Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:40, 10 August 2022

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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: Business Insider news reporting

Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).

Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?

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

-- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (BI)

Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be neutrally worded, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
1. Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
2. The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
3. I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the poster child for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.

In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: The problem is that the term "clickbait" is extremely subjective and arguably can be found at the NYT or elsewhere easily. Have you run into serious clickbait or (verifiably) false stories in their news section coverage in recent history? The concerns I have seen in past RfCs don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications (and even Insider) that sections can be individually assessed.

As an interesting aside, I just realized and double-checked (CTRL + F searched through the winners of years) and Politico and Insider are now tied in Pulitzer wins at once a piece. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If my only objection were that the headlines are inaccurate and sensationalist, (which BI statistically engages in quite often, I would agree that this is no issue in light of WP:HEADLINE. But the long-standing concern here is not merely that the headlines are at times akin to those published by content farms—it is the churnalism that this news organization’s editorial structure actively has encouraged both before and after acquisition by Axel Springer. That the reputation of the firm remained that way—even in January 2022—cannot be reduced to merely its decision to frequently use sensationalist headlines. It reflects something much more substantial about the quality of its article content, which is ultimately what we care about when evaluating this publication’s reliability for news. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbait reflects a practice of "dramatization" that seems contrary to reliability. Of course, it's only one criteria in the catalog that we use — which is why it has little importance for an outlet like the New York Times but can have a lot of weight for i-promise-this-is-reliable.net. JBchrch talk 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 ~~No numerical vote yet per within~~No point being a jerk, even though I was a jerk before it got all commercialized.: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the actual previous RfC then, I guess my understanding of journalism is far more limited than I imagined because I had no idea what was going on there. I don't remember the last time I've read a "culture" story and I didn't recognize who half the people in those linked articles were. Apparently the kids all want to watch "my tube" now? I don't see why they can't just watch their own. Regarding the color rating system, I posted a comment on RSP about contradictory criteria and seeming misuse of the term "opinion". And of course the green check mark is portrayed by some users as if the veracity of a source is now intrinsic with the fabric of the universe. So I'm not really comfortable with the system as it stands. "Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting" would accurately summarize my opinion of BI from what I've assessed here, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where the phrase "generally reliable" comes in; all outlets make mistakes, what matters is whether they correct them and the frequency of issues. If I understand correctly, by the logic in your comment, we'd deem every RS source to not be RS and call everything unreliable. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's corporate backed? You're darn right not to trust it. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Insider would probably get similar treatment here to HuffPost, Politico, etc. if it wasn't "business" Insider. Most of the objections here are old and could also be leveled at all media companies at some point. Insider is allowed to improve their standards over the year just like BuzzFeed (News). And look, they just won a Pulitzer. Editors need to look past their unwarranted icky feelings about this site. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Basically a tabloid. Clickbait, informal style, speculation, hype, and this kind of vibe where you're very much aware of the fact that you're not reading something on the level of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Do headlines such as "We got an exclusive look at the 24-slide LP deck European climate fund Climentum Capital used to close the first batch of its $156 million fund" and "Toast's CEO talks how his company will dominate the $55 billion restaurant-tech space even as its stock is slammed post-IPO by market headwinds" make you trust this outlet unconditionally? Me neither. I am aware that this is a superficial argument that doesn't reach the strength of Mhawk10's analysis but sometimes... you know it when you see it. About that Pulitzer, I will just note that it's in the Illustrated Reporting and Commentary...For a distinguished portfolio of editorial cartoons or other illustrated work (still, animated, or both) characterized by political insight, editorial effectiveness, or public service value. I fully appreciate the level of talent and the amount of work needed to achieve something like that but I'm not sure that it's that relevant to assess reliability in the context of Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 17:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: I will just note that none of the referenced premium stories are from the news section, which is predominately free reading, and therefore not exactly relevant to the question being asked. Have you seen any particular problems with the news section? The question here isn't evaluating the whole publication; this is asking specifically about their news section coverage. The average headline and story content for the news section seems rather newsy. e.g. "A long-lost letter from Alexander Hamilton about the war with the British has been returned and is now on display in Boston", "Highland Park shooting suspect charged with 7 counts of first-degree murder with 'dozens more' to be pursued, state attorney says", "China refutes NASA chief's claim that the country is looking to take over the moon", "The Highland Park shooting suspect confessed to carrying out the massacre during police interview, prosecutors say" etc. Normal, routine news coverage you would expect of a publication. BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, for example, are treated differently and we've already previously established that different Insider sections can be assessed differently (Insider's culture section is considered RS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that point, which I had indeed missed. However, I'm not sure it makes a difference. The way I understand how insider.com works is that it publishes individual stories which it categorizes with various tags. So for instance How a 'Minions' meme craze among teens may have boosted the new movie's box office is a "Media" story which can be also found in the "News" section. So, contrary to Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News, which are two different websites, Insider is one single website, which I think should be assessed as a whole. (Perhaps that makes me a dissenter to Insider Culture RfC.) This is confirmed by the fact that even if you are in the News section of the website, if you click on "Latest", it shows you the latest stores published in all the sections of the website, including I'm a professional baker who tried making Martha Stewart's signature yellow cake. Here are 2 ways I'd improve her recipe., an article in the Food section. JBchrch talk 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS demonstrates that while Rolling Stone is a single website, its sections can be assessed independently as well; as such, this isn't an unprecedented question. "Latest" is indeed the feed of all latest articles in all sections by the looks of it, but that is also irrelevant to this RfC at hand as already described. I was also mostly referring to insider.com/news (that was the Q), but on both sites in the "news" section the headlines appear generally normal (hence "generally reliable" being our standard) and like your average news story/site. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS came about basically because the magazine has a history of publishing false and (court-proven) libelous stories with scant fact-checking in the area of politics/social issues and only that area. Its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is very different for its music coverage, where it is regarded as being very good. But I’m not seeing something parallel here; most of the criticism I am seeing for Insider is about its site-wide practices, not just criticism of practices related to a specific topic area or subdomain. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per MHawk10.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, and not limited to the time after the Pulitzer. From reading the counterarguments in the previous RfC, they are frankly not at all convincing to me. Business Insider certainly makes mistakes, but they are the same sorts of mistakes that any WP:NEWSORG would make (and in fact several of the problems identified with it are problems with many other similar WP:NEWSORGs). They do correct themselves when they make mistakes and clearly have a reasonable editorial review process. Loki (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, of course. Business Insider, and Insider.com in general, is a serious and reliable news site. Putting the Pulitzer-winning article aside, Insider has written great and well-sourced articles about the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the killing of American Mormons in the LeBarón and Langford families massacre, incarceration of American federal inmates during covid, profiles of famous people like Marissa Mayer and Larry Page, how eBay turned increased its dirt-cheap stock by US$50 million, how Colorado's marijuana industry faced a difficult economic crisis in 2011, the disruptions that will be caused by Queen Elizabeth II's death, rape allegations made against David Dobrik's Vlog Squad, and much more. Indeed, there is a liberal bias. Insider has a tabloidal entertainment section with attention-grabbing titles and bizarre listicles. But these issues can be addressed with nuance when noting credibility without destroying the entire site's great reputation. NewsGuard rates Insider.com a perfect score of 100, stating, "Insider has published substantive, originally reported stories on topics such as immigration and human rights." The Factual places Insider in the 90th percentile of its factual grading, writing, "Business Insider’s tendency to provide extensive evidence within articles goes a long way in explaining these reliable scores. The site also has a deep bench of experienced journalists who routinely cover the same beats, such as business and technology." FlantasyFlan (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/2 I agree with Mhawk10's excellent analysis. The linked articles on Insider's significant clickbait articles and lack of editorial independence previoualy are of course issues. I do feel that its news sections are not atrocious (but there were lots of controversies, I think I can link a lot of past concerns (see 1, 2, 3 that might be prevalent, albeit less so, now. But I would say that its current news sections does seem to be fairly better than the past ones, but it's noteworthy that it's Pulitzer Prize is an Illustrated Prize produced mainly by others, and it's not actually a prize awarded to the Business Insider journalists for breaking news or investigative reporting. Still, some business sections and past news reporting are like sensational tabloids, for them maybe Option 2/3. Overall, I think for post-2021 news probably Option 1/2, but it's still improtable that all of the past issues have been addressed.

@FlantasyFlan: @SamuelRiv: Just a (unfortunately way too long) side note, but I strongly disagree with the links to the so-called The Factual. Other editors would probably disagree, but I find it to be atrocious. It considers itself to be a blog and states its "objective" method here. Note that it cites Media Bias Fact Check and Allsides, which there's consensus are marginally reliable or generally unreliable. Per here, The Washington Post is considered Moderate-Left based on data from AllSides and Media Bias Fact Check — the two non-partisan websites that we use to assess the political orientation of news outlets. And judging from what I see, the algorithm is horrible. Looking at the ratings, Business Insider is rated more highly than Associated Press and the NY Times, two of (at least IMO) newspapers of record or credible agencies. By the way, it could be argued that AP and The Economist have a left-centre bias, but Jacobin, which is probably progressive left, is rated higher. Further, the Washington Examiner is somehow considered to ber one of the best refs. See its controversies in the past, and WP's summary. However, The Factual somehow considers Our selection reveals a rich, layered media ecosystem. There are numerous general news sources that deliver high-quality daily news (Reuters, Washington Examiner, Business Insider), I find it to be almost absurd that the Washington Examiner is considered to be a better ref to use than AP or The Economist, and is apparently the same with ABC and Reuters. The inconsistencies are enough for me to say that its ratings should be taken with a grain of salt at best, and despite an abouts us page (see here), there's no clear editorial policies. Also, its algorithm apparently discount the rating for lack of authors seen in some media such as The Economist and Reuters, per this line: Some sites don’t have authors at all (e.g., Reuters or the Economist) or the algorithm is unable to pull that information due to the formatting (e.g., South China Morning Post). The articles still may be informative but because The Factual could not validate some elements the articles with rate lower. By the way, its grammar is confusing, the use of "with" doesn't seem to be the most clear grammar, and especially considering that this is their methodology page, it should definitely be made clearer. Of course, a lot of SCMP articles have authors, but they discount the ratings because of formatting (?). Overall, I don't disagree with the current consensus (Option 1/2), but do disagree with several editors relying on The Factual. Many thanks for your help, apologies this is too long and unclearly worded, I would suggest reading Mhawk10's analysis again as it's considerably better than mine! VickKiang (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner is not reliable. It should not be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 23:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably agree with you, but The Factual apparently considers it high-quality per my comments above, so I think its methodology is questionable. VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm not sure about Insider though. But I'd support an RFC to downgrade Washington Examiner. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Andrevan@ 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs are convincing to show the ref's poor, but Ad Fontes and MBFC are generally unreliable, and shouldn't be used to form an RfC (on the Noticeboard, when editing, it suggests Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), as it is not a reliable source. Allsides has some debate. I don't think launching an RfC based on three generally unreliable/marignally reliable refs are the best, but I'm sure there are better examples (credible fact checkers, newspapers) criticising the Examiner. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I don't disagree with a word you said, and I wish there was a rating site that didn't suck (at least for reliability; ~~bias is nonsense~~ I've never seen a decent methodology to rate bias outside selective academic studies). It might not be possible. And honestly, maybe I just used The Factual over MBFC and Ad Fontes (which I ended up using later on) because 1) it has a write-up on this particular outlet, and 2) it said what I somewhat expected it to say and didn't do anything that (in my immediate impression) was completely stupid up-front. And that's a terrible basis for me to then implicitly endorse a such site (by linking it without qualification). Mea culpa, won't repeat, and thanks for calling me out. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, I think BI has shown it is an established media company and on the level with their Pulitzer win. Andrevan@ 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per my reasoning in last year's discussion. Option 3 is "generally unreliable for factual reporting" which is consistent with it receiving a Pulitzer Prize while, simultaneously, publishing a revolving door of errors and falsehoods almost too numerous to mention, along with giving advertisers "limited editorial control," its continuing use of clickbait headlines, etc., etc. "Generally unreliable" doesn't mean "always unreliable" and the Pulitzer Prize story is an example of why Option 4 may not be appropriate. Insider's checkered recent history serves as a counter example of why 1 and 2 are not appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the main one giving evidence in the last discussion, let me explain why I don't find your examples very convincing:

1. The COVID article: the headline here was sensationalized, but all the actual information in the story was accurate, and we don't judge on headlines per WP:HEADLINE.

2. Lumping all the CJR articles together: they're in a pretty bloggy style, and they mostly don't describe behavior that's out of the ordinary for a newsorg. So for example, here's Vox doing sponsored content; the piece about fake news tricking it also listed a whole bunch of obviously legit newsorgs that were also similarly tricked, including USA Today and the LA Times.

3. Can't fact check the false story about Apple because I don't have access to your source.

4. I can fact check the false story about Snowden, and BI was by no means the only newsorg to publish that. The Intercept story pretty clearly lays out that even such credible sources as the Wall Street Journal were fooled. BI also published a very clear correction at the top of their story after it became clear it was false, which seems exactly like what we'd want a WP:NEWSORG to do.

5. The Daily Beast article about non-disparagment clauses says outright that many orgs we have green at RSP also require employees to sign those.

6. What's a ban from securities trading have to do with journalism?

7. "Capricious story assignments"? Why does that affect their credibility? We're not judging whether it's a good place to work for.

8. Yes, it uses clickbait headlines. WP:HEADLINE.

The TL;DR here is that Business Insider engages in a bunch of practices that are common in the industry, and that they have been fooled before (but corrected themselves when they did). This doesn't sound like a disqualification from being a WP:NEWSORG, this sounds exactly like what we'd expect from a WP:NEWSORG. Loki (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR - "but whatabout ..." Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we don't judge on headlines per WP:HEADLINE WP:HEADLINE is about the reliability of headlines. It doesn't prevent us from using headlines as an element to judge the general reliability of a media.
The Daily Beast article about non-disparagment clauses says outright that many orgs we have green at RSP also require employees to sign those. What I'm reading is "Some media companies shy away from asking all employees to sign non-disparagement agreements because they believe it clashes with the mission to shine light on misbehavior. Others, including Mic, Vice, and HuffPost, have asked departing employees who have been laid off to sign them in exchange for severance pay.". Vice is yellow, HuffPost is yellow for politics and green for other stuff, and Mic (media company) isn't listed there.
6. What's a ban from securities trading have to do with journalism? You can read the New Yorker article, entitled "Business Outsider: Can a disgraced Wall Street analyst earn trust as a journalist?".
7. "Capricious story assignments"? Why does that affect their credibility? If you read the CNN article, you'll see that it reports journalists being pressured to deliver cheap scoops and generate traffic. The question of how this affects reliability is left as an exercise to the reader. JBchrch talk 08:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. You *could* use anything to judge the general reliability of a source, I guess, but that doesn't mean that argument is policy-based.

2. Conde Nast, publisher of the New Yorker, makes its employees sign non-disparagement agreements. The New Yorker is green at RSP, and in fact you yourself used it as your source for the next point.

3. Yes, I have read it. But what's it have to do with Business Insider's reliability? Does a ban from securities trading affect its editorial review process or willingness to issue corrections?

4. But there's no direct evidence in the article that it *does* affect reliability, though. You're operating purely on an insinuation. Loki (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is the policy that controls the general reliability of sources?

2. "in cases that involve harassment, discrimination or retaliation". Not saying it's good, but it's very different from a "non-disparagement clause requiring employees to refrain from ever criticizing the company during or after their employment at Insider".

