcing accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• NCCIH web site [200] - is a low-quality tertiary source. Our turmeric and curcumin pages are much better. As about the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, yes, it is concerning. 22 million spent to answer the question: "Does prayer treat diseases?". And they get the answer: "no, it does not". Well, but this is wrong answer. Of course the psychology, personal beliefs and the mood of a patient can affect the success of his treatments and his choice of medical treatments. That includes true believers praying and refusing to receive a treatment. 22 million wasted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• I believe that the consensus so far is: NCCIH itself (and material published when it was called NCCAM or OAM) is a non-MEDRS, low-quality tertiary source and should be avoided. Studies published only by NCCIH should be treated as MEDRS of last resort (much like like WebMD) that can be used for non-surprising knowledge, but not for anything not covered in other good sources. In particular, nothing from NCCIH should be used as a citation to support any claims regarding alternative medicine, pseudoscience, or treatment efficacy. Does anyone disagree with the above summary? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they can be used to say non-surprising things about treatment efficacy (i.e. that something doesn't work - which as a global default assumption for any treatment is ipso facto unsurprising). Their high-level summaries sometimes contain useful stuff like that, along with other useful knowledge like what people claim, how something is classified with the altmed world and so on. See Tea Tree Oil for an example of where NCCIH is used appropriately, IMO.

It would be good to get something codified for WP:RSP (pinging Newslinger). Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Good clarification. Better than my version. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used, and it may be helpful. This is not a "link to avoid". My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, to ensure that all opinions are accounted for before consensus is evaluated, we usually wait until the noticeboard discussion is archived before adding an entry to the list. Unless there is dissent, your summary looks good and we can adapt it for the entry. — Newslinger talk 02:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• NCCIH is only reliable for verifying that a particular alternative/complimentary/integrative/wellness regime exists and perhaps for what its advocates claim it does. It is explicitly not tasked with scientific/medical exploration of these subjects, and so should not be considered reliable for scientific or medical information. jps (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Indian Journal of History of Science

Publications in the Indian Journal of History of Science are being used for early dates for advances in (very) ancient Indian astronomy. These are both from a person called Anil Narayanan who has no appreciable background in astronomy, or the history thereof, that I can discover. The papers are "The Pulsating Indian Epicycle of the Sun" and "Dating the Surya Siddhanta Using Computational Simulation of Proper Motions and Ecliptic Variations". I don't know how to assess the reliability of edits to Surya Siddhanta.

A Google Search for the terms "indian journal of history of science" "reliable source" wikipedia reveals numerous examples of papers in this publication making quite grand claims about the extreme antiquity of various India-related topics, including Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries, Talk:Brahmi script/Archive 1, Talk:Indian mathematics/Archive 3, Talk:Heliocentrism, Talk:Vedic period/Archive 1, Talk:Heliocentrism/Archive 1, Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 2, Talk:Speed of light/Archive 16, Talk:7th millennium BC, Talk:Indian astronomy/Archive 1. This suggests the journal publishes in contested areas, if nothing else. It is apparently published by a Indian National Science Academy.

GPinkerton (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe a case of nationalism getting in the way of fact checking? (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: That is my thought --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: & @Guerillero: If this is a systematic issue something needs to be done about this as a potentially perennial set of sources ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Journal of History of Science is published by the Indian National Science Academy,[201] so can be considered rs. According to the back bookcover of his self-published book, History of Indian Astronomy: The Siamese Manuscript, Anil Narayanan is a former scientist of the Indian Space Research Organization and a consultant in D.C. It doesn't matter what the background of the author of a peer-reviewed paper is, because it has been reviewed. But it's never a good idea to use original findings in primary sources as sources for articles. We want to first see if other writers accept, reject or ignore the findings and there's also weight.

Having said that, many ancient cultures made accurate projections of the movements of heavenly bodies.

TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The issue is that the paper claims not only that accurate measurements were made of the movements of heavenly bodies, but that they were written down, in c. 3000 BC and transmitted whole, entire, and perfect to the present day. For context, this is at least 500 years older than the oldest Indus Valley script, which is in any case a proto-writing not capable of writing an astronomical treatise with, and 3,400 years older than the other RS's say the Surya Siddhanta is. His claims to be a "former scientist" are self-sourced. His Academia.edu (if it's the right person) claims he's a specialist in Sanskritology, not any kind of astronomy. GPinkerton (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

He says in the second article that the current version of the Surya-Siddhanta dates to 580 AD, then provides evidence that the calculations had been done and written down earlier. In the second article he says, "Some scholars believe the original Surya-Siddhanta to have been composed between 3000 BC and 8000 BC, though most modern scholars place the available version of the text at about 1000 AD." He doesn't say that the modern book was transmitted in whole from thousands of years ago to the present day.

So while he presents an alternative and unlikely theory, he doesn't state it as a fact. Academic journals sometimes publish theories that are in sharp conflict with orthodoxy, provided they are factually correct. But since he doesn't state any facts that are not stated elsewhere and his theory has drawn no support, your question it moot. Maybe the observations suggest an earlier date of writing, although what we know about the civilization precludes it.

His background is irrelevant. Journals fact check and peer review submissions.

TFD (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes he is saying that. He claims the calculations in the text are not accurate because of changes in the axis of the earth and that, arguing from a position of scriptural inerrancy, the text must have been composed at a time when the axis of the earth actually was different, rather than say the text was simply not perfectly accurate. GPinkerton (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

He argues that since the calculations in the thousand year old version are inaccurate, they may have been written at a time when they were accurate, that is at the beginning of the Indus Valley Civilisation or earlier. Where does he say that he bases his conclusions on scriptural inerrancy? TFD (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I read through the talk page discussion. Rather than challenge the publication, it makes more sense to question whether the theory has any weight. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Isolated papers that have received no attention in the literature on the subject don't belong in articles. TFD (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Journals fact check and peer review submissions. They're supposed to. Not all do. I suspect this one doesn't, at least not thoroughly and from a non-biased perspective. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "they may have been written" and "at the beginning of the Indus Valley Civilisation or earlier" is a wild, wild claim which would make the Surya Siddhanta, by far, the oldest written text ever. Ever. It would also pre-date all known forms of writing, and, in order for the calculations to be accurate, the text must have been passed down, unchanged, for fully 5,000 years. The entire argument is based on scriptural inerrancy - i.e., the text's calculations are accurate, so they therefore must have been written 5,000 years ago in order for the calculations not to be inaccurate. The assumption of scriptural accuracy is explicit in the argumentation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Yes, I suspect that the basic grammatical error in the very name of the journal itself is a clue to its less-than-reliable nature. GPinkerton (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the carefully phrased implications in both papers that the calculations were first made at some date between 3000 and 8000 BC, is very fringey indeed, and typical of Hindutva reassertions of traditional Hindu chronology - modern historians think the basis for the events recounted in the Mahabharata might relate to wars around the 9th or 10th century BC, but traditional Hindu thinking places them around 3102 BC or earlier. Individual temples are often claimed to be 5,000 years old. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Humans began recording numeric values at least 40,000 years ago, according to History of ancient numeral systems. It doesn't seem paricularly outlandish to try to determine whether the calculations were accurate at some point before the book was published but humans were able to record them. It's not outlandish either that the Indus civilization would have paid attention to the motion of heavenly objects. In any case, the journal is peer-reviewed[202] and published by the Indian National Science Academy.