4. Reliability is not some concept operating in a bubble and RSN is not a criminal court. We are actively looking for serious sources which we can consider as reliable for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. Delivering cheap scoops that drive traffic is incompatible with that mission. JBchrch talk 13:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "the arguments you use to claim this source fails this standard would mean basically no source meets it, so your interpretation of policy can't be correct" is not whataboutism. Loki (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 It started as a tabloid with clickbait headlines but has since grown into a more serious reliable news site. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Per comments already given. The Pulitzer shows they can produce top-quality reporting, but their reporting still looks extremely uneven. I think we should keep an eye on it to see if they continue to improve. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Its gotten better and we should realize that. Softlemonades (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Independent sources agree and this is why it's won Pulitzer awards as recently as 2022.XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: The source really is a mix of good and bad hence we really need to look at it on an article by article basis. Springee (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (BI)

Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I do think it's persuasive to win a Pulitzer. That seems like an upgrade. Andrevan@ 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that after a major commendation it's worth reviewing that particular section of an outlet, or that editor or journalist; and in general any publication on RSP should be subject to periodic review. Of course with a century of history, it's a trivial to find some hideous Pulitzer wins (and general perennial grumblings). The more relevant point is that one shiny piece of investigation/photojournalism/commentary/review/(22 categories) is, in an otherwise low-quality outlet, probably more indicative of a promising journalist/editor than anything else. There's a somewhat well-known exchange, as part of Al Franken's political comedy, of Bill O'Reilly trying to enhance his journalistic prestige by citing the fact that Access Hollywood, which he once anchored, had won a Polk Award, which of course he had nothing to do with. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from an outside perspective, I think both sides have a point here. It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable, but, as Uanfala has pointed out, the citations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than removed en mass by automation. If a particular source was written by a subject matter expert (which seems to occur occasionally at this publisher), it could still be used. If sources are removed, the relevant content should be examined and new sources found (if possible) or the content should be removed. Simply removing hundreds of sources and leaving someone else to clean up the mess is one way to do things, but in my opinion not the most responsible way. Toadspike (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a reliable citation for the entirety of this content. That's why it was removed. There remains over 3000 citations to this garbage publisher across Wikipedia. This was not a blanket removal, but a targeted one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was the criteria for your targeting of these cases? Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) It's CSP, which is prima facie unreliable b) Other sources support the content, which makes removal warranted without replacing it with a {{cn}} tag or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said "this was not a blanket removal but a targeted one" which I took to mean you had employed some discretion. What does "targeted" in this sentence refer to? Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable fwiw ... I really don't think it does? Where is this consensus demonstrated? Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have had time to read all the links provided above by Headbomb and Praxidicae, it seems that I was a little hasty in jumping to conclusions and giving the benefit of the doubt. None of the discussions linked show any sort of consensus against using CSP, quite a few are not even evaluations of the reliability or quality of CSP, and one is literally a question which received no responses. Not only does this convince me that CSP is not unreliable per se, but it also convinces me that the language used by the aforementioned editors was rather misleading in stating that anything was "well established by consensus". Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers I don't have a real horse in this race, but -- as mentioned above -- this seems like a question one should ask before using AWB to mass remove hundreds of citations attributed to this press. Initiating what is essentially a policy decision on your own and then retroactively seeking support for it when people push back does not to me feel like an excessively good faith action. As for what to do with CSP, it seems like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. I became aware of this issue when I saw Headbomb remove a citation from Apaturia (Greek mythology). In context, the reference there was one of three works (one published by a more reputable academic publisher, Palgrave) citing a particular statement, all of which generally in reference to a primary source (Pausanias). The work in this context was a corroborating citation, in a work published by an ancient history Ph.D., and its removal in this instance does not truly cause harm, but also seems an overly aggressive exercise of policy where no policy actually exists. If this had been the only citation in the article, for whatever reason, I think this specific article would be poorer without it. If we want to have a blanket reliability policy against all works published by CSP, that seems extreme to me given the circumstances, but I think is also a reasonable decision for the community to make. I don't think it's reasonable to unilaterally implement a de facto policy that CSP references are banned unless some editor wants to make their case (see OP's talk page) to the single editor who decided this ought to be policy. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the above linked discussions, there is clear consensus that it's unreliable and given the fact that it is established fact that it is predatory, policy dictates that it is in fact unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
iiuc this discussion is the measurement of consensus for WP:RSDEPRECATED, so I'm not sure how you can say this has already been decided. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has been discussed endlessly here as linked above and the outcome is always the same. There is no point in having these discussions if we're going to rehash them every time someone wants to whine about it's non-use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it had already been decided, I would expect this to be present on WP:DEPRECATED, and it is not. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...many sources which are deprecated don't appear there but it doesn't change the fact that for example, Fandom can't be used to source anything that isn't about Fandom isn't on there - but it is never allowed because it is defacto unreliable. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no canonical source of truth for a policy I would submit that no policy in fact exists. If you're asking me to believe a final decision has been made about a thing, show me that evidence. This isn't rocket science. Looking at the conversations above, most of them contain only fairly glancing reference to the publisher we're discussing here, and the only direct one is six years old. And since the it seems like some relevant things have changed (addition of credited editorial boards, publishers rating in Norwegian Scientific Index upgraded). As I said elsewhere, I don't have any particular stake in this publisher's fate within the Wikipedia project, however I don't think I've seen a single genuine argument advanced here as to why exactly this particular journal ought to be wholesale denylisted from the project. Just a lot of people repeating "vanity press / bad editorial" like a mantra, without any explanation for how these standards are judged. Ford MF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are just being repetitive and missing the point. We have standards that are based in policy surrounding reliability and that does not require an RFC every time a subject is brought up. Of course, you're welcome to make the argument that everything is reliable unless proven otherwise, but you'd be wrong and quickly reverted anywhere you would add such sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which standards are you referring to that CSP violates? Ford MF (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable, should be prohibited "Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruft. Unreliable predatory publisher. Kudos to Headbomb for taking on the unpleasant task of removing references to that predatory garbage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable- predatory junk publisher that calls itself Cambridge Scholars so that people will think it's affiliated with Cambridge University. Deceit and trickery, and I would expect very little of anything "published" by them. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't disagree that the term "Cambridge" today carries an immediate air of prestige. But there's a lot of places named Cambridge (many founded by people who never cared about the university -- what would the Greeks think?), and any startup company will try to appropriate local prestige. Regardless, from its reported history, they seem to have at least some justification for the name, so there's no reason to call it "deceit". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [8] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [9] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a case for the reliability for this or that book published by them, go ahead. But the default position for a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight should be against inclusion. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone new to the discourse on this particular publisher, I see a lot of assertions that they *are* "a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight", and relatively little to back that up, other than a seeming implicit conviction that this is self-evident. Ford MF (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...a publisher that solicits non-qualified "academics" for publication and then charges them for publication is what, exactly? Also please feel free to identify their editorial board. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://cambridgescholars[.]com/pages/meet-our-editorial-advisors. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is the source for your assertion that its portfolio consists of unqualified writers? And why is academics in quotation marks? Ford MF (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read any of the sources linked in the article about CSP? It's pretty adequately covered there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, if there is any source about the claim that CSP charge authors for publication, then please provide it. I don't see that in any of the sources I've checked. – Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have! As far as I can tell there are only two references in the entire article that support the "predatory" label. One is the beallslist.net reference, and the other is the guy who runs Flaky Academic Journals dot blogspot dot com. The Flaky Academic Journals guy ... I mean, okay. Some guy with a blogspot made one post about this five years ago, but more recent posts from bloggers of seeming equal standing seem to represent an opinion contrary to this. The beallslist thing is interesting to me! But 1) it looks like the list itself is not without detractors, and CSP was anonymously added to it as an addendum after the original list was abandoned by Jeffrey Beall, *and* even if Jeffrey Beall did think CSP sucked, there is no evidence he thought those titles should not be carried as part of a reputable academic collection. And in fact, as demonstrated above, very reputable and notable academic librarians *do* believe that a non-trivial number of CSP publications belong in their collection. Ford MF (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to make a case for the reliability of some individual book, go ahead. It is, however, not possible to say, "It's in CSP therefore it is reliable". The default position should be that it is questionable at best. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this is the default position? So far I do not see you making any argument or listing any criteria for this assessment. You've made a claim that the press is "predatory" and "vanity", and implicitly that that means citations from these works should be unilaterally deleted from the project, and imho the onus is not on others to mount a counter-argument to this when the claimant(s) have not in fact mounted any argument at all, only simply repeated the original claims as if they were already established as true. Ford MF (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because CSP is a vanity press and utter garbage. See all previous discussions, Beall's list, flaky journals, etc. And on Wikipedia, when we encounter a garbage source, the default is to exclude it, unless it can be shown to not be garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If someone reads through all those previous discussions and still comes to the conclusion that CSP is reliable then nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making decisions by consensus is policy. Asserting that your position is the consensus one without some independent demonstration of this is not a policy as far as I'm aware. The closer [ie the decider of consensus] is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. WP:DISCARD There are by my count three people on this thread advancing the position "CSP is a predatory vanity press" (with the implication that citations for works from this press should by default be disallowed) but I do not see one single argument made in support of that position, only insistence that the position is prima facie true, or insistence that the position has already reached consensus in this or that other place, like the princess continually being in another castle. And there are two editors who seem to disagree with this position and/or believe that he burden of proof is on the people making the claim, and that has not been satisfied. This does not look like consensus to me. Other folks may feel otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you're determined that CSP should be treated as a priori reliable, the same way that Cambridge University Press, or Springer, or Addison-Wesley are respected academic publishers. My position is that the deliberately misleading name raises questions about their academic integrity, that actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy, that there are numerous documented instances of poor quality control, and that they are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. All these concerns have been brought up in the previous discussions linked to by Headbomb. Why are you so eager to dismiss them? The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy, IMO correctly, and if you think they are suddenly legit then you need to make that case. Reyk _YO! 00:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that the deliberately misleading name ... I disagree that the publisher's name is admissible as evidence of the publisher's quality one way or the other. The website claims the company was founded, in Cambridge, by lecturers from Cambridge U -- literally, Cambridge Scholars -- and I haven't seen anyone disprove or even question this, just a lot of people assuming, as you seem to be doing here, that the name has nefarious intent.

actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy There seem to be other academics, in equivalently good position, who do not agree with this assessment.

Numerous documented instances of poor quality control Definitely agree it looks like they've published a couple of crappy books over the years.

They are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. I do not see the source of this claim in the discussions above?

The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy again, there is a repeated insistence that this consensus already exists and has been decided previously, when I do not feel like any of the referenced conversations demonstrate this at all.

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

I also feel like you are proposing an entirely false binary here in which there exist no scholarly presses between Lulu[.]com and Springer Verlag, and every press must be one or the other. I am not trying to argue that this press deserves a position among Springer, AW, CUP, etc etc. As a former academic-book-biz guy in a past life, I think it's safe to say they'd be pretty far down on my list when it came time to place orders. I *do* however disagree that the correct response in the project to an obviously not A-list publisher is for citations to be default deleted on sight. Ford MF (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There exists presses in between. CSP is, however, on the Lulu side of things, not on the CUP/Springer side of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take your response to mean you are applying no independent criteria of your own or the project's, and are using those of Beall's list and the flaky journals guy as proxies here. That's reasonable! You can't do direct due diligence on everything personally. But I think I have clearly described why neither of these sources seem like open and shut cases to me (reasonable people seem to disagree about Beall's list, CSP wasn't even on it until anonymous inclusion fairly recently, the Flaky blog guy article is pretty old), especially when measured against the countervailing opinions here (other, more positive blogs; reputable academic libraries holding sizeable amounts of CSP in circulation; reputable review organizations like Norwegian Scientific Index changing their rating of the press). So you keep repeating "vanity press" and "garbage" without making reference to any criteria the could be reviewed or falsified, and, well, I don't think it's surprising that other people might not find this a persuasive argument? (Or an argument at all?) Ford MF (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read any of the previous discussions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any arguments to make other than to tell me that in some vague and nonspecific place, someone else makes an argument to justify your claims? Ford MF (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions are linked above. There is nothing vague or unspecific about them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Publishers are one component of evaluating a reliable source. Look at the author, editors, etc. What kind of claim is being made? Is it controversial? Generally opposed to any mass removal based just on publisher without an evaluation of the actual source in context, and generally opposed to proposals to consider a book publisher unreliable without a systematic evaluation of the kind/quality of content they publish. A predatory publisher (and there is a wide spectrum of "predatory") is a red flag, but isn't itself completely disqualifying. Some predatory publishers are the equivalent of just being self-published (and not less than self-published), but there are many flavors/degrees. Meh. Default to standard editing practices like BRD and ONUS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, with real predatory publishers, and real vanity publishers, whatever "real" is here, it should be the other way around: discredited until a particular article/book by a particular scholar can be deemed acceptable. So, I'll accept this Mellen book on Beowulf for a variety of reasons that I could explain. But in general, a publisher that produces this should not be taken seriously--until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, when challenged, the onus is always on those who want to include a source to argue that it's reliable for that particular use (and otherwise justify inclusion), but we need a clear consensus about unreliability to remove just based on the publisher -- unreliability, not just predatory. The latter just means it's on a spectrum between WP:SPS and rigorous review/oversight, with the "real" ones at or near the former, but that whatever "real" is here is a toughy, and it seems too often the spectrum is collapsed to a binary. These conversations often look like we're talking about publishers known for false/misleading information, not ones that simply tend towards the WP:SPS side of the spectrum. CSP may be well on that SPS side, but that doesn't mean it's "discredited"; it means it's self-published. Self-published sources aren't discredited; based on the author, for example, there are plenty of times when we use them. They're just not sufficiently reliable for most purposes. Maybe we're getting into semantics with that distinction, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all the linked discussions, and I have some thoughts about CSP (none of them are very good), but I fail to see that any of the discussions came to a clear consensus that CSP is an unreliable vanity press. And without that, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. First we need clarity here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSP is a vanity press. Their model is to have authors write whatever they want, conduct no review, offer no little-to-no editing services, and then charges universities and random suckers for those books. They've repeatedly published fringe nonsense, (example, example), or straight up copies of Wikipedia content example). They are listed by the two main freely available sources on predatory nonsense, Beall's list (now maintained by someone who isn't Beall), and Flaky Journals. Their books are widely condemned in review, which specifically call out the practices of CSP (e.g. "the absence of an editorial board has clearly failed to guide the author in the preparation of his publication". Library Guides specifically call out CSP as a publisher to avoid [10]. Or entire book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. If CSP isn't a vanity press and a garbage tier publisher, no one is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Flaky Journals blog [11], though critical of CSP, does not characterise them as predatory. Your last link (the bit form the Scopus diaries) is also worth reading: it's explicit that vanity or predatory publishers are a lower tier than CSP, and it characterises CSP's drawback in not conferring a great deal of academic prestige.
Their books are widely condemned in review? Well, I've had a look. Here's quotes from the reviews I checked (all except 4 (3 were excluded because of genre (popular science, memoirs), and 1 because it was as dry overview without a quotable conclusion):
Di Rocco, Concezio (2019-11-01). "R. Shane Tubbs, J. Iwanaga, M. Loukas, R. J. Oskouian (Eds): Clinical anatomy of the ligaments of the craniocervical junction". Child's Nervous System. 35 (11): 2241. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04261-6. ISSN 1433-0350. S2CID 201170849. "the book is a precious contribution to the understanding of all aspects of the craniocervical junction which should not only be part of the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon involved in clinical practice but also of the students and neurosurgeons in training"

Carey, Peter (2021). "Manual of Bone Marrow Examination by Anwarul Islam (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020; ISBN 978-1-5275-5890-8)". British Journal of Haematology. 193 (5): 1016. doi:10.1111/bjh.17400. ISSN 1365-2141. S2CID 236420372. "an excellent teaching resource for every haematology department"