Reliability refers to facts. We expect that the facts in peer-reviewed journals are accurate. We do not expect that every article published merely summarizes generally accepted views and never provides any new theories. Journals exist in order to publicize new research and theories. Ultimately some of these theories will be questionable and most of those will receive no attention from other writers. It's a problem in Wikipedia that determined editors can find papers representing all kinds of unorthodox views. The American Psychological Association's journal, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, published the article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" as late as 2005. That doesn't mean the journal fails rs or that we have to accept the findings in the paper.

It doesn't matter either what an author's motivation is for their beliefs, provided they do not base the conclusions in their papers on those beliefs. So for example someone may write a paper for an historical journal arguing for or against the historical existence of Jesus. While their opinions may be influenced by their views on religion, the paper would be assessed on the strength of its arguments from facts not beliefs.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: We're not talking about notches on a stick (notice the History of ancient numeral systems article makes no mention of anything more complicated a tally on a stick until a significantly younger date than that alleged for the Surya Siddhanta), the Surya Siddhanta uses sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry. It is moreover written in Sanskrit verse, which it would also be a massive claim (and wrong) to state existed 5,000 years ago. Put Surya Siddhanta into YouTube and see what comes up: Hindu-nationalism and Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, who just might be a relative in more than ideology to the infamous P. N. Oak (the Hindu hyperdiffusionist who alleged the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple, among other absurdities.) As for It's not outlandish either that the Indus civilization would have paid attention to the motion of heavenly objects that's correct, but is then much more outlandish to claim 1.) the Indus Valley civilization had writing (they didn't) 2.) the Indus Valley civilization could have written in Sanskrit (they couldn't) and 3.) the Surya Siddhanta was, or even could have been, written millennia before the IVC got off the ground (it wasn't). You said that It doesn't matter either what an author's motivation is for their beliefs, provided they do not base the conclusions in their papers on those beliefs. but this is exactly what is happening here. Johnbod is right to link this with the neo-nationalist movement in favour of the historical reality of the Mahabharata; see for instance: the Indian Science Congress and the Eastern India Science and Engineering Fair and the National Informatics Centre. Basically, if it exists, it existed in, and was invented in, (really very) ancient India, or so the claim runs. Where is the evidence the Indian National Science Academy is a reliable institution in the 21st century? Its own article is all self-sourced and full of that which puffeth up. We say distinctly that it is "not to be confused with the Indian Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Sciences, India". Where is the independent witness to its credibility and that of its organs? GPinkerton (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• If they publish nonsense like this masqueraded as a scholarly paper, there is not even a little hope for reliability. This is even worse than Daily Mail. Accepting date between 3000 BC and 8000 BC as a minority view of some scholars is the same as writting "Some scholars believe the Earth is flat, though most modern scholars...". If there are other examples like this, "depreciating" this source may be the best course of action. Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization: pt. 1 (Pearson Longman, 2011), Chapter 5, the Indian National Science Academy is referred to as the premier science academy in India, financed by the government.

Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC. Obviously the Indus civilization probably had no written language and did not speak Sanskrit, but they used symbols to record information. But I don't think the papers claim otherwise. I notice you haven't addressed whether the calculations would have been more accurate in 3000 BC than in 800 AD. Of course if they were, it doesn't prove anything but if they weren't then it would be an obvious failure of peer review.

As I mentioned above, there is no reason to use the papers in any articles since they lack weight for inclusion. But i don't think the fact they were published means that we should blacklist anything from the Indian National Science Academy.

TFD (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately in recent years Hindu Nationalists have penetrated deep into Indian academia (with government support). This is a major problem at *all* levels of Academia in India as the government their has been appointing ideologues with little in the way of academic credentials or competence. This seems to fit well within the bullshit these nationalists and charlatans spread. I’m not saying that today we have to blacklist India’s august academic institutions but in five years we might have to, its going downhill fast. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC". Please also update Babylonian mathematics with this reliable information, if extant... GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, see "An Exhibition That Gets to the (Square) Root of Sumerian Math" (Wade, Nicholas. New York Times, Nov. 22, 2010.) "Sumerian math was a sexagesimal system, meaning it was based on the number 60....The idea seems to have developed from an earlier, more complex system known from 3200 B.C." And later: two tablets "bear[] on the issue of whether the Babylonians had discovered Pythagoras’s theorem some 1,300 years before Pythagoras did." (i.e., approx. 1800 BC) It's not like claiming they had invented calculus, measured the speed of light or discovered Pluto.

Horse Eye Jack, there are a lot of questionable theories published in historical and social sciences journals. In those cases I think the best first objection is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". We shouldn't use claims that are not covered by multiple mainstream sources and go significantly against mainstream assumptions. Even when claims are not exceptional, weight deems then insignificant for inclusion. But if historical journals in India depart significantly from journals from major academic publishers, then we should revisit the issue. But right now the author of the sources presented concedes that his views are not mainstream.

TFD (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Sorry, where does the NYT mention trigonometry? GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear from the article that they were talking about trigonometry. If you are interested in learning more, it's covered in an article, "Plimpton 322 is Babylonian exact sexagesimal trigonometry" (Historia Mathematica, Nov 2017). The abstract says, "We trace the origins of trigonometry to the Old Babylonian era, between the 19th and 16th centuries B.C.E." Their findings were written up the New York Times in "Hints of Trigonometry on a 3,700-Year-Old Babylonian Tablet" (Aug 29 2017). I don't know whether any of it is true and do not suggest it be added to any articles. TFD (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It's clear they're talking about trigonometry for the Plimpton 322 tablet. What's not clear is how that artefact, dated 1900-1600 BCE supports your claim "Sumerians used sexagesimal fractions and trigonometry possibly as early as 3000 BC".

The NYTs "3,700-Year-Old" ≠ 3000 BC.

3,700 years ago is 1,700 BC.

That kind of error is rather like dating the invention of the diesel engine to the reign of Maximinus Thrax. GPinkerton (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't know at what point they discovered trigonometry if in fact they actually did. Since Sumerian civilization flourished from c. 4500 – c. 1900 BC., the artefact could have been based on an earlier model.

We know the diesel engine was invented in 1893 because we have documentary evidence. We also know that ancient civilizations lacked the technology to produce them. Also, it presupposes a great deal of knowledge of mathematics and physics for which evidence would exist. We would not for example see them building ziggurats if they understood Newtonian physics. We'd see Eiffel Towers and skyscrapers. But we can't say with certainty they were unable to calculate the length of a hypotenuse. All we can say is that it is unlikely. While looking for diesel engines in Sumeria would be irrational, looking for traces of basic mathematical abilities is not.

TFD (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: But traces of basic mathematical abilities is not what the author of the papers proposes. The idea is that advanced mathematical abilities existed c. 3,000-8,000 BC, were used to compose a text in a language that did not exist, were written down in a script that did not exist, and was then preserved by manuscript copying, together with its increasingly erroneous calculations, until the present day, uncorrupt. Meanwhile those abilities were mysteriously lost and had to wait thousands of years before their rediscovery in the Enlightenment and thereafter. Elsewhere, the fringe theorists (author included) claim the Surya Siddhanta used a heliocentric model and accurately predicted the orbits of trans-Saturnian planets quite invisible to the human eye without magnification or radio telescopes, presumably using the same lost technology with which they built the pyramids (doubtless a Vedic temple). How is this any different from ancient civilizations lacked the technology to produce diesel engines? Supposing Sumerian civilization invented trigonometry millennia before there is any evidence for it is almost as bad. The Romans build roads everywhere they, went: are you sure they might not possibly have done so the purpose of driving their automobiles across the empire? GPinkerton (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he is saying that, merely speculating that the calculations in the text were made long before when they were accurate. Of course this type of finding may give succor to people who believe what you are saying and even ancient astronaut theorists for that matter.

Bear in mind that the actual text is from the 1400s AD and is generally accepted as being based on a text written around 800 AD, probably based on calculations from the 300s to 400s. If you think that text could only have been written if they had access to radio telescopes and knew about planets beyond Saturn, wouldn't the theory that the text was written even as late as the 1400s be fantastic? Do you think it's a forgery? That seems doubtful because radio telescopes were invented in the 1930s, while the text was written about in the 19th century. (You might want to add that to the article.)

TFD (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The interpretation that it 1.) discusses trans-Saturnian planets, including Pluto, and 2.) offers a a heliocentric model are both claimed by devotees and repudiated by mainstream scholarship on the text. It's not me this needs to be explained to! I actually have already added the point about Pluto to article, some days ago. At some point the article claimed the Surya Siddhanta dealt with bodies not discovered until recent centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says, the Surya Siddhanta "makes no mention of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, since these planets are not visible without telescopes." I don't see anything wrong with that. We can mention what the book doesn't include. I don't remember where the texts were discussing Pluto either. Maybe you could provide a quote. You might be confusing the articles in this discussion thread with sources that have made these claims. TFD (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused. I wrote that text. GPinkerton (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember Anil Narayanan mentioning Pluto. TFD (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

See here. GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

First, that's not one of the two papers we were discussing and was not published by the Indian Journal. Secondly while he mentions Pluto, he does not claim that the Indus civilization knew about it. As you correctly point out, without modern technology they would have had no way of detecting it. TFD (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wen Wei Po

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Wen Wei Po? wenweipo.com/   has been cited around 440 times on Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Wen Wei Po)

• 3–4 based on Newslinger and Adamant comments below. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Extremely limited press freedom in China, serious questions raised about the papers credibility, appears to be a mouthpiece for Beijing. Claims have been raised about interference by the CCP in the past and has also been accused of publishing falsehoods. Bacondrum (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 or 4, see explanations given before the survey was created. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 or 3: RSes say that it is state-owned and advocates for the Chinese government, so there are legitimate press freedom / editorial concerns. I haven’t seen RSes say that they publish false or fabricated information though, just a single blog post. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 Due to lack of press freedom from being owned by the Chinese government. Along with printing false and intentionally negative stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 This article on Wikipedia by Ta Kung Pao (which has merged with Wen Wei Po) fails to understand that several Hong Kong opposition figures were indeed born in British Hong Kong which is why that is reflected in their infoboxes, apparently suggesting that this is a "criminal offence" which is totally bizarre. Both papers are controlled by the Hong Kong Liaison Office, an organ of the PRC government. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Wen Wei Po)

Hello. I'd like to know the general notability of the Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po since it has came up in AfDs a few times and I'd like to add it to the list of perennial sources. The Wikipedia article for it says it's a pro-Beijing news outlet and there was a post about it on Reliable Sources Noticeboard here back in 2011 that generally seemed to agree. The last noticeboard discussion only had a few participants though and from reading it over the consensus that it's not reliable doesn't seem conclusive. So, I'd like a more definitive answer as to what it's reliable for, if anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Call it lack of neutrality then. I don't really care because it's just splitting hairs over semantics. People here know what makes a source reliable or not. I don't feel the need to spend 50 thousands words making sure I get every single nuance of what makes a source reliable or not perfectly correct. The import thing is if Wen Wei Po can be used as a source and for what. Which every can judge, whatever term I use. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What makes an RS is accuracy, so they tell porkies?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously. Which bias has something to do with. Especially in relation to Chinese sources and Hong Kong. I'm not the judge of if they toll lies or not. That's on people who comment to decide. Although, personally I don't think they are 100% accurate with topics related to Hong Kong, but my opinion doesn't matter here or I'd just be having this discussion alone, with a wall. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC. This is just a general reliability question, and doesn't need an RfC. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Should I change the title to be a regular discussion then? Tbh, I wasn't sure what the difference was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

An RfC is used for calling for a sources deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable. This is so we can get the view of people from all over the Wiki, and not just those who regular this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I changed the title so it's not an RfC. Since that doesn't sound like what I wanted to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia is being somewhat misleading here. Emir of Wikipedia really doesn't like the concept of depreciation and I understand his perspective. However calling a RfC doesn't mean that the source must be unreliable, though obviously calling a RfC on an obviously reliable source like the NYTimes would be pointless. A RfC means that the discussion will get a formal close and verdict, and can be added to the reliable sources noticeboard immediately. Admittedly I don't think that your RfC was properly formatted. wenweipo.com   has been cited signficantly more than the Apple Daily has, with around 440 citations. I would recommend pinging the participants of The Apple Daily RfC, as they will probably be familiar with this source, as well as leave a link to this discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The top of this page says "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument." Even if my views on deprecation are well known they were not why I was against the RfC. In my view an RfC to call people from around the Wiki, whereas this whole page is for discussing sources. I agree that the WikiProject would be a good place to get other views on the matter though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support an RfC if Adamant1 were interested in restoring the RfC tag. RfCs are intended to solicit participation from a broad section of the community. The 2019 header text RfC endorsed the use of RfCs on this noticeboard for questions of general reliability. RfCs do not necessarily have to propose deprecation; they can ask any question as long as the statement is brief and neutral. For regional sources such as Wen Wei Po, an RfC would attract more opinions from editors who are not normally involved in the Hong Kong topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I changed it back to an RfC. If that's what would allow it to be listed in WP:RSP then I'm for it. I don't think it would get many comments in the Hong Kong Wikiproject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