Kapparis, Konstantinos (2019). "Isaeus' On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3). Edited by Rosalia Hatzilambrou. (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. 283. $119.95.)". Historian. 81 (4): 727–729. doi:10.1111/hisn.13286. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 214471601. "an outstanding accomplishment containing reliable, informative, and thorough accounts of textual, linguistic, and stylistic matters, as well as the legal issues, the background, the protagonists, and the build-up of the case"

Farrell Moran, Seán (2016). "The Impact of World War One on Limerick. By Tadhg Moloney. (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Pp. xii, 209. $75.99.)". Historian. 78 (1): 166–167. doi:10.1111/hisn.12142. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 218497802. "Although the author has done much homework, his thesis, as suggestive as it is, remains underdeveloped"

Spicher, Michael (2019). "AAGAARD-MOGENSEN, LARS and JAN FORSEY, eds. On Taste: Aesthetic Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, 150 pp., 4 b&w illus., £58.99 cloth". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 77 (3): 349–351. doi:10.1111/jaac.12655. ISSN 1540-6245. S2CID 201566618. "Overall, [the book] offers insightful discussions about taste to help bring it back onto the fore. I would recommend anyone interested in aesthetics to read this collection as an entry point into recent thought about taste"

McClain, Aleksandra (2016). "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology by Scott D. Stull, ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 275 pp". American Anthropologist. 118 (2): 457–458. doi:10.1111/aman.12571. ISSN 1548-1433. "Several papers, including the editor's own, offer strong, original scholarship [...] but a few are disappointingly underdeveloped in comparison", "while problems with individual papers mar the consistent academic quality of the volume, I nevertheless commend Stull on having the ambition to plan the conference and produce this book"

Liu, Yi; Afzaal, Muhammad (2022). "100 Years of conference interpreting: A legacy. Edited by Kilian G. Seeber, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021, Price: £64.99, 242 pp. ISBN: 1-5275-6719-2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 32 (2): 349–352. doi:10.1111/ijal.12406. ISSN 1473-4192. S2CID 244890170. "this volume provides a novel and convincing reference in the field of conference interpreting, and is therefore a valuable read for interpreting students, trainers, researchers and other stakeholders"

Wallis, Patrick (2021). "Andrea Caracausi, Matthew Davies, and Luca Mocarelli, eds., Between regulation and freedom: work and manufactures in European cities 14th–18th centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. xiii+146. ISBN 1-5275-0638-X Hbk. £58.99)". The Economic History Review. 74 (1): 299–300. doi:10.1111/ehr.13059. ISSN 1468-0289. S2CID 234070948. "the volume collectively makes a valuable contribution to our appreciation of the complexity and heterogeneity of economic regulation"
Of these 8 reviews, 6 are entirely positive, and 2 offer criticisms. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are going to give a biased sample of CSP's output, because only the books that people found interesting enough to review will have any. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as with any other reivews. But what's the relevance of that here? If someone wants to do a big analysis and look at the proportion of reviewed CSP books vs. the total published and then compare that with the same ratio for benchmark publishers, sure: that will be useful. But in the context of this discussion – where the baseline question is whether CSP books are unadulterated crap that should be automatically removed from articles – I think it was useful to point out that there were plenty of reviews of those books in the best journals and that most of those reviews were positive. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a blanket removal, but recommend a "use with caution" guideline per WP:MREL. Some of the authors published by CSP are respectable academics in their fields with other publications from reliable publishers written by them. As such, WP:SPS's guideline seems like a good fit here. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Further, some of the books have been reviewed in reliable secondary sources. So, I think each source needs to be scrutinized individually for reliability with particular attention given to the book's author and their background. Removing content on mass without taking the time to examine each source and its author is not the responsible way to handle this issue, and seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal, recommend "use with caution". Various publication level rankings (Norwegian, Finnish) list the venue as an acceptable quality scientific publication venue, albeit with an imperfect history. This alone gives me much pause about a blanket ban. Above descriptions about the publishers being predatory also seems confusing, given that the venue does not appear to charge Article Publishing Charges based on their FAQ. As per the above descriptions re: the Beall's List entry (anonymous, added after Beall's involvement), I'm not terribly convinced by that argument either. Given further that WP:SPS allows for the use of pretty much anything from an established subject matter expert, a blanket removal seems unwarranted. That said, the spotty history clearly warrants a case-by-case review of any sources used. -Ljleppan (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to what I wrote above, I'll note that this RFC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL rather spectacularly. Ljleppan (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Never use If there are clearly reliable sources supporting the text you are trying to source, use that. If there aren't any other than a CSP source you shouldn't be adding the text. One book from a dubious publisher isn't enough.
Comment. I did what several folks insisted on and read the previous discussions. None of them established a consensus that CSP is unreliable; most of them weren't even really about CSP. Let's put a pin in that claim--CSP may be unreliable, but this is the first discussion where that question is squarely presented and proceeding as though that's already the case is not accurate. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSP can be a reliable source as demonstrated by reviews from the academic community, eg:
"In sum, From West to East provides a compact, but very readable overview of approaches to medieval archaeology practised in North America." Kerr, Sarah (January 2016). "From West to East. Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology". Medieval Archaeology. 60 (1): 185. doi:10.1080/00766097.2016.1147856. S2CID 164034768.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: why not treat as self-published? I've occasionally come over this publisher when following citations and bibliographies in high-quality sources, and my impression is that competent scholars do sometimes publish there. For example, this is mainly authored by top scholars, this is also good quality, and this contains contributions by absolute top scholars like G. E. R. Lloyd, as well as lesser stars like Helen King or Mario Vegetti, who are still scholars of the highest rank. This is not like a news source where authors are anonymous: apart from the publisher, there is also the scholar and their academic reputation to take into account. It's also probably not a coincidence that I just named three edited volumes: these by definition have editorial oversight. Use with caution, certainly, but outright banning seems like a bad idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add as this seems to be a separate issue: also oppose blanket or semi-automated removal, per the arguments of Visviva and No such user below. It's tempting to just remove everything published by a company whose practices are unethical, but when one is not engaging with the content the reference is supposed to verify, it's far too easy to break text-source integrity, and it's too difficult to fully anticipate other negative consequences which may not outweigh the advantage gained by removing an unethical publisher. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is proposing outright banning. Like with any other vanity press, when a CSP book is accompanied by a positive review, it can be used as a reliable SPS source. Absent of those, CSP books are inadequate as sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a positive review would be a very good indication that a SPS or equivalent is reliable. But why require it? In my experience, the status of the scholar in their field is a far more important indicator for reliability than the reputation of the publisher. On the other hand, not every high-quality volume gets reviewed. For example, of the three books I mentioned above, I found (very) positive reviews for the first two ([12] for [13] and [14] for [15]), but for the third one –arguably the one with the best scholars– I did not find a review. Should we treat a book chapter by someone like G. E. R. Lloyd (please have a look at where he usually publishes) as unreliable because it has a bad publisher and there happens to be no review? I at least think we shouldn't. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because vanity presses are crap and are by definition not reliable (which is different than being guaranted to be wrong). It's the same if a 'good' scholar publishes in predatory journal. They've dodged the reviewing process, and they don't get a free pass. See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it by no means credible that the three volumes I cited above were dodging peer-review. As edited volumes, they also enjoyed at least some form of editorial oversight. This is simply not vanity publishing: all of the scholars involved could easily have published elsewhere, and have in fact done so often (again, see here). The positive reviews also indicate that. This all rather shows that CSP cannot be treated as predatory without a case-by-case evaluation. Speaking of evaluation, the essay you're citing is using self-published primary sources to prove a point that editors can't evaluate any self-published sources without engaging in original research... But here on this noticeboard we are going to evaluate (secondary) sources, and as many have pointed out above, the publisher is only one factor in the equation. As someone also said above, we should avoid putting the cart before the horse. Let's first see whether CPS is a vanity press, shall we? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal. I don't see CSB as being in anyway different from self-published sources, which may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The discussion has proven that CSB occasionally publishes works that qualify as reliable sources either because written by well-reputed academics or because accepted as valuable scientific contributions by the academic community; there's no reason for removing them for the sole reason that they were published by CSB. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal - I'm not convinced that this publisher is as some have claimed in blanket statements relative to predatory, unreliable, etc. It would be wonderful if all publishers had experts in every field of academia comprising their editorial boards, and while we strive for RS, it's rather ironic that WP itself is considered an unreliable source - in part, because of perceived systemic biases. CSB states on their about page: We are proud of our reputation for author satisfaction. The publishing process should be a rewarding experience. There is no cost to our authors/editors to publish. We offer complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, and a generous royalty scheme. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal The sources given above seem to be quite clear in showing that CSP does publish valuable academic books (even if it's despite themselves, rather than because of themselves). And the repeated attempts above to claim them as a vanity publisher and then, when that statement is refuted by actual sources directly saying they're not as bad as that, the original people making the vanity claim then not responding or addressing those sources makes said original claimants look like they're purposefully trying to avoid engaging with the subject and are on the verge of lying. Clearly, this is not a vanity publisher, it is not a predatory publisher, it's open publishing blatantly just makes it fall under self-published sources and any books from it should be treated as such around the importance of the author. Silver seren^C 17:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal to echo User:Alaexis above. I agree that {{better source needed}} should be added instead of removal with |reason= "Cambridge Scholars is considered unreliable per WP:RSN" or something similar. To address the counterarguments: regardless of whether the page editors address the tag in a timely manner or not, it's there for the reader to see if they are verifying content. Even though it appears that Headbomb is only removing Cambridge Scholars material in multi-sourced contexts, that is still problematic if the remainirial is not checked that it is still verified in the remaining source, and there is no tag like {{please verify that I didn't remove something important because I'm too busy to do it myself}} Sorry to editorialize but that does reflect my interpretation sometimes.) I don't get the edit-warring either -- One thing this page teaches is that the reliability of sources needs to be interpreted in context, so if the editors who have been maintaining a page for months disagree with your agnostic source removal, maybe they have a reason, and picking a fight over an article you haven't read maybe isn't the most constructive use of everyone's time. Of course that is an entirely separate issue from whether Cambridge Scholars should have different considerations as far as reliability, but apparently we're trying to have both conversations at once here. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as self-published. Which in most cases should mean removal as unreliable, but we can use it if we can determine that the author is an established subject-matter expert. Why an established subject-matter expert would be using such a publisher, rather than just directly self-publishing if self-publishing is what they want, is another question, but not one we need to answer here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as self-published and go ahead with blanket removal, restoring on a case-by-case basis when an argument can be made to do so. {{better source needed}} tags hang around and don't get resolved until somebody pushes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other relevant past discussions: a failed Featured Article nomination where CSP was called a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing; a deletion debate where the closer wrote that they ave an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best. In this discussion, which also ended in a delete, the possibility was raised that they've made some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries which ends up boosting their WorldCat holdings numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal, but "use with caution" sounds about right, based on the edifying discussions above. Regarding removals, with respect to the edits that led to this RFC, I think it's worth noting that even when multiple citations appear after a statement, it can't be assumed that all of them support all of the statement. There are all sorts of common scenarios where this isn't the case -- classic citation overkill where it may turn out that none of the sources cited fully support the statement, or where only one of them turns out to; a compound sentence where the sources each support different parts of the sentence; a source added by a well-intentioned editor to support their edit but without removing the previous source that no longer supports the sentence; etc. (None of those are best practices, but they happen all the time.) Ultimately questions like "is this citation load-bearing? can it be relied on in this particular context for this particular statement? even if it is reliable and load-bearing, can we replace it with something better?" can only be addressed by engaging in depth with the sources and subject matter of that specific article. There are no rule-based shortcuts. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as self-published. I came here following a brief edit-war with Headbomb on Othonoi. [16] is probably a typical case: there's a citation to a Greek-language journal accompanied by a citation to an English-language book published in CSP by the same authors, conveniently available on GBooks and easy to verify. Blanket removal of CSP books written by scholarly authors is disruptive, and publisher is only one factor to consider the source's reliability. No such user (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose automated removal, treat as self-published although I'm a bit late in "voting", due to the number of concerns raised by other editors, it is clear to me that any automated removal does not consitute due diligence. Even removing CSP sources where another source is provided seems unneccessary - variations on "it's garbage", with little to back up such strong language, are not enough to justify any contentious action on Wikipedia. CSP is not unreliable per se, arguments for which have been expounded at length above. Additionally, due to the changing (and possibly improving) situation with regard to editorial practices, deprecation or any blanket statement of unreliability requires stronger and more recent evidence than has been provided. Toadspike (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blanket removal vanity press, etc yes, but if we can't find better sources than that's a basic problem that means the text probably shouldn't be there anyway. This means removal would require searching for a better source. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal and prohibit it, unequivocally useless and unreliable Totally agree with above users that it is vanity press. Have seen multiple promotional junk about Indian cults from this publisher on Wikipedia.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blanket removal and general unreliability. CSP is a vanity press, which is a type of self-published source. AKK700 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket mass removal was inappropriate. It is clearly not a vanity press, and doesn't even fall within the criteria for a predatory press, since it doesn't charge authors. On the other hand, it appears to be willing to publish almost anything, with minimal editorial oversight. So it should not be regarded as an academic publisher. Its books should be treated on a case-by-case basis on the same criteria as a WP:SPS, based on the specific proposed use and context. Banks Irk (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judge on case-by-case basis. I cannot find any evidence that this is either a vanity press or a predatory press. It is not a vanity press because submitted manuscripts are subject to an acceptance review. It is not a predatory press because authors are not charged to publish and receive royalties on sales. The most that seems true is that this publisher provides less editorial support than the big academic presses provide. This means that the reliability of each book should be judged according to the expertise of the author. The reliability of books published by mainstream academic presses also rests mostly on the author; it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish. Zero^talk 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the last point made by User:Zero0000 is very important and it's something I've been thinking about since the beginning of the discussion. Books are different from journal articles. The reliability of journal articles mainly depends on the outlet: quoting from "The New York Times" is not like quoting from "The Daily Beast" which is not like quoting from "The Sun"; when we quote, we always mention the journal and often we omit the author of the article; discussing about the reliability of the source-publisher at RS/N is vital. The same doesn't apply to books. Yes, Cambridge University Press is more prestigious than Ashgate which is (way) more prestigious than Cambridge Scholars Publishing. But no serious researcher would ever judge the quality of a book from the quality of the publisher - it would be like judging a gift from the package. The reasons why a book gets to be published by Cambridge University Press, Ashgate or Cambridge Scholars Publishing are various and not exclusively related to the quality of the book. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a journal article, the reviewers get much more time to study the article relative to its length, compared to a book. But even then the reliability depends mostly on the author, depending on the subject. Reviewers of a chemistry article don't repeat the experiment to see if they get the same result, nor do reviewers of a history article visit the dusty archive which the author haunted for several months. However, they check what they can check from their desk and they recommend accept or reject according to their best judgement based on experience. Reviewers of a book are generally only given time to scan the book to look for obvious problems and overall quality (I've been there), so the author is even more responsible in that case. Zero^talk 12:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judge on case-by-case basis. User:Gitz6666's comment above is of critical importance. Also, like User:Zero0000 says, "it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish." This is why prestigious imprints retire books after publishing: it is because it is the readership that often comes up with the discoveries of plagiarism, fabulism, etc. In any event, User:Fordmadoxfraud's comments are on point: a couple of people are making prima facie declarations of "vanity press," etc., and no consensus or proof has been presented. And the "third party" sources for such claims is what, a blog? This whole RFC is quite absurd. In any event, as shown above, the books it publishes are frequently reviewed by respected journals and included in respected libraries. Finally, it can't possibly be a predatory press because it does not charge authors and because it pays royalties. XavierItzm (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blanket removal, judge on a case-by-case basis. Per @Fordmadoxfraud, there are no reliable sources that would confirm CSP as a predatory publisher (except Beall's list, badly outdated). Their website states unequivocally that they do not charge for publishing and actually pay the authors a percentage of sales. While I'm unable to evaluate this, I largely fail to see the predatory element of their business model.