​Could you please also follow the instructions at WP:RFCST? You'll need to write a brief and neutral statement at the top of the discussion, then apply the {{rfc}} tag. Please see this RfC for a commonly used example of how the RfC can be formatted. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks. I've sectioned the discussion, since none of the existing comments specify an option. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The main problem is with Wen Wei Po is a lack of editorial independence. Personally I would never use it and I’d probally seek to remove or replace it if I came across it but I think they’re a 3 not a 4 on our traditional scale and as such WP:DEPS seems a bit too far, generally unreliable is accurate as far as I understand. If anyone has clear cases of pushing false and misleading information I would be willing to reconsider. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: You said here not a 4 but your !vote includes 4? — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no survey at that time. The responses which followed mine did in fact include cases of pushing false and misleading information (hadn't seen the Baltic stuff before, that was atrocious). I still have some reservations about deprecation hence the 3 or 4 instead of a straight 4, but I would take that with a grain of salt because I know my personal bar for deprecation is higher (or lower depending on how you want to conceptualize it) than the vast majority of wikipedians. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily (RSP entry) is the third-most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 5.71/10) according to a 2019 Chinese University of Hong Kong survey of the public. The same survey listed Wen Wei Po as the second-least credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong (with a score of 3.43/10). As Apple Daily is considered a marginally reliable source, Wen Wei Po is likely either marginally reliable or generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found an article here about them mocking the conditions in Baltic states. Along with this article on how they printed a fake story about rioters burning down a building. They have also printed fake pictures. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium stores aren't exactly the most reliable sources themselves. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Medium is a blog host. We would need RSes about fake or fabricated reporting to deprecate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The source in question here is literally owned by the Chinese (Communist) central government and should be examined in that context. That being said, them being viewed in a poll as one of the least credible sources in Hong Kong needs to be considered in the context of the change of many people in Hong Kong towards an anti-Beijing point of view, which means they'd view pro-Beijing sources as unreliable. Heck We shouldn't be so easily dismissing a state media organization as "generally unreliable" due to bias or occasional government interference. The CBC, BBC, or whatever else "public broadcasters" have pretty intense biases of their own and have been interfered with despite nominal editorial independence. Heck NPR now has less than 50% of Americans considering it "credible" and was actually the least trusted news outlet out of 9 major ones in America. By the same logic since NPR gets their money from the US government and is generally considered unreliable by Americans we should be treating it as an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Press freedom is a factor that many editors consider when evaluating reliability. China's #177 ranking ("very serious situation") out of 180 countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index is a strong negative indicator of the reliability of Chinese media sources (the largest of which are state-owned), and makes it unsurprising that the issue of press freedom is raised in just about every discussion on Chinese sources. The phrase "occasional government interference" severely understates the extent and scope of censorship in Chinese media. It is a false equivalence to compare NPR (RSP entry) to Chinese state media in light of the United States' #45 ("satisfactory situation") ranking on the 2020 Press Freedom Index. Also, the NPR is primarily funded by non-government sources; see NPR § Funding for details. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Newslinger and Bacondrum: Press freedom is certainly a relevant factor. But China's ranking in the 2020 Press Freedom Index isn't the directly relevant ranking. The newspaper is in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, which is ranked 80th out of 180 in the 2020 Press Freedom Index (above countries like Israel, Brazil, Philippines, and India). It's controlled by the Chinese government, which is a separate factor, but for Press Freedom Index purposes it's in Hong Kong. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how much autonomy a journalist working for the Chinese government has when they are working outside of China. My guess is not very much. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I would guess the same. But that’s due to them working for the Chinese government rather than the Press Freedom Index of the newspaper's jurisdiction. The source Lee, Chin-Chuan (1997). "Media Structure and Regime Change in Hong Kong". In Chan, Ming K. (ed.). The Challenge of Hong Kong's Reintegration with China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. pp. 113–147. ISBN 9622094414. from Wen Wei Po says that at the very least, the Chinese government reduced its control over the newspaper. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This paper is in Hong Kong, where better alternatives exist, so I have no issues with it being labeled unreliable. However, for mainland China topics I think we will have to accept newspapers with slightly lower standards, lest we risk massive systematic bias. All domestic sources are going to be at least somewhat pro-CCP (or they wouldn't be allowed to exist), so banning all pro-CCP sources would have the effect of requiring all mainland China topics to be covered in international media before we consider them notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd publisher: Ed-Tech Press

Someone recently added "Ethics for Governance" ISBN 978-1-83947-390-6 by Kai Cabrera. The Introduction is word-for-word copied from the 2018 iteration of our page on ethics. So is most of that section. The material prexisted the publication of the book. The meta-ethics section right after is word-for-word from our 2018 version at meta-ethics. Same for normative ethics as so on. Every single sentence I checked was copied from here. I don't see any attribution in the text. It's possible there's something at the end of the "book" - the google book preview is limited. Clearly not a WP:RS and appears to be a simple published mirror, like PediaPress.

The publisher seems a little odd; address is an accountancy, presumably used for forming the company. Tons of these kinds of books with authors that don't seem to exist. For example, this one was complied by ""Keywon Frazier." Odd that an author of "Animal Transgenesis and Cloning" has no other presence on the internet other than booksellers of this particular work. Parts of that book are again copied from here as well as other papers. Every book I checked had copied material.

There are about 27 citations to this publisher. Would like a second opinion before I take action.Kuru (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove them all, I'd say. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Whether predatory publishing, or otherwise; it's clear this publisher and their works cannot be considered reliable sources. Entirely agree with removing the lot. Jack Frost (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yep, I’d say you are cleared to nuke that publisher. Happy hunting. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• WP:CITOGENESIS strikes again. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks to Kuru for cleaning out these unreliable sources. I had noticed something strange was going on around the same time Kuru noticed it: see also User talk:Henry.R1 § Questionable references. Biogeographist (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of a politician's tweets and On The Issues

Please see Tom O'Halleran. This is the content in question. It is sourced entirely to the politician's own tweets and press releases, and to On The Issues. The citations to On The Issues, such as here, are merely snippets of O'Halleran's campaign website. ("Ban luxury trips: Luxury trips paid for by special interests happen under the guise of keeping members of Congress informed...Source: 2016 Arizona House campaign website TomOHalleran.com , Nov 8, 2016." I was very surprised to see an administrator, Missvain, make these edits. I reverted them, and she said she was "shocked" by my reversion. Am I crazy? Are we allowing these kinds of non-independent sources in the articles of members of the U.S. Congress? O'Halleran, and indeed most politicians, have tweeted (and used other social media platforms) thousands of times. Unless a particular social media post was picked up and discussed elsewhere, why is a particular tweet noteworthy enough to include here? Marquardtika (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, On The Issues seems to be okay to me, as long as we consider it a WP:PRIMARY source. OTI does seem to simply rehash info from the politician without providing secondary analysis. It'd be better to find secondary sources, if possible, and is important to be careful in the context OTI is used. If we're discussing where a politician stands on the issues, their own statements can be useful, with caveats. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Issues is largely volunteer run. I think we need to be very careful with sites like this. There is a ton of data there, but seemingly no editorial oversight...and the way I have often seen OTI used is in a pretty contextless, cherry-picked way. I really don't think we should ever be using it absent other sources. Politicians have views and have made statements about lots of things; if those views/statements haven't been covered or discussed in independent sources, they aren't likely to be noteworthy enough to include in their biographies, and instead are likely to reflect the bias of editors who feel like picking and choosing which positions to include on a page. Marquardtika (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, no, you're not crazy. The content about O'Halleran (including his views) has to be consistent with the BLP policies. So a site like On the Issues, which appears to be self-published, isn't an acceptable source due to WP:BLPSPS. A quick look at their "about us" info (on their "join" page) indicates that they simply gather info from other sites, so if any of those other sites are acceptable, better to go directly to the other source. As for his tweets, his campaign site, etc., WP:BLPSELFPUB applies: a small amount of material sourced to self-publications is OK, but it can't be the majority of the sourcing. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A tweet from an account that is definitely controlled by the person whose account it purports to be (e.g. a blue check account, or an account linked from a RS) is, in my opinion, fine to attribute statements made by that person but it probably should not be used to write content in Wikipedia's voice or assign quality to those statements. I would prefer this content sourced to this tweet [203] -

• He co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, therefore supporting police reform, including improved transparency, and accountability.

- be rewritten thus -

• According to O'Halleran, he co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which he said addressed "police reform by improving transparency, [and] setting standards for accountability".

Chetsford (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing someone's views to statements by them (twit-like or otherwise) doesn't have reliability issues, but it raises a significant question of due weight: dude presumably makes lots of statements in public fora, why should this one or that one get picked out by Wikipedia editors for special notice? --JBL (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Joel B. Lewis, exactly. I said as much on the article's talk page. I have now attributed the recent additions and they all emanate from O'Halleran's 2016 campaign website and tweets he made in June and July 2020 (and in once case a press release from his office). The tweets alone make up the majority of the article. This seems to me a very poor use of WP:SPS and it is leading to WP:UNDUE issues. I have no idea why, out of his thousands of tweets, we would feature a handful from two months in his entire congressional tenure, especially when there are plenty of reliable independent sources out there--newspapers, for example. Missvain, it would be helpful for you to weigh in here to share your thinking. Marquardtika (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• While there are possible situations where we could cite a tweet by a verified account, it has to be done with extreme caution. Some things to consider:

• Is it unduly self-serving? A statement that is framed in plainly self-flattering terms, which stakes a claim to beliefs that are obviously popular, or which casts the speaker in a good light cannot be cited to a primary source. Something like stating that they support freedom of speech or oppose tyranny shouldn't be cited to twitter because it is obviously self-serving; similarly, in-depth defenses of (or apologia for) their own views are generally self-serving. Is it a clever, snappy quip that someone wants to include because it does a good job arguing for their beliefs? It shouldn't be cited to a primary source (or, at least, we should avoid quoting the snappy emotional framing unless we have a secondary source for it.)
• On the other hand, is it potentially-negative? For example, has an editor drudged up a quote where they seem to express racist beliefs, which no secondary sources have covered? Oddly, this isn't strictly forbidden under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSPS, but it's generally going to be WP:OR or fail to meet the criteria necessary for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Basically, are we citing a tweet for a viewpoint that readers are going to find surprising or shocking? In that case we probably need a secondary source.
• Similar to the above, is the tweet generally representative of their views, or is it an outlier? If it's not the way they usually present themselves, and it has no secondary coverage, then we'd likely be giving it WP:UNDUE weight to cite it directly. Again, the idea is that editors shouldn't be going through someone's twitter feed and plucking out tweets in order to prove something in particular about them.

If it's an unexceptional viewpoint that isn't particularly self-serving and which generally reflects how they're portrayed anyway, we might be able to use it; an example might be a politician expressing a view that is standard for their political party. But in that case, why hasn't it been covered anywhere else? For this reason the possible situations where we can use a self-published source for a statement of someone's views are fairly narrow. As it says in WP:SPS, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should not use tweets and indiscriminate compilers of positions (such as On the Issues). A politician's stated positions may be nuanced in a way that can't be captured by a tweet. Furthermore, the context behind a position can't be captured by a tweet. For example, a politician may state that they are against late-term abortions and phrase it in language such as "we can't let people do abortions just before a baby is born" – secondary RS would however clarify that late-term abortions are universally used in situations when the baby is not viable or when the health of the mother is at risk. Similarly, a politician may flip-flop on issues or hold multiple contradictory positions (Donald Trump for example held multiple positions on the minimum wage) – secondary RS would note that the politician holds contradictory positions or has changed the position whereas self-serving tweets would not do that. RS coverage is also helpful in determining what's DUE and what isn't DUE, whereas a self-serving tweet or a compiler such as On the Issues does not give any such indication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this PRIMARY or unreliable?