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

Case-by-case like a self-published source. From what I've seen in looking into this, they may not have the most rigorous editorial, and their solicitation for submissions methods are spammy, but there's no justification for a blanket removal. It depends on the authors themselves more than the publisher. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Cuepoint Medium publication reliability

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

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

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

Is Cuepoint a reliable source for music industry coverage?

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

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

Survey (Cuepoint)

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

Discussion (Cuepoint)

I believe Cuepoint can be used sparsely. Robert Christgau is a very regarded music journalist, so basically, anything he says goes. So if they have an article written by someone that has a journalism degree and/or has written for other publications it will be fine to use. However, if none of these conditions are met the article is better not used, as Medium is deemed as an unreliable source and Cupoint belongs to it. However, some pieces are written by musicians, such as Mark Ronson, which seem fine, at first glance, to use as he discusses his personal experience with George Michael, but it shouldn't be used to give a certain song(s) a review. It should be used like Sound on Sound is used and other magazines alike. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your explanation. Just to clarify, "Medium is deemed as an unreliable source" because it can be used to publish your own blog (etc). The difference here though is that this publication on medium had reputable editorial control and appears to fall outside of the WP:MEDIUM RSP entry's coverage area. It is "self-published" in the same (philosophical) way that The New York Times or Rolling Stone are -- it simply isn't the same thing as the Medium entry's coverage. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add this in but it is a key point that just dawned on me. An analogy here is how WordPress is considered unreliable but sites running WordPress can be (i.e. Variety, Global News, and Time). WordPress -- or Medium in this case -- is just the platform. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But is also deemed as unreliable as it is a mirror source, so it copies from other sources and publishes those articles as if they were their originals. Nevertheless, the other conditions are still the same. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: I am confused. What is considered a mirror source? Where did you see that/get that from? I don’t see that listed at the RSP entries for either WordPress or Medium? TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it is a mirror website, it copies articles from other websites. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like all sources...WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and they do have some expert authors writing material, but keep the following in mind: their website: We’re an open platform where over 100 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Our purpose is to spread these ideas and deepen understanding of the world. They are as much a RS as is WP. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly recommended: User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js. You may not have to come here as often. Atsme 💬 📧 03:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Again, these are two different things as I've already explained. This is for the Cuepoint publication that happens to be on the website Medium (see my above comments) but has reputable editorial control etc. as already described; this is not for the entirety of Medium and is a very specific question/scope. This essentially makes the website page you linked to moot/not relevant. I am also aware of Headbomb's script and use it, but I came here with this RfC because others had raised a point worth considering and isn't covered by Headbomb's script per se; this was also filed for the benefit of resolving a dispute that was ongoing (to which I was not an involved party). It doesn't really matter to me which way this goes, I just don't like seeing things misunderstood in the backstory and question being asked (that I thought was extremely straightforward) and work to get us all on the same page. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but please consider the following: To contribute, please email your Medium “draft link” or published piece to our EIC: [email protected]. Shecky is also the Director of Programming for the Wynn in Las Vegas. Cuepoint EIC is not his dedicated position in life. Look at the long list of contributors on their about page, and compare their writers and format to say...Mojo, Rolling Stone, or Sports Illustrated for example. Frankly, the difference between Cuepoint and the overall Medium site is minimal. A group of Wikipedia editors, a few with some expert credentials or experience in a particular market niche could create a standalone website for their area of interest in much the same way using WP articles to launch it, solicit the contributions of WP editors at the expert level. Would that make it an unquestionable RS? Do you consider the way Cuepoint operates to equal the editorial control of the NYTimes, Time Magazine, a scholarly review, an academic paper or book published by an expert on a particular topic? What is an expert? I think the position I stated above covers my position well because I tend to be more of a skeptic. Oh, and I apologize for not being more clear as to my intentions for including those scripts as they were meant to be for the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of them. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your position and re the scripts comment. I don't dispute your viewpoint, but will just note that a publication asking for pitches isn't that unusual; The Verge does it, as does even The New York Times (both listed as generally reliable at RSP). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Politics, government, and law
Media, the arts, and architecture
Society, sports, and culture
Wikipedia technical issues and templates
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

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

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

”

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

Regardless of how this is formatted, I think we can be fairly clear that a "news" channel that includes a section called "Wokewatch" [17] is probably going to be generally unreliable for anything to do with politics. Not to mention the presence of Neil Oliver, Darren Grimes, Mark Dolan et al. British version of Fox, effectively. See also the anti-vax fake news links in my post below which suggests to me it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite Comment If this is a section of a commentary show on the channel – like the commentary shows on Fox, CNN and other American outlets – and not part of its actual news content, then it doesn't necessarily indicate the reliability of the channel's reporting. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it is presumably at least a rung below more established sources such as the BBC and newspapers such as the Economist and Guardian. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable, but its really going to depend on the context. Which is what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple sources are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as either "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" without any specific context being given, e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express etc. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The context is in the linked discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
partisan source, generally unreliable, any syndicated content it carries could maybe be considered on a case by case basis. Acous mana 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A cursory search on Full Fact reveals a number of failed fact checks for GB News (source: https://fullfact.org/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22GB%20News%22). --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [18]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [19] [20] [21] [22] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be made to make conclusions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just wanted to try and get the analysis running instead of the RFC being bogged down with whether the request is malformed or not. --Minoa (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable: when a news source is created with the sole intention of "telling you what the mainstream media won’t" or something similar, then that’s an immediate red flag that within hours of launch they’ll go straight to the fake news well (c.f. the Corbynista blogs who tried to argue that February has over 2,000 days, because Steve Walker couldn’t read a WHOIS record properly). The hiring of Andrew Neil was, out of the gate, an attempt to bring some legitimacy to the new channel; once he resigned, the channel quickly devolved into basically the British version of Newsmax. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable: Sources are seemingly about its TV station rather than its website, but: described as "opinion-led" and as "[challenging] to traditional notions of impartial and objective news" by the Reuters Institute (1,2). Also, has been compared to Fox News (1). In fact according to the NYT it was staffed with alumni from Murdoch media ventures (1) around its launch date. --Chillabit (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Impartiality and objectivity are about bias rather than reliability. Do your sources say that they are unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, though, if a news org is lead too strongly by its own bias it can affect reliability. The comparison to Fox is not doing any favors for them, either, as Fox are known for that sort of coverage. --Chillabit (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable As it seems (and seems to be regarded as) as a TV version of tabloid churnalism. As to the comnlp;arsion to (sayh) the guardian, GB news has been around for a year, the Guardian fact check page goes back 8 years, of course they will have made more mistakes, 10 a year (as opposed to 70 in its first year). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable, and other sources should be used in preference to it. However, it may be useful within certain contexts - e.g. direct quotes where X said Y on the programme, but even these should be covered by other RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable GBNEWS is a largely opaquely structured and financed, purpose launched station to deliver specific alternative facts against a range of perspectives. As Sceptre states above - it's an OAN and Newsmax, much the way TalkTV is. Most of the noteworthy content it produces will be opinion, which is appropriate for their opinion only but unlikely to carry any significant weight in any serious topic compared to actual reliable sources, and notable experts in those fields. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. There were 6 !votes and only three sources have been brought up. Of these three, two (Reuters report and Stephen Jukes's book) do not discuss the reliability of GB News and one (Full Fact) requires analysis to understand if the source is better or worse than the average (How many failed fact checks are there? Is the frequency higher or lower than that of other outlets? Were retractions issues? etc.). I don't think I've ever used GB News as a source and I would happily reconsider my vote if there is good evidence of their unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if some of the fact checks "fail" if a significant number clearly show the station peddling fake news? This isn't just "stories that turned out to be false", it's actively pushing a POV based on lies. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other outlets' publications have also failed fact checks, e.g. The Telegraph. This is insufficient to declare all of them unreliable. If you are basing your argument on fact checks, you should at least demonstrate that GBNews are significantly worse than others. Also, it would be good to see the breakdown between the news and opinion as the latter "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:NEWSORG. Alaexis_¿question? 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. There is a massive difference between a news source that prints/broadcasts a story that is later found to be untrue (and retracts it), and one that regularly prints/broadcasts them knowing them to be false for an ulterior motive. The latter is why the Daily Mail is deprecated, and why GBNews needs to go the same way. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it very well, however no evidence has been presented in this thread that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

RFC on Aon, particularly in weather related articles

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@United States Man: Since you seem to have a strong opinion on AON, please comment. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to canvas this discussion. Calling people into a discussion because of their opinion is clear votestacking. Noah^Talk 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get this relisted so people comment? 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78.26: Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022 is a perfect example (and the one listed in the RfC request. NOAA Part1 NOAA Part2 (49 million) to Aon (850 million). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Fox News news website)