Regarding a recent discussion at Talk:Szmalcownik#Władysław_Bartoszewski_as_WP:PRIMARY. A historian (Władysław Bartoszewski) has been interviewed by another historian (Andrzej Friszke). This interview was published in a book by yet another historian (Andrzej Kunert) published by a reliable body (Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites). The source in which this excerpt or discussion is described at described WorldCat as follows: "A collection of documents concerning the Warsaw ghetto, the uprising in 1943, declarations and appeals sent by the Polish government-in-exile about the situation of the Jews in Poland, and the founding of Żegota in 1942 and its activities. Pp. 5-36 contain an interview carried out by Polish historian Andrzej Friszke with Władysław Bartoszewski, one of the founders of Żegota. They discuss an anti-Nazi Polish conspiracy during the war, the situation in the ghetto, and Żegota activities". Bartoszewki was cited and attributed for a claim he makes about WWII here: [204]. This was removed twice as WP:PRIMARY by User:François Robere who additionally argued this does not meet WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. I disagree, as I think the source is reliable, both in terms of the publisher and the historians involved, and the historian quoted (Bartoszewski) is not even being quoted to talk about his personal experiences, but about the wider war-related topic, on which he is an expert in his professional capacity (all three historians are experts on WWII). Can we get feedback on whether this source is indeed PRIMARY and whether an attributed quote to Bartoszewski can be present in the article, or not, in light of the applicable policies and guidelines? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well, why not use some of his scholarly work for such an attributed claim? This source is reliable for Bartoszewki´s opinion, but its usability is limited outside of that (like with any interview). Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Interviews are indeed primary sources, it doesn't matter if they've been selected for publication in a particular primary source collection. Citing a primary source lends itself to cherry-picking (although I doubt that is happening in this particular case), which is why we have the article sourcing expectation to begin with. We don't want to set a precedent that inclusion in scholarly collections indicates reliability because it may indicate the opposite (sources might also be chosen, in some cases, because they are inaccurate in some interesting and useful way). Now, I personally believe that this source is probably accurate, but agree with Pavlor that it would be better to cite the information to a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• The interview was published in a "collection of documents" (wybor dokumentow), and Bartoszewski is interviewed as a founder of Żegota on subjects that pertain to his activity at the time.[205] That's WP:PRIMARY by every measure. If Piotrus can source the claim to a secondary or tertiary source, then Bartoszewski can be used to elucidate. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not to comment on this case specifically since I know nothing about the people involved, but where did you all get the idea that primary sources are not allowed and that sources can be removed on account of being primary? This is one of the most persistent false myths about policy. You all need to visit WP:PRIMARY and read what the policy actually says. The three "Do not"s you can read there are a fine summary of what is not allowed. You can't eliminate an interview merely on the grounds of being primary, you just aren't allowed to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" it. Zero^talk 13:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The inference being used is that when there are no secondary sources supporting the same information, it can be excluded on grounds of undue weight. (It could also be that this is a case where the current practice is changing or has changed, and policy just hasn't caught up yet. Certainly the more controversial the topic, the more useful it can be to focus on secondary sources only.) Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But we will inevitably be forced to synthesize, since there's such a variety of WP:PRIMARY sources in this field, and on certain questions - like the extent of help given to Jews by the underground state - they're often contradictory. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Answering both) We often use interviews with experts reported by newspapers. The weight of something does not depend on whether it is primary of secondary. Next, if we can't use a source without "analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing" it, we shouldn't use it. That also is true for both primary and secondary sources. Contradictory sources are not a problem: we either agree that one is more reliable than the other, or we present both. It is just NPOV policy, which also doesn't depend on primary vs secondary. Zero^talk 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources only contribute minimally to weight in most circumstances, because they don't tell us about the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That's an issue of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and an editor using only primary sources to address it would be engaging in original research. If something is only discussed in primary sources, the implication (except in cases like breaking news) is that no author of an analytic (etc) source has thought that it's important enough to deserve mention. An expert's viewpoint reported in a newspaper has been subject to the newspaper's (analytic) editorial judgement on how the viewpoint is presented, which quotations to use, and even which expert to interview in the first place, which grants the viewpoint more weight than viewpoints that are not reported in such a manner. One way to frame part of the issue here is whether the reprinting of the interview involves sufficient analysis (etc) to grant enough weight to support inclusion. Sunrise (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• As best I can tell from the article sourcing expectations, primary sources aren't specifically excluded, as long as they appear in one of the accepted publications. So I don't think the key question is whether the interview is PRIMARY, but whether this book satisfies the requirement for "academically focused books by reputable publishers." I have no expertise in this area, but looking at the WorldCat info (both the description and the list of U.S. libraries that have copies of this book) and having looked up more info about the publisher, my sense is that the book does meet that requirement; that is, the book appears to be both academically focused and published by a reputable publisher. Although an interview is normally a primary source, in this case, the primary sources in the book are the 1942-1945 documents that appear in the pages after the interview (the interview is more recent, and the two people involved in the interview could instead have co-authored a non-interview introduction to the book, but they chose to use a contemporary interview instead; I don't read Polish, and one question is whether the interview constitutes a secondary source discussion of the primary sources in the rest of the book). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, this is about removing citation "Every Pole who cooperated..." (diff). Yes, I agree with Piotrus that such citation of a primary source is good and appropriate. However, I also agree there is a problem with the "bare citation". It must be placed to proper context, based on another secondary RS, for example "Officials of Żegota repeatedly appealed to the Polish Underground State to act against blackmailers [ref]", or something else. But this may indeed be covered by this discretionary sacntion. Too bad. This poorly conceived sourcing restriction prevents participants from development of content. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• From looking at the artice it seems that Władysław Bartoszewski is not really a historian but a politician. He only has honorary degrees and was stripped of the professor title by request of the German and Pollish academic societies. The publisher is governmental not academic and reportable to the Polish prime minister therefore also political. Morover, when this was published Bartoszewski was the cheif officer of the publisher and took credit as an author of the book so WP:PRIMARY and bordering on self-published. I think this is the exact kind of source that should be not be used due to the exteneded sourcing expectations.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Actually it is a bit worse than I thought, Kunert was more than likely a doctoral student when he performed the interview. Also he later became the sectretary general of the publisher, hired by none other than Bartoszewski. Friszkel was working for the IPN at the time which has a rather dubious repuation for this kind of content. The is an incredibly well researched field and there is no excuse for using such limited sources.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bartoszewski was never “stripped of the professor title” and there’s no source that says that. The title “professor” was simply removed from a website because his title is honorary. As the source itself says, other officials and websites have chosen to continue to use the title. His title was honorary (given to him in Germany first as he taught some courses there) and many still use it today ([206], [207], [208]). From The Economist's obituary: "The war, stints in jail and persecution meant he had no formal higher education. Though he was a sought-after lecturer on history, and author of dozens of books, in status-conscious Poland some begrudged him the self-awarded title of “Professor”. But most thought he had earned it, and a lot more besides." He simply doesn’t have a formal title because... you couldn’t get one in German occupied Poland. But he was a respected scholar in Poland and abroad, and still is today. Yad Vashem clearly lists his profession as "professor and diplomat" ([209]).

  IPN has little to do with this book, and anyway, the book is from 2002, before the earliest criticism of politicization and such discussed on the linked page. Unless you can find a source calling the publisher unreliable, it is an academic body affiliated with the government, and therefore quite reliable by definition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's a primary source. Interviews are of very little use, because they are not fact-checked. People frequently mix up names, places and dates, or phrase words in a way that doesn't accurately represent what they meant. it also gives them an opportunity to say things they believe but if they had to supply sources could not find them. TFD (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Miraheze and Their Wikis

Back in March, I was googling one of Wolf Tracer’s one of only two known productions when I came across this site under Awful Movies which as its name suggests is about movies considered the worst of all time. Said special has an entry because of its atrocious blocky PS1 cutscene-like animation.