Downgrade (proposer) (I would accept deprecate as well, but I think downgrade is a more accurate view added Andrevan@ 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)), due to several recent instances of failed fact checking, as well as doubting the fact checkers, pushing COVID misinformation, promoting other conspiracy theories, and blurring of fact and opinion in coverage marked as news coverage, news portion should be downgraded to questionable and generally unreliable. Like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp), both are sensationalist and right-leaning at the expense of factual accuracy. It's beyond a bias and goes into the realm of "alternative facts." See discussion and sources for my reasoning in separate delineated sections below. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note to closer, I changed my signature, but not my username. Andre🚐 18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - Downgrade to generally unreliable for any reporting. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. Edit: I would accept Option 4 (Deprecate) as a close second. (edited 23:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Personally I see Fox News on par with The Daily Mail and I think this is supported by the source bundle provided below by Andrevan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate (expanding beyond politics and science) - While what they are reporting on is true, it often ends up over sensationalized to the point that it is designed to sway a reader to the right. The new NewsGuard rating also partly plays a role. According to them they do a terrible job at gathering information responsibly (so as not to mislead readers), correcting errors regularly, or handling the difference between news and opinion. This expands beyond politics, as some of the stories that are being published are almost as sensational as Daily Mail. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo - I don’t see a significant change in Fox’s actual news coverage since the last time we had an RFC on it. Most of the fact checking that are outlined below is about inaccuracies in their headlines, and while those have gone downhill (less accurate and more clickbaity/sensationalized) - we already say that headlines are unreliable. Fox is much more careful about how they phrase things in the body of their articles. Are they perfect? No, but none of the major news outlets is. More importantly, they do issue corrections when they get something wrong (a mark in their favor). Indeed, the only reason why I am not !voting to promote Fox to “generally reliable” is that I don’t think any of the major news outlets deserve that status. We should use them all with caution. Finally, this RFC attempts to distinguish between the on-air reporting and the on-line reporting. I don’t think that is realistic. Are we saying that a news item that appears on (say) Special Report with Bret Baier is reliable, but the same news item appearing on the website isn’t? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the fact checks pertain solely to headlines, perhaps you'd be willing to analyze them more closely. I do not think we say that special reports on TV shows are reliable, I believe per WP:RSP: Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. This RFC pertains to just the politics & science news content, which is the bulk of how Fox News will likely be used in a citation onwiki I would expect. I would tend to agree that a TV news talk show is probably unreliable regardless. [18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)] Adding to clarify, Fox News Digital is a separate division from their TV production, though there may be overlaps and I don't know their exact corporate structure. But if you pick any random Fox News article, you can distinguish the ones that simply recap TV video clips versus the ones that are reporting and original writing for web. The latter is where I have serious concerns, but I have no reason to believe the former are reliable either.Andrevan@ 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are free to disagree with my remarks, but I stand by them. - ‘nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed, thank you for your comment and participation. Please do not interpret my engagement as bludgeoning, however it is still proper to engage in discussion so that other editors and eventual closers can evaluate the veracity of arguments. Thank you again for weighing in, and have a good weekend. Andrevan@ 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo all the examples are from science or politics, which we already don't consider Fox News relialble, and we already consider their talk show nonsense to be unusable. The online articles from their news division are a lot more sensible than anything you'll see on TV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order or clarification, we do not currently consider Fox News science & politics, generally unreliable. If you do believe so, you should downgrade not status quo. Andrevan@ 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo Every example falls into the existing language that tells editors to be cautious of using Fox News for political or science topics on contentious claims, which these all are. No evidence has been presented of them being wrong all the time and particularly on more straight-forward news reporting in this area. I still would think editors can do better than Fox if there are alternate sources for the same story but there's no reason to downgrade to "generally unreliable" due to that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - Downgrade I don't like that I have landed here, and I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of factual reporting still happening at Fox. It does seem to me, however, that as the opinion arm of the operation has accrued more power, the standards seem to have slipped. It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, and so I think a downgrade is called for at this time. All that said, reasonable minds may differ, of course. Happy Saturday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. At the least. The evidence below shows that any objectivity is pretty much lost and the website has gone full yellow journalism. Honestly, I could even say option 4, but I don't think it would carry. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo, I guess, or downgrade as to science in particular. I am confused by the combination of "politics and science", both here and in RSP. I cannot envision any circumstances under which Fox News would be a cromulent source for any scientific or medical claim. If Fox News is the best support for a scientific statement, it is not supportable. But their coverage of political events and processes can be quite decent. The existing RSP entry seems to express the need for reasonable editorial judgment pretty well. If there is a pressing problem of Wikipedians adding Fox News to science articles (and not being swiftly reverted), we should probably discuss that more specifically. If not, it doesn't seem like there's a problem requiring a solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree, except when Fox is used for the "scientific" views of politicians and talking heads. I almost made the suggestion myself that politics and science be separated, since I've found Fox more reliable for politics than science. Still, selection remains the major bias in their actual news, not opinion, science articles. YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, downgrading it will not embiggen Wikipedia overall. I think the issue on science is not when they talk about say the James Webb Telescope [23] but when they talk about something that is the intersection of science and politics. Historically that has been climate change and more recently COVID. Springee (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade as the full yellow journalism description is apt. I share the regret expressed above but concur that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, or to put it differently, the work of doing so would require in each instance finding better sources, at which point we should just use those instead. Likewise, debating over what counts as a "contentious claim" is a drain upon the scarce resource that is volunteer time, and resolving any such dispute means finding sources that, again, we should just use instead. Doubtless people will be upset about a downgrade, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that giving in to whining is poor parenting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or deprecate. It's true that on occasion Fox reports a citeable fact reliably, but in general it's rife with selective reporting and spin. When I see it cited, I generally look to corroborate whatever was said in a different, less partisan source; this is a sign that we should cite other sources in the first place. FalconK (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Fox News isnt a reliable source overall, especially for science and politics. It constantly blurs the line between news and entertainment, and is always pushing a POV. Softlemonades (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade but do not deprecate I think deprecating goes too far, as there can be some legitimate uses for Fox as a source, but I do agree with a lot of the above, in particular the sensationalism aspect, especially with regards to science and politics. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - as it's on par with MSNBC news, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC site is far different from MSNBC tv in that it is actually pretty reliable. Fox News used to be in the same boat, but the website has markedly dropped in reliability in the last several years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo, unless there is something concretely indicating that major changes have occurred to the editorial integrity of the site since the most recent RfC on the subject. I'm not saying that there haven't been, but nobody has linked any. I think Fox News sucks, which is why I don't read it, but whether it sucks (and vague gesturing to the effect that they are full of crap) shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether to deprecate it. The issue at hand is a specific list of instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue, rather than whether they run stupid op-eds (yes) and make partisan choices in what to cover (yes). Deprecation is an unreasonably broad tool to deal with something as simple as biased coverage, and if this were an official policy, it would leave us with virtually no sources. Wikipedia editors are smart enough to think critically about what sources we cite. We already have a litany of policies and guidelines against this already, and people are already not allowed to write shitty articles that disproportionately cite sources from one side of the political spectrum. jp×g 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, please see failed fact checks in section below. Info on the editorial changes in the online operation: Dec 2020 - "Hannity’s Crony Has Taken Over Fox News Digital—and It’s a Disaster, Staffers Say" "Over the past several years, the conservative tenor of Fox News’ opinion coverage has seeped more and more into the company’s popular digital brands." "Close observers of Fox News’ digital properties note that the main site has skewed even further to the right under Berry’s leadership. Under its previous leader, former Today show producer and Daily Mail editor-in-chief Noah Kotch, the site more closely resembled a right-leaning tabloid, mixing breaking news with politics, salacious crime stories, and celebrity news. But in recent months, the website—ostensibly part of the network’s “straight news” division—has leaned more into aggregation of conservative culture-war stories and straight write-ups of commentary delivered on opinion shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity. At the same time, the site has been called out for burying or wildly spinning news that is unflattering or negative for Trump" "One recently departed Fox staffer described Berry’s leadership style as wanting to “toe the company line regardless of the fact gathering or editorial importance of a story.”[24] Also this NYT piece [25] "Soon after the Capitol riot, Fox replaced its 7 p.m. host — Martha MacCallum, a news anchor and part of the political reporting team — with another hour of right-wing opinion programming. Mr. Stirewalt, the political editor, who had vanished from the air after defending the Arizona call, was fired; his boss, Fox’s Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, retired. More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Publicly, Fox portrayed these changes as a restructuring, but as with the Moneyball initiative, their impact was felt chiefly in the news ranks, now an expensive and increasingly distracting legacy of the Ailes era." Andrevan@ 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Status Quo (first option, but reword) or Downgrade (second POV from me, especially for science-related articles). The below evidence show excellently Fox News's worsening in bias. Even in 2010, it's biased and probably contributed to the Tea Party Movement, but in 2020, after COVID-19, increased polarisation... it's becoming worse. Yes, IMO its opinion pieces and cable shows (mainly Carlson, Hannity... whose show is appalling conservative propaganda-like). The headlines of Fox News are disturbingly distorted, though WP RS guidelines doesn't judge headlines. At least its main reporting typically is a bit more careful to avoid downright false or misleading info, but over these years, it's pushing the boundaries. Though its controversies are far too many, see the refs provided on our WP page [26], it participates in weak, occasional climate change denial (it isn't Daily Mail or Daily Wire in unambiguous climate change doubting, but is, in some cases, fairly close). And then there's the occasional misleading (not entirely false, at least in news articles) coverage of COVID-19, so I don't understand why this should be science (I might support downgrading generally unreliable for science-related issues, firstly, scholarly peer-reviewed papers should be confirmed, even if citing mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, while not the best, are still far better. Similarly for politics- Fox News's failed fact checks are very clear, though it doesn't rountinely publish false info, but it does somewhat distort and mislead the reader occasionally to its own advantage, considering there're far better media refs, why should this be cited (if there's no other good refs, it could be cited as a last resort)? Further, for contentious claims only present in Fox News, I would think these are generally unreiable. Still, IMO deprecation is... too much? It still has occasionally some usable content for politics and science, and probably is marginally reliable (quite biased to the extent it's more than WP:BIASED, but isn't extremely misleading) more than when it's generally unreliable, so I don't support deprecation. And the downward trend of Fox News is fairly clear; I had a look at the 2020 RfC, with additional consideration being the middle ground; right now, generally unreliable seems to be the consensus. But if the closure is status quo, the current wording is far too weak: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). IMO the bias of Fox is way worse to just say [editors] perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics. PS: I know this isn't relevant, but I support full deprecation for talk shows. Many thanks, please see the fact-checks and the more concise comments by other editors! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade to generally unreliable or even depreciated. Over the last year, coverage of Fox has only gotten worse. See eg. The second is that Fox News disseminates misinformation. This is the case for some proconservative misperceptions (Feldman et al., 2012; Harmon & Muenchen, 2009; Nyhan, 2010). Fox News ran stories with themes similar to...^[1], or Discrediting the elite creates a niche in the media market filled by non-elite outlets (e.g., Fox news) which, because they are only demanded due to beliefs in the alternative reality, spread misinformation to reinforce those beliefs.^[2], or [Fox News] produces almost exclusively misinformation and disinformation on a daily basis.^[3] or ^[4]^[5]^[6] - a lot of these touch on COVID misinformation in particular, but they show that the problem goes beyond that. In past discussions people have theorized that a line of separation can be drawn between Fox's talk programs and its news coverage; but that isn't actually something most coverage focuses on, and what coverage there is actually says that on Fox, there is little distinction between news and commentary.^[7] COVID in particular shows that Fox's ideological mission-statement means that it will produce misinformation across the entire spectrum of its output when doing so is necessary to advance its political agenda. Being biased, of course, is not itself a reason for a source to be unreliable; but systematic, institutional bias that leads a source to regularly produce deliberate misinformation in the service of its biases absolutely is, because it means that these problems are not one-offs but are inherent to Fox's structure and purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade Broadly similar reliability to similar left-wing sites like MSNBC. Sure they get things wrong, but so do other sites, Hunter's laptop being an excellent example. We should not have double standards. And everyone, please do use arbitrary breaks like the above in overlong threads. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to consider supporting such an RFC for MSNBC if any editors can provide similar evidence towards its unreliability. Please provide it if you have it available. In the meantime, whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem like an argument to upgrade Fox News. Andrevan@ 00:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "getting it wrong" is very different than consistently providing misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade per evidence presented by others that Fox News has rolled steadily downhill from news to sensationalist crafting of a desired narrative. The news arm has been slowly subsumed by the talking head side. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo. No significant change since a discussion in March 2022. It was just 4 months since the last discussion, and I do not see any new evidence from March to today that should change the consensus. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the links in the reference section below are newer than March 2022. Others were not discussed at that time. That discussion here does not appear to have been a full RFC. Andrevan@ 17:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo. This ^^^^ No significant change since this early 2022 discussion. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo for a number of reasons. First, where are any examples of status quo causing issues? For politics and science we already caution people when using Fox as a source. Is there any evidence this caution isn't being followed? If not then we aren't solving a problem, instead we are creating a problem, one that Wikipedia is already suffering from, by violating the idea that RS should be judged on a case by case basis rather than using lazy/strategic bucketing of sources based on popularity. Second, what has changed since the last, stillborn discussion from just a few months back [27]? Some of the cited sources against fox predate the previous RfCs so nothing has changed there. They were considered but couldn't get consensus. That seems like people are just hoping if they ask the question enough times they will finally get the answer they want. As for evidence, Fox has a big target on it so it's not surprising that a lot of sources will try to score points with readers by attacking it (while ignoring the same out of sources that are on their own political side). One of the editors who open this considers it to be evidence that Fox has criticized Politifact as biased. That criticism from Fox is well founded. There are a number of examples of Politifact taking a set of facts and arguing to a conclusion rather than answering if that set of facts could reasonably draw the conclusion they are claiming to be false (I've considered opening up a RSN discussion related to this exact problem as I've been collecting examples). Some have cited News Guard's recent downgrade. If we are accepting NG then we need to upgrade source like the Post Millennial (green per NG) and downgrade MSNBC as well as the Daily Beast (a source that is already yellow). Really, this illustrates the problem with the RSP list. Rather than considering sources on a case by case basis it becomes a strategic effort to throw out sources wholesale. This is dangerous if Wikipedia's mission is to truly provide a range of views rather than become an echo chamber of just the sources editors like. Given the lack of evidence of an issue the status quo rating is clearly working thus no change is needed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) edit to fix per Firefangledfeathers's catch below! Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 discussion does not appear to have been a proper RFC. So to clarify, you do not consider Politifact reliable for fact-checks. As to a current problem with this being followed, ere are two recent diffs [28] [29] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Warnock quote in the first diff appears to be real. The second thing with the Israeli company seemed odd, but it also appears to not be supported directly by the Fox News source anyway. The source is talking about the system being hacked through a backdoor, rather than Comverse Infosys providing information to Al-Qaeda. So yes, the second was inappropriate, but it was inappropriate because the content wasn't supported by the Fox News piece. Only the text of the CounterPunch piece directly supported that statement, and WP:COUNTERPUNCH is a thing in part because of the magazine's tendency to publish 9/11-related and other conspiracy theories. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Warnock quote is fake or fabricated, but the Fox News source is accusing Warnock of lying or flip-flopping, it matches exactly a right-wing GOP talking point, and the reality is more complicated. The Warnock statements were taken out of context, the larger statements/sermons were generally about voter suppression, and most of them date to a time before Warnock was in politics so it lacks the precision ascribed to it by Fox. Warnock stated he never opposed voter ID, which is true to the extent of the specific bill that he ended up supporting, or any bill in his political career. So the Fox News piece is misleading at best, and a smear that directly copies right-wing talking points. It goes to their general blurring of opinions and facts, not marking opinion as opinion, and it's being offered here as evidence that Fox News could simply be downgraded to make it clearer to editors it shouldn't be used in these ways. Andrevan@ 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are inadvertently wrapped-up in what appears to be WP:POV creep, and what I see as a cancel culture style approach to eliminate a RS that doesn't align with the partisan POV demonstrated by some on the left, which is understandable to this pragmatic editor in the center. Clickbait media is the epitome of partisan politics that purposely gathers and publishes material that appeals to their demographics; it's something experienced editors already know. They also know that our job is to leave our biases at login, and to present all substantial views from a NPOV, whether we like what was said or not. Granted, Warnock denied that his statement meant what that Fox journalist reported, but he did say it and the job of journalists is to interpret what politicians say and get it published - that is not our job. Ironically, Trump also claimed that a lot of things he said were misinterpreted by fake news, and some RS agreed with his POV and others did not. The material Andrevan removed per his comment above is similar in that Warnock denied that what he said actually meant what that journalist published, but he did say it, and some interpreted it to mean one thing whereas others interpreted quite the opposite. That is the heart of politics. Editors are expected to leave the interpretations to the journalists and use intext attribution if it's controversial, or we risk an OR vio, especially when the material is politically subjective. We present all substantial views based on what's published in reliable secondary sources, and avoid our own interpretations. We can include Warnock's denial but we should not eliminate the published material simply because our POV doesn't agree politically with what's published. We certainly should not even consider downgrading or canceling sources just because they don't agree with us politically. I align very closely with [[User talk:Atsme#Politics|Jimbo's POV] in how we should approach politics, presidents and NPOV, and I expect the same from all editors. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a BLPvio to smear politicians with inaccurate and misleading talking points. Andrevan@ 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bad RfC. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option is ambiguous because readers might think it means what was accepted e.g. in the last RfC -- but buried below is a quote not from there but from the WP:RSP essay, so I fear that anyone who !votes for status quo will be misinterpreted as !voting for what's in that. Option 3 could have been an excusable question if it had been alone and had been about what to do (see WP:DAILYMAIL1 for an example), but it wasn't. Option 4 is confused because "deprecated" merely means "not approved" so saying "generally prohibited" -- which lacks even the qualifying wording associated with the Daily Mail ban -- just makes the second part of the option a contradiction of the first part. And I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed, which unfortunately may have inspired an idea that discussing Fox stories, without showing where in Wikipedia the story was used and disputed, is appropriate. Option 1 = WP:NOTCENSORED but I fear that !voting for it helps legitimize this procedure. I won't bother with potentially disputable claims, e.g. whether Fox is "owned by News Corp" or whether the "Past RfCs" list is even partial. I won't reply to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to badger you, I agree narrowly that really we should be considering Status Quo vs Downgrade and I did think this would be clearer with fewer options but per the talk page, editors clarified that it is standard and more neutral to have 4 options so I relented on that point. I copied the language "Generally Prohibited" as well as the text in the status quo section from the current page, so that is not my invention. I will copy the closing from the last RFC into the status quo section to help clarify. As far as your point about current impetus, here are two recent diffs [30] [31] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade This partisanship on Wikipedia is so shameful. Imagine claiming to create an encyclopedia but then declare facts you don't like to be off limits? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point is that they dabble in disinformation and misinformation, not facts [we] don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disinformation, no; misinformation, somewhat (in talk shows, not in mainstream news); misleading claims, yes. Daily Mail is no different. Being reliable does not just mean reporting on facts, it means reporting on facts in a responsible manner, separating news from opinion, avoiding switch-and-bait headlines, and correcting errors when they arise routinely. These are the five of nine criteria that NewsGuard assess on in "credibility"; Fox News according to NewsGuard fails on three of these criteria. I think Fox News can probably be used as a source of attributed conservative opinion even if it is deprecated completely, but I don't think it should be used to establish notability or for verifying facts about anything ever. Unless if other, more credible news sources like New York Times or Reuters or BBC News report on that same fact (and in those cases it might be better to cite that source), I don't think Fox News should be used. Also Fox News is not to be confused with local Fox-affiliates like KTVU or WNYW. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it does have misinformation and disinformation in news coverage. Andrevan@ 04:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are some examples of facts provided by Fox News that we should be including in the encyclopedia and/or which would no longer be included if this were downgraded? (FWIW I'm about to also ask elsewhere for examples justifying a downgrade.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 Generally unreliable for politics and science. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Muboshgu: could you elaborate on your reasons? The closer might discount vote-like replies that don't present an argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  All of the evidence presented by other users below is so compelling that it seems obvious. But, from a CTRL+F search, I don't see that any of them mention how Fox News pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory or the Dominion Voting Systems conspiracy theory, so I will add those two major deceptions pushed by Fox News as reasons to depricate their work on politics and science (that's for their COVID misinformation and disinformation). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree that these examples should be included as well. To your point, these lawsuits were only litigated or settled recently, with those two links dated 2020 and 2022, so they are good recent instances of the issue of Fox pushing actionable misinformation. Andrevan@ 17:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo per WP:NOTBURO and Springee. I do not support using Fox News and a source and would replace it with a better source every time it's possible. But absent any big conflicts in the editing room which would require a broader consensus I don't see what's the purpose of this? The examples given below are all in the politics and science areas, for which using Fox News is already discouraged. In addition, I am very skeptical of the evidence assembled below, which, IMO, is original research by a fellow Wikipedia editor. Now, I know that this is not the article space and that OR is acceptable for the purposes of these discussions, but (as I said last time) I would prefer it if we were provided with high-quality secondary or tertiary sources stating unequivocally that Fox News fabricates information before deciding to deprecate one of the most popular media outlets in America. JBchrch talk 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo does not "discourage" Fox News. The fact checks below are mostly cited to Politifact, which is reliable for this purpose. Andrevan@ 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems there is now consensus to do so given the discussion above, but my point about WP:NOTBURO still stands. As for Politifact, it's still hand-collected evidence, and I would like to see it being done, assessed and published by a subject-matter expert or a reputable organization before supporting a downgrade for something as big as Fox News. JBchrch talk 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo. Having reviewed the first ~~two~~ four examples I do see bias, a bit of selective reporting ~~but no misinformation~~ and one minor factual error (see details in the discussion subsection). Some of the evidence closer to the end of the list doesn't stand to any scrutiny, e.g., since when is doubting the credibility of various fact checkers fake news? Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion below, I'm still not sure why, if Fox claimed, citing the indictment: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House", and they never did that - White House servers weren't even mentioned at all in the indictment. How isn't that misinformation? Andrevan@ 18:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post (WP:GUNREL) for a public figure or a celebrity's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and The Telegraph gave credence to Wakefield's wild allegations of 170 particular autism-vaccine links in 2001, but I don't think that bad medical reporting is really something we should be holding against news organizations.) Many of the sources provided here largely analyze Fox News's commentary television shows, which is generally unreliable for facts and often flargrantly not BLP-worthy, but we have to analyze that separately from its digital news reporting (which is the typical thing cited when a Fox News source used on Wikipedia). The previous RfC actually did find a consensus that there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts, though its headlines are misleading (WP:HEADLINE) and it's used edited photos (I can't imagine that photographs contained within news articles are ever cited anyway?). I really don't see substantial research presented that Fox News makes an such an extraordinary number of errors in the political area that it's less than marginally reliable for ordinary claims of fact. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Mhawk! You put it better than I did. YoPienso (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only one point I'd like to specifically respond to to correct, all of the sources I cited in my section of evidence below, are about the news reporting and not about TV shows. Andrevan@ 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of jostling between Fox News and PolitiFact. Much of the flak that PolitiFact gets from pundits, etc. is undue, but the sources you're citing in which Fox News denigrates it doesn't exactly fall into the "clearly baseless" category.

There's a longstanding gripe in conservative circles that alleges methodological bias in which sorts of statements get selected for fact checking. Politifact doesn't so much as claim to check random samples of facts, and they specifically denied that their data is good for telling which party lies more than the other, which CJR discusses more in-depth that I will here, but I think you might find the read interesting as it applies to this sort of analysis. That a right-leaning source characterizes this as a pro-liberal bias is not quite the mark of general unreliability. More recently, libertarian magazine Reason (WP:GREL on WP:RSP) has criticized the fact-checker similarly by alleging partisan bias, and others have criticized them for labeling subjective analyses as fact checking, though this criticism is lodged against fact-checks more broadly as well, with Politico noting that, at PolitiFact, statements that are literally true get ratings other than “true.”

After the Rittenhouse trial, Politifact was panned (largely in right-leaning circles) for a fact-check that most people initially read as implying that Rittenhouse acted illegally in carrying a rifle at age 17 in Wisconsin. Journalists generally aren't lawyers and, as it turns it turns out that related charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed. But Politifact defended their ratings and said that they were talking only about the phrase "perfectly legal". Say what you will, but it looks like the judge ruled that Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was not illegal, and a lot of people saw Politifact as being stubborn or retroactively engaging in spin on that topic. Other related fact-checks were similarly panned after the acquittal on the basis of self-defense. It ain't just Fox News saying this about the Rittenhouse fact-checks, though this feels more like like analysis-land rather than news reporting-land.

PolitiFact, on the other hand, maintains that it is completely unbiased. But I don't think this is enough to imply that any criticism of PolitiFact is inherently indicative of poor editorial standards at the criticizing publication. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the reliability of PolitiFact, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, that only applies to my sources 10-17, there are other blatant false failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 19:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: I suppose that I might have to agree with Mhawk10 a bit on this one. I slightly prefer status quo (but with stronger wording and caution) but also IMO is open to a downgrade. Politifact is considered reliable, no doubt, and won a Pulitzer, see for the RfC, but our WP article does suggest some controversies. Still, IMO its failed fact checks for Fox News are reasonable. Though, Anachronist's evidences are all opinion/TV cables, which we're already considering unreliable. Another evidence provided is a opinion video from MSNBC. I think MSNBC is generally reliable for straight news, but its opinion videos are not the best thing to quote. Besides, the fact checks for ref 10 and 17 show Fox News's misleading and distorted headlines, though its body text isn't to the point of being extremely misleading, but IMO it's very, very biased. IMO its challenging of Politifact shows its right bias, but a lot of conservative media (see previous link) challenged Politifact, so that alone is very opinionated and biased, and slightly (but not very) misleading, and mainly drives its right-wing agenda, instead of being downward untrue, unlike the The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Daily Wire and so on. Many thanks for your launching of this much-needed RfC, it's much more neutral and brief now! VickKiang (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! As far as the question of why is it a sign of unreliability to question the fact checkers - it gets at the "alternative facts," conspiracy theories, alternate-reality tunnel nature of Fox News today. It is no longer a mainstream source with some right bias. It believes it has an in on the straight dope and the real dirt of a different reality where Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton are guilty of huge crimes and Donald Trump is unfairly besmirched. Andrevan@ 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With response to is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, yes, but WP:BIASED sources can be reliable sources. The quality press in the United Kingdom is probably the best example of this. But also when we say a source is WP:GREL, we don't mean that it's the Gospel Truth, we mean that it's generally reliable for facts. Even WP:NEWSORG notes that most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, so criticizing particular stories from GREL sources isn't per se evidence of unreliability. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politifact isn't gospel, but it is reliable enough to be used for fact checks. Andrevan@ 00:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes. But when there are other RS that are criticizing particular fact checks (such as Reason and CJR), we have to use our common sense and see if the generally reliable sources are erroneous in a particular instance. This is much in the same way that WP:GREL news sources can contain errors, be challenged by other RS, turn out to be bogus, and yet still remain on the internet years later with no correction or editor's note amended onto the page where it's hosted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As pertaining to whether the information should be used in an article, I agree. If there's some dispute, we need to balance the POVs per NPOV and attribute the positions as appropriate. But when it comes to evaluating whether Fox News is reliable, continuously casting doubt on the fact checkers does go to its unreliability and its tendency to push conspiracy theories and alternative realities. And when it has fact-checked false statements that remain uncorrected, for political propaganda spin, well, that makes it even worse. So you may dispute that Fox News doubting Politifact goes to its unreliability, but that doesn't address the fact that Politifact fact checked Fox and those errors remain uncorrected, that is a black mark against Fox's operation. Also, its Editor's Notes when they do correct, are frequently partial, themselves misleading or disingenuous. Andrevan@ 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can concur with this. Neither is NewsGuard gospel, but it details very well its methodology for rating these various news organizations. And while it has gotten criticism among conservatives, its nine criteria system seems to be a fair way to assess the reliability of a news site. Their detailed reports have a lot of citations as well in the footer to refer how a site fails a specific criteria. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to closer, my username (and thus my signature) changed significantly mid-discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo per reliable sources, listed below. Fox News has multiple iterations; I'm referring to their basic news homepage, most definitely not to Fox Nation, Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson, etc. In years of personally checking CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and the Guardian every day, I find the bias at Fox is one of selection, not inaccuracy. That is, what Fox ignores and what it headlines stems from a clear right-wing bias, although their news stories, in my experience, have been as accurate as those from the other media, who also have systemic bias in selection, and do make an occasional error. Please note that the NYT has recently seen a new turn away from Trump at Fox. (Other Murdoch outlets have turned against Trump, not away from him. This indicates to me Fox may become more mainstream, although it might as likely simply support another extremist.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The doctored photo that Loki is talking about here, part of this collage, appeared on FoxNews.com and there is an editor's note for it: Editor’s Note: A FoxNews.com home page photo collage which originally accompanied this story included multiple scenes from Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and of wreckage following recent riots. The collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced. In addition, a recent slideshow depicting scenes from Seattle mistakenly included a picture from St. Paul, Minnesota. Fox News regrets these errors."^[8] The Seattle Times article says: "Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations. As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront. Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times. In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed." So that's the website doctoring photos, and I agree the editor's note doesn't really adequately address the fact that the photos were misleading and digitally altered. Andrevan@ 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Events in the UK have led me to evaluate all arms of the Murdoch Press as prone to dodgy journalism and misleading their viewers. It's not clear to me why we think Fox News is any better.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but would you mind clarifying which option you're supporting? Thanks! Andrevan@ 00:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to comment, not to select from a menu, but if you're unlucky enough to get one of the closers who counts words in bold, then I suppose mine is best read as "downgrade". I'm British with fairly mainstream views for a Brit, so to me, even CNN looks like a far right wing news channel. I would say that Fox News is of questionable reliability on any subject with even a tenuous connection to the politics of any country, any kind of climate science, anything related to gender, anything related to abortion, business news, economics, tax, foreign affairs and journalistic ethics.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I thought it was supporting a "downgrade" but I just wanted to make sure in case the closer needs a little extra help. I agree it should be a discussion and not a vote or a menu selection, just want to throw a bone to closers since this will undoubtedly be a difficult one. Andrevan@ 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade Fox and downgrade CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES - they're all pretty much equal in reliability - it's the bias that is different. Better yet, downgrade them all if you're going to downgrade one. If we are truly aiming for NPOV, then we should more closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Of course, citing RS is just a guideline - CONTEXT MATTERS - and so do our 3 core content policies. Political articles aren't medical articles because if they were, none of the news sources would be acceptable under a MEDRS type guideline. WP should not be mirroring either right or left wing media; rather, our articles should be NEUTRAL, and they're not. We've been criticized heavily for the latter. Let's take a quick look at the unreliability of the other news sources we have to choose from in comparison: CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes (see the op piece by Hamid Dabashi in Al Jazeera, and others that are just as bad). Our readers expect encyclopedic information from a NPOV, not from a left or right leaning news journalist's POV, and that's what political pundits in general are bringing to the table. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a few more sources:[reply]