This wiki farm even this one runs on the software engine Media-Wiki. They resemble wiki except for comments in the bottom of almost every article and blog posts from numerous users. Unlike here, anonymous editing is turned off by default. Here there or even Jimmy Neutron's Canadian impostor is what a random article from one of these look like at a quick glance.

Last but not least, should they be discouraged from being external links slash references?

Lights out,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Per miraheze.org   they are only cited 24 and EL to around 30 times. I agree it's a bad source, but you could probably easily make the effort to excise them yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

All mentions of this wiki farm have been removed in a few select articles. Thank you for your input. 67.81.163.178 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PressTV

What is the reliability of PressTV?

• 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?

(t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PressTV)

• 4 Iranian propaganda outlet (similar to the deprecated HispanTV — see discussion), repeatedly publishes conspiracy theories and other blatant lies. Indeed, the deprecation of all channels of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting should be considered. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If we deprecate all Iranian state channels, then isn't that basically banning all viewpoints of the Iranian government and its supporters from Wikipedia? The POV of the Iranian government need not be treated as fact, but should be given due consideration on Iran-related topics per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I saw your vote above to give option 1 to MEMRI. Does MEMRI not routinely publish conspiracy theories and extremist content? For example consider this article from MEMRI and this from Press TV.VR _talk 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that MEMRI is just providing a translation and does not vouch for the truth value of everything it translates. Similarly, non-conspiracy outlets sometimes report on faleshoods and conspiracy theories without stating that they are factual. PressTV on the other hand is actually promoting a conspiracy theory as fact. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

buidhe I'm talking about how they would be used here. The current PressTV guideline requires attribution, and does not consider PressTV as a source of fact. How is maintaining this statusquo worse than allowing MEMRI as a source? Both allowing MEMRI as a source and allowing PressTV as a source with attribution have the exact same consequences for wikipedia.VR _talk 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and holocaust denial 1 2 3 recently claiming that “Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran" 4 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. Press TV is certainly not reliable on issues relating to antisemitism. But it is a major source for the viewpoint of many in Iran, including the government. It should be used with attribution and only on articles related to Iran and the region.VR _talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 I'd rather cite the Daily Mail. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is already on WP:RS/P, I think. This is Iranian state propaganda that promotes conspiracy theories and antisemitism; I don't see any need for it. If the views of the Iranian government are necessary in an article, that can be reflected using other, independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4 - It's state propaganda, no different than RT, KCNA, OANN, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Can't think of legit uses. Readers of Wikipedia are meant to have some confidence in the quality of underlying sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn: there is a legit use: to be used, with proper attribution, to present the view of the Iranian government respecting the guidelines in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. If such a view was due it would be mentioned in a good secondary sources which should then be used. By voting "4" I am voting for deprecation. There may be some theoretical edge-cases where the source can be used, but as I say, I can't think of one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [210]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Sa.vakilian: While that conclusion may be valid at the time, in the intervening years both examples quoted - RT and the Daily Mail - have both been deprecated and should not be used for such purposes by common agreement. PressTV should be no different. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 in bold, underlined, italic and ideally in a large font. Holocaust denialism is a bit of a red flag. Guy (help!) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG No one is saying that it should be used for statements of fact. But PressTV can be used, when properly attributed, for Iran related topics to present the view of the Iranian government.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: taking many of the "4" votes to their natural conclusions, we will end up banning most viewpoints coming out of Iran (a country of 80 million people). This is because all media in Iran is state-regulated to some degree, and the degree of that interference can change quickly. In the end, current Iranian affairs will solely be presented through sources outside of Iran, some of whom are openly hostile to its people and their culture (e.g. 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy). This will have negative implications for both WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR _talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Iran has banned most viewpoints comming out of Iran, wikipedia is just acknowledging that. Adding a theoctratic regimes propaganda doesn't do anything for neutraility or systemic bias.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• 4 Once an organization starts dabbling in holocaust denial you really can't trust much of anything they say. What ever small gain there may be from using their content for direct comments from the Iranian government, doesn't make up for the damage of sending users to an antisemetic website.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: The source can be used with proper attributions for Iran related topics. There's a recent consensus over its usage for expressing the Iranian voice. Moreover, deprecating this major Iranian state channels clearly goes in line with promoting Systemic bias. I still see no valid argument as to why this source should not be used with attribution for Iran related topics. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: I oppose blacklisting major newsorgs on principle, even unreputable ones like PressTV. Blacklisting newsorgs means that you lose major perspectives that wouldn't otherwise be represented. PressTV is the only English-language neworg based in Iran, so blacklisting it means you lose the whole Iranian perspective.

For example, here is an interview with international human rights law expert Alfred de Zayas. De Zayas isn't a nobody - he's like one of the top 10 experts in the world. But he is a vocal critic of US involvement in Venezuela, Bolivia, Yemen (by proxy) and other places so he is not interviewed very often on American news networks.

So if you want to add his opinions about, say Yemen, to his own Wikipedia article you have to source it from PressTV (or Russia Today or some equally "shady" newsorg). Except, you can't! PressTV is #4 and verboten so even though you have both the video and the quotes from the interview in front of you, you are forbidden from adding it to Wikipedia. Same for Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza who also isn't welcome in American TV. ImTheIP (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

PressTV's reliability as a source seems to have been discussed before but seems not to have been entered on the Perennial Sources board. Should such a major state broadcaster be omitted from scrutiny? There are citations on such pages as State of Palestine, for example, where such referencing might be considered contentious. Our article on them is not shy of denouncing them in various ways, so shouldn't there be a consensus attempted? GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Press TV indeed has an entry on RSP, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Press TV Press TV has been cited roughly 2,000 times combining presstv.com   and presstv.ir  . I was thinking about calling a deprecation RfC considering their repeated promotion of Holocaust denial, but you beat me to the punch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! So there is! My ctrl+F didn't find it because I was writing "PressTV" without the space. And yes, that's the way I would like it to go; I don't see how they're better than Sputnik. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think sources should be deprecated unless in very special circumstances. Furthermore, I don't think the consensuses on this page really represent anything more than the opinions of those who like to vote a lot. It appears to me that a lot of people vote based on their opinion of the source rather than whether the source is reliable or not. I think people should use their own judgement rather than these kind of blanket bans. ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand this for some sources, but Press TV promotes and advocates for conspiracy theories, which makes it akin to something like Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't people just exercise caution? A while ago I wanted to use an article from Russia Today as a source and the stupid filter stopped me. In that case, I knew the source was correct because other news sites articles said the same thing but the RT one was more to the point. I don't see the problem of linking to Breitbart either if it is for uncontroversial stuff.ImTheIP (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides what is uncontroversial? GPinkerton (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ImTheIP, if other sources say the same thing, use other sources. If they don't, well, it's probably not true. Guy (help!) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think editors should have to use other sources. If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate. Blanket ban of sources are wrong because it cuts off minority perspectives. For example, if a famous Iranian general wrote an op-ed in PressTV, we wouldn't be able to cite it unless that op-ed was republished in other sources. That is not fair. ImTheIP (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate". You said it - "within reason".