Forbes headline: CNN, MSNBC Drop In ‘Trust’ Ratings As Fox News Channel Rises.
Jacobin: Where Biden’s been not much different from Trump — as on immigration, where he’s continued some of the policies that got Trump labeled a fascist and introduced some outrageous ones of his own — the press has simply played down or ignored it, when they weren’t actively laying the groundwork for Trumpian policy at the border.
Reason headline: The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy – a year and a half after the New York Post broke the story, the Times says it has "authenticated" the messages it previously deemed suspect.
Fox News – New York Times scolded for handling of Hunter Biden laptop story Wasn't it the New York Post that covered it properly?
WSJ editorial board – Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print – The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real. Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trust ratings have nothing to do with accuracy, fact-checking or editorial controls. Also, not covering a story does not equal inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: MSNBC and CNN prob should get their own RfCs. MSNBC is obviously a left-leaning outlet, what they report on clearly is favored on by Democrats and garnishes a lot of eyeballs. CNN, on the other hand, aims at turning every single program into a screaming match (or at least aimed, I am not sure how much this stands today). The amount of opinion these American cable news channels pump out compared to the amount of actual news they deliver is abhorrent. Cable news in the US is basically the tabloids of the UK. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and MSNBC both have digital news divisions that are generally regarded as reliable with high standards for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The NYT is maybe not what it once was, but the Grey Lady is the paper of record for many. I have an open mind that standards may have fallen at these outlets, but we need evidence, not just baseless aspersions and false equivalences. Several editors have commented that MSNBC is just as bad - if so, where's the evidence? Andrevan@ 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: @Atsme: Totally agree Andrevan with your point. NYT is still Pulitzer Prize-winning (see List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times, 2022 Pulitzer Prizes). Is it biased? Yes, it's quite left-centre. But I strongly disagree with that it should be considered on-par with Fox News- all the criticisms are on its op-eds, are there RS seriously criticising it? Compare that to Fox, which is rightly biased and drives its agenda often (you'll see I voted between status quo and downgrade, and I don't favour outright deprecation). For CNN and MSNBC news, they're biased, but not enough for me personally to doubt whether it's an RS. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you mean "or" downgrading CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES? That would be in line with what I've seen you say before along the lines of "all mainstream media is equally reliable and equally biased", etc. but putting Fox above the others in terms of reliability seems pretty shark-jumpy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rhodo, it really doesn't matter. If we'd simply follow our PAGs as I stated above – CONTEXT MATTERS as does RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If it's opinion, we use intext attribution. Editors don't have to like the opinion, but we should not censor it. Our job is to present ALL significant views, and not allow our own biases to make those determinations for our readers. Everybody knows opinions are not facts, so they can't be factually wrong - they're opinions. Hannity screwed up with the Seth Rich theory, but he's not the only talking head with egg on his face. The talking heads on the left (and there are more of them) have equally as much egg on their faces (including repos of Pulitzers, Cuomo, etc). The partisan left spread the unverified rumors that were in the Steele dossier along with conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion that didn't pan out. We need to give our readers more credit for being able to distinguish biased opinion from actual facts. When talking heads discuss theories on their respective shows, that is not the same thing as falsely reporting the news. Fox makes retractions the same as the other RS do. I've already provided the sources that support my position. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo All US news sources have their issues. We already use this one with caution and there are no convincing arguments for change (be it upgrade, or downgrade). Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Downgrade to generally unreliable, but let articles be considered on a case-by-case basis. Since 2020, the credibility of Fox News has taken multiple hits when reporting politics and science. The most important issues have been the covid crisis, 2020 U.S. presidential elections results hesitancy and denialism, and climate crisis denialism. Other news organizations have not taken similar hits. Research published in Cambridge University's Canadian Journal of Political Science states that "right-leaning broadcast and cable media (for example, Fox News, Breitbart) regularly discussed misinformation about COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic." Fox News has published false articles that have not been corrected to date. For example, there is an article alleging that Anthony Fauci dismissed a Mayo Clinic study on delta efficacy between vaccines. In reality, Fauci never dismissed the results. Fox News also has a history of sloppy journalism. In 2021, for example, multiple conservative news sites, including Fox News, rushed to declare that Kamala Harris was handing out copies of a book to migrant children. In reality, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any more than one book photographed by Reuters. Fox News also casts doubt on evidence-based science on the climate crisis by citing fringe environmental journalists the likes of Michael Shellenberger. This doesn't mean that Fox News doesn't produce good reporting from time to time. That's why I think its articles can be accepted on a case-by-case basis. But with the heavy bias plaguing the news organization, coupled with a beleagured reputation following the Seth Rich settlement and the settlement with Smartmatic, and ongoing litigation with Dominion, it's questionable to use Fox News when there are other solid sites. So, overall, use something other than Fox News, but if you have to, make sure the individual articles comply with Wikipedia's rules. FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with downgrading a source it that some editors will interpret a "generally unreliable, but consider on case-to-case basis" tag as license to keep ALL info from that source out of WP articles. I've seen "use with care" leveraged as a shield against using at all. Please see "status quo" support from Nhawk and Pavlor and myself. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have it: Just two hours after I warned that deprecation would enable biased editors to completely shut out Fox News, User:Only in death pushed exactly that idea, seeing it as a triumph over "right-wing editors." Their comment is directly below, published at 08:12, 1 August 2022, and alleges Fox is "a regular source of misinformation," which has not been demonstrated. For what I consider a more reasonable approach, see User:Alanscottwalker's comment, published 14:53, 1 August 2022.) YoPienso (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is a regular source of misinformation and should be downgraded. There are other sources for editors to use that don't push false facts and conspiracy theories. Andrevan@ 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you open it up for exceptions, EVERY story will be the "exception". I'm tired of arguing in AfD over why xyz source is bad; if we can at least point them to a list of good sources, that's one less hassle. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade. Anything that takes a regular source of misinformation away from right-wing editors who want to fill (what is supposed to be) a factual resource with junk should be supported. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade Seems to be source of disinformation generally to drive a political point that is at the extreme end of the political spectrum. Its not balanced or neutral news with a particular political bent, it is by design extreme and that makes the sources NPOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or status quo as 2nd choice. This disinfo during covid was pretty much the nail in the coffin, they've gone almost fully into the QAnon camp. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain Status Quo per Mhawk10, Yopienso, and Atsme. The current "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" accurately affects the current situation. GretLomborg (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo. The world - at least the United States - is become more and more split into "liberal" and "conservative" bubbles. We shouldn't be encouraging that. We should not be "on team Red" or "on team Blue". We should be the sum of the world's knowledge. And that includes the knowledge that we disagree with. Fox News is one of the most prominent conservative news sources. If we rule that we can't, in almost all cases, use it for politics, then there would be far too many stories that we simply can not tell one side of, and many that we can not tell at all. Deprecating it would be actively harmful to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That reads a bit like " mom and apple pie." I think that the difficult question is whether Fox News frequently misrepresents fiction as fact. If so -- given that a substantial minority of our editors might not always understand the difference -- does it harm the encyclopedia or the editing process to discuss each instance of such misrepresentation in countless talk threads on hundreds of pages when there are better alternative news sources readily available. How does this issue fit in your analysis? SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't write assuming our readers are idiots, or we would need to delete all our articles about subatomic particles, ancient Etruscan, and Godel's incompleteness theorem, for fear that readers would not understand them. Modern US politics is polarized, and if we present only the liberal side we are actively misrepresenting it, just as if we tried to say that muons and gluons fit together like tinker toys. There aren't better alternative news sources readily available to present the US right wing view, they've all been banned already. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I don't think that the comparison is apt. In fact, it feels like rather a straw man. We are discussing reports of fact. There's lots of coverage of right wing views because they are widespread in the mainstream. But Fox often presents fiction as fact. This RfC is about how to deal with that.. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo, as with most television or cable media in the United States, it needs careful handling and does little, or is of no use, in many areas, but the present system, and proper application of recentism, and NPOV, is more than adequate to deal with it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the TV version of Fox, though. Curbon7 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. It's website is an extension of that just like most U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now. Even so, much of the website is things like [32], in which Wikipedia would look idiotic or worse deprecating such cite, no matter how many politicians happen to be written-up in that cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of information, Fox News Digital, like other news websites that have an associated cable news channel, does publish original content and has its own staff, and this RFC is about the website, and not the talk shows, though there is occasional overlap or content that gets posted on one from the other. There is long-form and sometimes even investigative journalism that happens at outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other major news media that started out as broadcast TV channels. There is not a major difference, in terms of the ways and means of executing, publishing, and posting news, in 2022 between the online operation of a CNN and a major newspaper like the NYT, WSJ, etc, or a more specialized online outlet like HuffPost or Vox etc., in terms of what they are doing with their web presence. They have journalists, fact checkers, researchers, editorial boards, editors, and all the usual trappings of journalism. My concern with Fox is that the lines have blurred and the standards have fallen. Andrevan@ 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I have said is about the talk shows. The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked, the restraint is a combination of ethics and reporter and corporate avoidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a myth, both CNN and Fox News, just like the AP or the NYT, had/have fact checkers, ombudsmen, editorial staff, production staff, research departments, etc. CNN has groups called Facts First, The K File[33], and fact-checking researchers like Daniel Dale. Fox News did have this as well, though according to various sources, "The outlet’s so-called “Brain Room,” which the late Fox News founder Roger Ailes established as the 24-year-old channel’s fact-checking and research unit, has been especially hard-hit, losing around one-fourth of its 30-person staff along with two supervisors—a virtual frontal lobotomy, according to sources familiar with the cutbacks."[34] Andrevan@ 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If not a myth, it is a musunderstanding of the realities. Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review) of a single news article. (See, [35] [36] In today's news, the news reporter is the one who verifies (checks) their own article, answers editor's questions, and sometimes if the editor thinks it necessary passes it to legal for a review. There have been rigourous actual pre-publication checkers (seperate from the reporter) at magazines in which publication deadlines are more relaxed but not with daily news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate from my knowledge. Researchers and fact-checkers do review content from the major outlets like CNN, AP, NYT, prior to publication. There are editorial teams that have several different functions. Everything is getting reviewed and workshopped and signed-off-on and approved at multiple levels, from chyrons to captions to article headlines and text. The production staff at an operation like a major TV news org will have a show level which might have a slightly longer turnaround for an investigative piece (like a 60 Minutes), and general day-to-day units like politics, or business, etc., and they are constantly communicating through chat, email, phone, conference calls, in-person meetings, I skimmed the two links you gave in your response, and I didn't see any support for the claim that TV news or daily news in general aren't fact-checked. Could you quote something specific? Andrevan@ 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E-mails flying and workshopping is not pre-publication fact-checking this piece of news. With all that supposed flying going on, the news is already breaking. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't cited a source or a quote for this claim that work isn't checked for accuracy prior to publication. I believe it is. Here's a source from the LA Times[37] “I don’t think you’ll find an investigative reporter who hasn’t had his bosses say a story is going to get a further review because the subject is high-profile,” said one veteran network producer who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "senior producer of investigations at ABC News, also believed the rigorous review process stories go through has been a constant". Here's NPR: "This is why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting public."[38] NYT: "deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing[39] AP: [40] "fact-checking is deeply integrated into our whole global operation and we rely on the expertise of our journalists on a wide variety of topics to inform our fact-checking work. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see two bylines, or contributor lines, on a fact check. In addition, any staffer may choose to do a fact check in text or visuals with reporting help and guidance from the Fact Check team." Andrevan@ 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still are confused or attempting to be deliberately confusing. With respect to LAT, investigative reporting is not day to day news. For the NYT, that's not a separate fact checker, that is the reporter or photographer and their editor (I said several comments up, that is how it works). For the AP, they are not talking about pre-publication review, they are talking about their fact checking unit which checks others outside the AP, eg [41] [42], [43]. I have given you sources that divide pre-publication fact checking/review/verification (basically, on the by-lined reporter(s)) from external fact checking (done by a team and not internal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not AGF if you think I am being deliberately confusing, I believe we are at odds on a factual disagremeent. You stated, "U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now" "The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked," " Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review)" I see no evidence provided to support these assertions. My evidence shows that in fact, fact checking, on a team, does occur. Investigative reporting is also included in your original blanket statement about U.S. sites of TV/cable operations. There is a lot of complex long-form journalism that is posted on such sites and aired on such TV channels, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I also believe there is evidence that they are reviewed and checked for accuracy, let's not have a semantic dispute as to whether that can be called "fact-checking" versus the comparison to the "fact-checking industry" that you posted. I agree they are not the same thing, but work is still fact-checked and reviewed by others besides the main writer/reporter, including (maybe not all on every story) specialized fact-checkers, board, a research department, or a legal department. Andrevan@ 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, "such news" is in reference to that TV and their websites daily news. "Not on every story", you say. So, you agree it is not happening, we just disagree on the degree, it is not happening. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some simple stories probably get a basic spot check before they are approved. However I do think anything that is likely to be contentious, gets a pretty thorough review, and not simply on an honor system by the reporter(s). I also believe that there is a great deal of good journalism with thorough fact-checking as well that appears on these sites. You are the one making blanket generalizations about all daily news sites that are affiliated with all TV news orgs. It varies considerably. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, these are all reliable outlets and can be trusted to do some accuracy verification for contentious claims. You still haven't quoted any source saying otherwise. Andrevan@ 19:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, your beliefs are your beliefs. They are not a matter for sources, and now you are limiting your beliefs to "contentious claims", you have provided no sources that most TV daily news site stories deal in your nebulous, "contentious claims". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that we are at an impasse, at this point I think we had best, as they say, leave it there. I believe it is just Journalism 101. I can't find an exact source that says the stuff I just believed at you, but I'll look for it. Those are my beliefs based on my experience and facts. You also haven't provided a source for the exact stuff you believe. I believe the general sources I showed gave evidence that you were overgeneralizing in your statement that US network news doesn't do pre-publication verification, especially for, as the LA Times put, "high-profile" stories. (Which I am interpreting to be contentious, but not always). I don't believe my position is so nebulous nor is yours. If one of us can find more conclusive evidence perhaps we will know, until then, I leave it there. Andrevan@ 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade or Status Quo per BlueBoar, Atsme, and others above. There is concern about any news outlet today, especially in North America. Fox News is no worse than any of the others. It makes no sense in downgrading the most watched news channel and web news service in America because they bring up stories the other news companies don't want to talk about. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade for politics and science only. Yes, Fox can be reliable at times. A stopped clock also tells the time reliably twice a day, so what? I have observed a reduction in objectivity recently, particularly with Fox's decision to withold coverage of the recent big news about the January 6 hearings. The bias isn't a problem; many sources considered reliable are also clearly biased (Mother Jones and Wall Street Journal for example). The problem is that Fox isn't just accidentally getting facts wrong, they are deliberately doing it, with greater frequency. If anything from Fox needs to be corroborated with an alternate reliable source before we can use it, then Fox isn't useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is well said @Anachronist. If what they are reporting on is true, yet they are reporting with the same level of sensationalism as Daily Mail or The Sun (in this case to appeal to a conservative audience), in no ways should it be considered "reliable" and thus Fox News should be deprecated. Also important to note that a lot of propaganda news sources like RT mix in articles that report on facts with their propaganda. No fake news, propaganda, or misleading news source only reports fiction. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Fox News deliberately gets it wrong again and again, far too much to be a coincidence. Andrevan@ 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo Far too much of the evidence presented below is flimsy at best and has extreme over-reliance on PolitFact being accurate. Fox News plays fast and loose with headlines, so does every other mainsteam media. Fox News cherry-picks quotes from Fauci briefings, so does every other mainstram media. Until the community develops actual standards and metrics to evaluate ALL MSM (or better yet, bans any news article being used in the first year of publication), Fox News is marginally worse than some of its contemporaries but not significant enough to create a blanket rule, rather than allowing source by source evaluation as occurs now. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade (3) for politics and science (although not for opinion, and no need to completely deprecate). There has been so much deliberate misrepresentation by Fox, to the point of creating an alternative counterfactual universe, that it is becoming embarrassing that we even have to debate it. It's not like they are the only source we can use and it would be a loss to stop having them. There are plenty of reliable sources for politics and science, including sources that are not part of the left-right media controversy. (And, unlike deprecation, this option would not, in fact, prohibit ever citing them.) I also want to say that the issue is not the other news outlets; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reliability of this source should stand or fall on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the amount of WP:OTHERSTUFF is quite high. There's plenty of other fish in the sea. We should judge it on its merits and make any reasonable comparisons, but there's no shortage of time and energy to start other RFCs if we have other evidence. Andrevan@ 04:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo Fox News spins like a merry-go-round. Worthless for analysis and interpretation, but it is a verifiable source for simple statements. Sennalen (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade I would not object to deprecation but I think (especially without a specified time period) it may be more of a hassle than it's worth. I don't quite understand how anyone is voting for "status quo", i.e. for there to be no consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the people who think the status quo is appropriate find it to affirmatively be marginally reliable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo I do not think enough has changed since the last RfC. In fact, I think it has become apparent that Fox is one of the actually marginally reliable right-wing sources these days, especially when compared to the absolute garbage like Breitbart, One America News, and so on. I think this RfC is POV creep and am not fond of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's been several years since the last RFC, and several other users also attempted to open an RFC recently, and that the RFC has already attracted a good diversity of perspectives, it was certainly needed, and a lot has happened since the last one. Maybe not enough in your estimation, but let's AGF on the motives of the many editors who have voiced support for the downgrade option. It is not POV pushing, but a sober read of the present failed fact checks of Fox News. I would not say the same for the National Review. Andrevan@ 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Fox News is much more reliable than something like Breitbart, but that doesn't mean that it is anything close to reliable. In fact, it's been found to deliberately fabricate information in at least some instances, which is IMO the definition of a source that should be deprecated. Loki (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo: I've provided feedback below. And if like me you've engaged in this topic for a little while now and you're sick of all these examples of worst-case journalism from awful cable news outlets, then I'd like to share a little hope for the future of journalism from RSN last month: Pakistan's new outlet is a breath of old-school fresh air. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate. Fox News is a propaganda outlet masquerading as a news source. It's goal is to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even its factual coverage is non-neutral as its selection of coverage is designed to shift public opinion through choice of coverage (and non-coverage). That in itself is almost unavoidable for a news source but where Fox News differs is that it's obvious that they do this without the public good in mind but the benefit of the GOP and its leaders and donators. Fox' "coverage" often is poorly disguised attempts to soil of the image of people they dislike. Plus, The distinction between Fox News "the website" and its array of contemptible, shameful, sleazy television programs is not sharp: even as I write this there are clips of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity on the website's main page. This is part of the design of the Foxs News propaganda machine. They have a news website with an ~~ounce~~ milligram of credability that they use people to funnel into their more biased and propagandized material. It's how they've learned to radicalize Americans. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split? "Science" is an extremely broad topic. A quick perusal of their current science category has reports about zoology, engineering, astronomy, etc. These seem to be reporting similar findings as other sources do, so I'm not seeing a need to downgrade the entire realm of "science"; perhaps certain sub-categories of sciences that are currently ingrained in US politicis (such as climate science) should stay with 'use with caution' though. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the branch of science matters. We don't use news media sources for any sort of scientific facts anyway (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS). And for breaking science news, there are plenty of far more reliable sources that can be used instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If no news media should ever be used for things related to "science", we don't really need a special rule for this one; however your second statement seems to contradict that and go back to the point of this RFC, but the question isn't really "is something else more reliable" but is this "unreliable". — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I should clarify two things. Those science source guideline apply to facts about science, not necessarily to breaking news that something has happened in science. (The difference between pictures from the Webb telescope, and what those pictures tell us.) And what I meant is that Fox News is not reliable as a source for breaking news in science (hydroxychloroquine, anyone?), and there are other news sources readily available that can easily fill that need. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade. e.g. Fox Settled a Lawsuit Over Its Lies. But It Insisted on One Unusual Condition. (NYT, Jan. 17, 2021, "On Oct. 12, 2020, Fox News agreed to pay millions of dollars to the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member"); Fox News parent must face defamation lawsuit over election coverage (Reuters, June 21, 2022), Fox and friends confront billion-dollar US lawsuits over election fraud claims (July 4, 2022, Guardian, "Fox Corp had attempted to have the suit dismissed, but a Delaware judge said Dominion had shown adequate evidence for the suit to proceed. Dominion is already suing Fox News, as well as OAN and Newsmax."); Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? Should It? (Just Security, April 10, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade Could be used as a simple statement of facts, but I wouldn't trust it, as explained ALL above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo: ultimately, I do not see a convincing argument that things have changed since our last major RfC in 2020, nor do most volunteers seem to be arguing on this basis. I support the same option I did then. I had another look at FoxNews.com, to see if it had degraded into nothing but a series of conspiracy theories about vegetables and diatribes about the dangers of children saying that they have a favourite color, or whatever the latest far-right trends are. Spot checks of a few articles at random revealed, well, mundanity and nothing I wouldn't expect from CNN, or perhaps even a left-wing outlet. Fox News manage not to cackle with glee or go off on how singular they was found to cause cancer when discussing Lovato's changed pronouns. And I found a pretty strong source that I should really use when I get around to updating the relevant articles. — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, those articles appear to be under entertainment, and business/tech, not politics or science, so they would not be downgraded in any event, and look like great finds! Andrevan@ 06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, I did spot check a couple of politics ones though. Science, well, it's very rare (and usually accidental) that any mainstream media reports any accurate scientific content. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade: I'm not going to paste in links where dozens of editors have already done so, but I do want to comment on an otherwise unrebutted editor who feels that the (putative) recent shift of Fox and other Murdoch properties to distance themselves from Trump indicates that Fox News is not so unreliable as all of that. I come to quite a different conclusion: that if such a shift was indeed taking place, it's further proof of Fox News' unreliability. A reputable news outfit should not be trimming its sails to the political winds, defending or attacking people depending on whether it scores them brownie points in the ratings or not. Ravenswing 04:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade Politics and science are two areas where the reliability of the Fox News website is very questionable. Misinformation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic in particular suggests that the difference in quality between the Fox website and the opinion television programming is shrinking. This discussion is, to my knowledge, limited to the website and does not comment on the political commentary shows (i.e. Hannity, Tucker, etc), but for what it's worth, the shows ought to be blacklisted. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade to "Establishment hack" status. Called Arizona for Biden way before it made sense to (and way before any other network) not because it made sense newswise but because of orders from on high to cripple Trump's reelection claim. Funny enough, now both Dems and Trump think they are hacks. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly they call Arizona "too quickly" for Biden on their "infographics" and not on a news article. True, the "infographics" are on the site, but it is not a news article, and the "infographics" is supposed to move constantly anyways. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I trust the closing admin will disregard comments based on conspiracy theories around Trump's result in the 2020 U.S. election. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe @Hyperbolick wants to do a little thinking and reading and elaborate on their comment with an eye toward the reliability of Fox's web news operation in 2022, since the "Arizona close" argument is a bit stale. Andrevan@ 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade for politics and science, there is more than enough evidence provided below to justify a downgrade. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade - Option 1. The allegations of the sort "oh, called a race in Arizona two years ago too early" make no sense. Wikipedia WP:NOTNEWS and certainly if a WP:RS makes an early call, it is just that; an early call. Have CNN, ABC, or CBS never made wrongful early calls? XavierItzm (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade: definitely for politics and science: these are areas where Fox is almost famed for its factual inaccuracy, as testified to by the graph evidence above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo: The Fox News website is awful when it comes to slanted, clickbaity headlines and ridiculous in terms of which stories it selects to run at the top. But when you actually read the stories themselves, they are usually on saner ground. And, as always, stories can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo as no evidence has been presented that shows unreliable information cited to Fox News has been added to articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. Also per GRuban's analysis of Fox's supposed unreliability. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is Begging the question. The problem is not that UNDUE or VERIFICATION failures end up with bad content remaining in the article. The problem is the incessant and repetitive talk page threads that are needed to rebuff attempts to add such content. Those threads drain the project of editor time and attention. The whole point of RSNP is to provide a batch reference to forestall such local skirmishes on thousands of articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the RFC should have led with why it's a problem. Instead it proposes a solution without identifying why it's an issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After hundreds of these RSN RfC's, I think all participants understand their reason and purpose. Anyway, opinions as to the formatting of RfC's such as this is deep deep meta-, and is best discussed outside of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade to be honest, my personal view - and this extends to all topics - is that peer reviewed academic publications are the only sources we should use - imagine how much BS content we could bin! However, that's never going to happen, so in the meantime, let's avoid wingnut partisan sources owned by billionaire tax-dodging asswipes. Acous mana 14:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo. (1) While me and many others might not share their social or political perspective, it's still a valid perspective that's made Fox News an important source of information for quite a large audience. (2) Their editorial quality varies, but in general I don't see it as too different from, say, that of the CNN (and that's a jab at the CNN). In any case, Fox's coverage of current events is fairly reliable, even if partisan while they are unreliable for deeper analysis or opinion. This hasn't changed since the last assessment. Hence, status quo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo - Per what I wrote in #What's the exigency?. It's a pragmatic thing. I'm not convinced that a formal downgrade will change much of anything in day-to-day editing practice such that it's worth the conflict, drama, and amount of time it takes (and will continue to take) here in the RfC, in the media that follows, in subsequent discussions, etc. The initiator isn't wrong on the merits, but I think the RfC is a bad idea. It also kind of speaks to the way WP:RSP has [long ago] mutated into its own classification system that doesn't always have a constructive relationship with what happens in articles. We shouldn't be messing with designations at RSP just because a source deserves it, apart from any usage in articles. WP:RSP should be a tool to help reduce conflict, not create it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or deprecate - absolutely not a reliable source for Wikipedia, should not be used - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo for politics with a caveat that controversial subjects need additional verification and downgrade science. Selfstudier (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per the plentiful examples and sources (including peer reviewed articles) provided by Andrevan, Aasim, VickKiang, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Loki, FlantasyFlan, Beccaynr, and others. I've read all the status quo comments to date and I don't see any attempt to rebut the sources and examples provided by these editors, they are mostly a combination of "I don't see the problem" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a status quo supporter myself, I don't feel the need to rebut the examples provided. They exist, and they're exactly why we don't consider Fox to be generally reliable. I agree that there are all kinds of issues with Fox's reporting—I'd easily say that the world would be a better place without Fox in it—but I think the current classification as WP:MREL accounts for its actual reporting as a very mixed bag. Retswerb (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if we start using the same logic presented in the examples (which has been questioned below) to evaluate other RSes on the left, we'll find several of the same problems. Its the symptom of how bias reporting has become over the last several years, and would be a problem to tag Fox News without tagging other sources in the same manner. Masem (t) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXUSTS applied to content, not to how we measure reliability of our sources. We should be using the same yardstick to evaluate source reliability and not create exemptions, which is unfortunately what is being done with Fox here. Too much "its associated with right-wing leanings therefore any flaws make it bad" rather than "and these flaw comparable to similar flaws from other RSes?" Remember that we didn't blacklist Daily Mail due to their bias, but that due to being so biased they took to falsification and other misdeeds in journalism. Fox may be