If you deliberately use an unreliable source such as RT where alternative reliable sources are known to be available, all you're doing is creating work for whoever later comes along, finds the unreliable source, and has to redo the research to replace it. That puts it well outside the bounds of "within reason". Kahastok talk 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has to clean Wikipedia of links to RT. ImTheIP (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Iranian viewpoints are often not presented in other sources, or those sources might distort Iranian viewpoints. This doesn't just apply to Iranian politics, but they could simply misrepresent what's happening inside Iran. We already have the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy and I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen Fox News openly attack the culture and religion of the Iranian people.VR _talk 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, WP is supposed to reflect the major viewpoints represented in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Iranian media being conspiratorial and fake news does reduce the number of reliable sources which reflect Iranian perspectives. Maybe they could clean up their act. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether certain sources are considered to have a conflict of interest

There is a request for comment on whether certain sources ("articles by any media group that [...] discredits its competitors") are considered to have a conflict of interest. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can Photos/Images be used as reliable source?

This question was bothering me for long but since I have a current case in front of me. A new user started adding statements about whose photos and statues are installed in Parliament of India. Whether we can have such statements is issue of separate debate but they added links to photos of those portraits/statues as citations. You can see those contributions of above mentioned user here. Can we really use images hosted somewhere else as a reliable source? QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, we just had that discussion and the answer is "no". (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Hey thanks for the link, I will read it and share with the concerned users too. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Can government/parliament sources (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha: two houses of the Indian Parliament) be used as reliable source?' I haven't used photos/images as sources. I had added the Indian parliament's sources with their text but it all reverted. I didn't add photos/portraits without sources. Are government/parliament sources not reliable source? Are portraits or statues in the Indian Parliament not useful to add in the articles? eg भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

They might well fall foul of wp:primary. But there may also be issues of wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and Buidhe:, Please see my deleted edits ( 1 2 3 ). Are these edits really related to portraits/images/photos or statues? Is this correct act by User:QueerEcofemist?

Check out these edits ( 1, 2, 3, 4 (source already added), 5 ). Images of portraits / statues as well as their references are omitted by QueerEcofeminist. The images were not used as the sources, but these edits were deleted for the same reason. please Comment on this.

Portraits and statues of some of the country's most important figures have been erected in the Indian Parliament. In my opinion, the people whose portraits or statues are in this important place should also be briefly mentioned in the Wikipedia article of those people. To that end, I made brief changes to the articles of those persons, with sources of the Indian Parliament (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha), and added to the article their portraits and statues available on the Commons. The changes I have made are simple. User:QueerEcofemist has deleted my edits from the article for the wrong reason. Please let me know if it is wrong to include information about Parliamentary portraits and statues in those persons articles, including sources from the Indian Parliament. Because I'm in confuse right now.

This article [211] contains information about the statues in Parliament Square in the United Kingdom. There are also separate articles for all the statues here. Then why does User:QueerEcofemist insist that even a brief mention of statues in the Indian Parliament should not be on the Wikipedia article of the person concerned? I have honestly expressed my opinion. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That looks like the caption is being cited, not the picture itself. Citing the caption is acceptable presuming that the source is WP:RS and the info is WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence my reference to undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic - The Biography

Source is: Chris Bowers; (2017) Novak Djokovic - The Biography John Blake, ISBN 178606460X [212] and information from the source is "part-Croat ethnic heritage". Is this reliable source and whether this information can be used in the Novak Djokovic article. Mikola22 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Usual weak sourcing in sport related articles and ethno-nationalistic edit-warring among the Balkan area editors complement each other appropriately in this article. As of this book, John Blake certainly is not the best publisher for this kind of information, but - looking at the other sources in the article - Serbian ancestry of his father has even worse source. It seems main source of contention here is how to write known facts (how much "Croat" his mother is). My proposal: simply write where they (mother and father of Novak Djokovic) were born and do not search for their "ethnic heritage" (which is hard to reliably ascertain with such poor sources like tabloid press). Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• If that's the only source, exclude. "Chris Bowers" appears as author only of a series of cheap tennis biographies from this publisher. Guy (help!) 12:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we don’t have a better source about the origins of his parents. For mother we have 2 sources in the article, the first does not speak about origin, second is from Serbian tabloid in which his mother is mentioned as Croatian (obviously in an ethnic sense) while other editor thinks it is a label only for Croatia. We also have the latest source(this month) from the one of Serbian television portal in which Novak Đoković's grandfather(on the mother's side) from Serbia says for himself that he is of Croatian nationality (Croatian ethnic origin) and that Novak Đoković has Croatian blood. I can also put that source for discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we leave it out, we do not use crap sources just to fill out details. If RS do not care neither should weSlatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22, As Steven says, leave it out. Guy (help!) 17:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, You mean all sources? Then informations about the mother and father must get out of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That may be warranted. However, we discussed here source(s) concerning the mother of Novak Djokovic, so start with poorly sourced (and contested) informations about her. Ethnicity (or how it is called in the Balkans) of his father is sourced to Happy TV, which again is not a stellar source, but at least this part was not disputed yet. Pavlor (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If this (best source that we have) must to go from the article then I guess other sources worse than this must to go from of the article. As far as the mother's side is concerned, we have nothing. That is, nothing should remain in the article from mother's side. (so start with poorly sourced (and contested) informations about her), where to start? I am the editor, I explained here sources which exist for the mother. If this best source is not good then all other sources(mother side) has to go out from the article, worse sources cannot stay while best source has to go. Or we will invent informations about his mother. Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not some tit for tat exercise, you asked about a source and you have been answered. If you want to raise other sources do so, but in a separate section.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart is talking about us

h t t p s : / / www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/

Don't miss this at the bottom:

Disclosure: The author has previously been involved in disputes on Wikipedia with some parties referenced in this article

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hahahaha, still literally fighting the GamerGate thing five years later. And he says *I* have too much time on my hands? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

T...No comment, I was going to be sarky (see Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are).Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Section should be called "Aggrieved Wikipedia editor given a platform by furiously unreliable source to write critical articles". His summary is of course, almost right but not even right. Koncorde (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You could say it is alt-right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic - Happy TV

TV show is source for this information "paternal Serbian descent".[213] This TV show is Ćirilica and from Happy TV.[214] I don't know where it is spoken about "Serbian descent". Is this source RS? Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)