On the wrong side of public opinion but we've yet to see false info published by their news side that wasn't subsequently fixed. Masem (t) 20:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my list, #1, #2, #7, and #8 are still there with no response or correction, and I haven't heard any discussion on the latter two. Andre🚐 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rebuttals are all at the very end of this thread. Several editors have posted rebuttals of the first 2-4 sources and tend to get sick of it after Andrevan makes a political debate out of each one. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you think someone commented without seeing the rest of the thread, deigned not to read it, or had they reviewed them, and determined based on that information as presented? Andre🚐 04:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on "I don't see any attempt to rebut" it's fair to infer that the rebuttals had not been seen. Retswerb (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to read that Gamaliel saw everything and still sees a lot that was presented which was not rebutted, insufficiently, or ineffectively rebutted. The question is whether Fox News has issues with fact-checking and correcting errors, presenting conspiracies as fact, omitting facts, etc. Like the Daily Mail. The status quo is closer to "use caution" than "watch out!" I don't want to just repeat myself, but no less than 3 "status quo" supporters have piled on to Gamaliel's read of the RFC thus far. Andre🚐 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo per Mhawk10. Ultimately Fox is marginally reliable when it comes to politics, and it's usable for many things, especially uncontroversial claims. No harm in determining reliability on a case-by-case basis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo. Like various above I see a real problem with Fox's bias in terms of what they choose to report and what they choose to omit—but find that their content quality deserves the kind of individual attention already described as Additional Considerations Apply. Downgrading is overkill here and will only encourage those who already tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to shining a light on Wikipedia's own biases. Retswerb (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo. As much as I dislike Fox, after reading over nearly every argument, counterargument, and piece of evidence set forth here, I am thoroughly unconvinced by the proponents of downgrading it. I came in here expecting to see a mountain of cases where Fox has pushed demonstrably false claims, allowing me to quickly vote for option 3; instead, most of the evidence is irrelevant. To be specific, the long list set forth by the nominator below has a handful of examples that actually concern me. However, most of it falls under WP:HEADLINES (I am surprised that the nominator bothered to include the headlines at all, considering they have zero weight as evidence here per policy) or are opinion pieces, which aren't reliable regardless. Eight entries are examples where Fox has bashed PolitiFact, instances where Fox has expressed opinions but not made any claims of facts that can be disputed. It is not false or unreliable to say that Twitter is upset with a rival news outlet, or to quote from tweets and radical pundits; those are just other peoples' opinions. At risk of sounding like a far-right radical or political POV-pusher, it's very hard to ignore the views of others here that this RfC is as about personal politics as it is about reliability. On a more practical note, the status quo already urges caution with regard to Fox, and that seems sufficient to me. Toadspike (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or deprecate, per dozens of sources presented in previous RfCs. No scholar or expert that I'm familiar with considers FN a reliable news source, so neither should we. François Robere (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade to generally unreliable. Fox has published a few false statements as fact. AKK700 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depreciate Fox News pushes a point of view in a way that is beyond the normal bias of other news articles. Let's take Islam as an example, I quote Numerous scholars have shown how Fox News has shaped attitudes toward Muslims, especially among Republicans (Iyengar and Recker [17]; Zuniga et al. [50]). Indeed in some prior analyses, researchers find that Islamophobia among both Christians and Republicans operates through Fox News viewership (Calfano et al. [ 6]; Stroud and Lee [45]). from source: WINNICK, T. A. Islamophobia: Social Distance, Avoidance, and Threat. Sociological Spectrum, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 6, p. 359–374, 2019. DOI 10.1080/02732173.2019.1704668. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=141192409&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 4 ago. 2022. So it's a "news" site that is islamophobic? No thanks. Others have already shown how Fox News misinformation about COVID and natural immunity occurred and that is fatally misleading. CT55555 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are those sources referring to the news or the commentary/talking heads? It seems most of the time when looking at comments about Fox one finds they are talking about Tucker Carlson et al rather than the basic reporting which a subset is at question here is what is at question in this RfC. Springee (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read content via the Wikipedia Library resource a bit before posting, and I found that academic sources tend not to make this distinction between parts of Fox News. I also observed that WP:RSP doesn't seem to either. So I find the concept in which people seem to think a source can have reliable elements and unreliable elements to be unconvincing. I contend that to be a credible news network, a corporation can't have a crazy racist uncle section that we all just accept as not really the network. CT55555 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little like SYNTH with a splash of OR. Islamophobia has nothing to do with reporting factual news; rather, such labels reflect bias on both sides, and we don't downgrade a source because it's biased. If we did, we wouldn't have any news sources from which to choose. I see big holes in the arguments favoring the deprecating/downgrading of Fox in light of the unquestioned acceptance of CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, WaPo, and NYTimes as RS despite similar or worse reporting. Cuomo was a long way from providing ethical journalism and so was NBC's Brian Williams. There are just too many to name them all. Atsme 💬 📧 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm allowed to synthesise and opine here, I think this is a process of seeking opinion, we're not writing an article here. I did acknowledge that all news has bias, and I stated that Fox, in my opinion, operates outside normal parameters. I stand by my perspective that pushing an islamophobic agenda is not behaviour consistent with a reliable news source and that is just one example that I've cherry picked to build upon unscientific health information pushed by Fox mentioned in more detail by others. I think it's OK for you to share anecdotes in links, but let's take a step back and consider the bigger picture and my perception is that Fox is an outlier in terms of journalistic integrity, and if someone opens a conversation about the other sources above, I'll critique them there. CT55555 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. I still cringe from their story years ago that elderly people were standard killed in hospitals in The Netherlands. The truth was that unbearably suffering people (not even alone the elderly, as Fox claimed then) could request help with euthanasia, in discussion with family and physicians. The Banner talk 23:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo, if not upgrade, mostly per WP:NOTBURO but also per the characteristics of modern US mass media. A strong proscription of Fox News—at least as stated here ("generally unreliable")—will very likely be taken as license to remove all existing Fox citations. (Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I have seen enough unpleasantries at AP2 that I can make no other conclusion.) Fox still contains legitimate, although opinionated, political coverage, and I don't think most experienced editors will claim that, say, pre-2008 Fox is "generally unreliable." These subtleties are not captured in "generally unreliable." I caveat this !vote by noting that I did not thoroughly assess the sources presented by Andrevan below. Based on Andrevan's comments alone, however, Fox News has made a fair number of questionable assertions, usually the result of mixing fact with opinion, and a handful of blatant factual errors. The evidence that calling Fox News a "no consensus" source has caused serious disruption is weak. Editors always have the discretion to replace suboptimal sources with better ones. In a pinch, RSP is a helpful guideline; it's not some sort of oracle, although it's often treated that way. The Sagan standard is policy: caution is required whenever any source claims something extreme or contentious, even newspaper of record–type sources. Hence we have WP:MEDRS and (to some extent) WP:APLRS. ~~As an aside, given its importance and broad appeal, I suggest that this RfC be extended longer than the usual 30 days.~~ On a positive note, I am glad to see that this discussion has not devolved into pure vitriol and that several cogent arguments have been put forth. Ovinus (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo I see no reason to change the current status. Yes it may have a right wing stance on the news, but every news outlet holds a political view theirs is just more pronounced/infamous like CNN or the Guardian are for their left leaning views. Plus as above, we don't want this to cause another puritanical purge of Fox sources like happened with the Daily Mail if passed which will result in a lot of WP:POINT discussions (plus could drag others like Fox Sports (Australia) into the sweeping removals). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status quo until evidence is presented that there has been editoral changes to the newsroom portion of FoxNews in the last few months. People, above, seem to be conflating the TV content and the newsroom content that goes on the website. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP does seem to treat news companies as a whole. What I see is that it does not tend to have different ratings per medium. If people are generally taking Fox News to include television content and internet content in a time in human history when "television" news is often delivered via internet, perhaps it is logical to treat all an outlet's content collectively? CT55555 (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it's atypical, there are cases that specifically draw a dividing line w.r.t. reliability for certain sections/topics. Aside from how we currently treat Fox News, these include Sixth Tone, the Huffington Post , Rolling Stone, Anadolu Agency, and Business Insider. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, we also don't tend to rate based on corporate ownership per se; The Times and WSJ are owned by the same company that owns the New York Post and The Sun, while the owners of Politico and Die Welt also owns Bild and Business Insider. Big companies often own various different quality news outlets that have different target audiences. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade Most if not all of the criticism is about talk shows on Fox News Channel, such as "Fox and Friends," rather than Fox News news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable no matter who broadcasts them and if that were the standard for reliability of news reporting, we would have to deprecate all cable news. I note that long time Fox News anchor Shep Smith moved to CNBC, while long time Fox News Channel host Megan Kelly moved to NBC. And both CNN hosts Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs moved to Fox. The only difference between Fox and the other cable news networks is that its editorial policy is more right-wing. TFD (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo My own sense is that it's reliability is dependent on the topic of coverage. It needs to be evaluated in a given context. I also suspect that many reactions here are colored by Fox's talk shows, rather than its news reporting. JArthur1984 (talk)JArthur1984
Status Quo To evaluate a media source that publishes thousands of articles annually (and in the near-future, with AI, we’ll have millions if not billions), a statistical analysis of the content is going to be increasingly important. Something like the Media Bias Chart (with a methodology that is trustworthy and open-source) ought to be Wikipedia’s approach to assess bias and reliability, rather than the seeking and finding of a few individual examples (or counterexamples) of bias and unreliability. BBQboffin (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo There are some instances in which Fox is unreliable, but at the same time, there are also some instances in which it is fine as a source. It really depends on the individual articles you’re looking at. Doing a full on depracation or removal of many Fox citations without looking at the individual articles will do far more harm than good. If better sources can be found, they should be used instead, but this isn’t always the case. X-Editor (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or Deprecate. A few years ago I was willing to bend over backwards to keep Fox as a source. Aside from it being big, I actively wanted it for diversity given how many sources on the right had tanked themselves with complete and utter unreliability. However Fox has rotted since then. In addition to the case made by so many others, I'll try to add a new angle. Amid the endless drumbeat of propaganda, Fox did have some high quality elements in the lineup. In particular their Election Desk was widely acknowledged as among the best in the business. The staff were of course Republican, but they were noted for objective and analytical and expert elections calls. It was particularly noted when they called Arizona for Biden before anyone else, and they nailed it. They ended up fired for it - fired for doing some of the best work in the business. And then there's Chris Wallace - another top tier respected professional. He quit Fox, explaining "I’m fine with opinion: conservative opinion, liberal opinion. But when people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable." Given everying cited on this page, given that Fox's quality staff are either being fired or fleeing, it's just not worth it trying to work around all of the malicious or incompentent or sloppy crap. If something is newsworthy, cite it from somewhere else. Alsee (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo The evidence does not convince me. Though fox is clearly not generally reliable (and the evidence supports this), spot checking the politics section on the website reveals, for me, that fox isn't generally useless as a source. Editors should be able to use Fox News (in politics/science) with a dose of caution, especially for uncontroversial claims. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. If there is anything reliable and useful, it will nearly always be found on better and more reliable sources, and some of its best newspeople have left Fox for other news bureaus because the news division is unreliable. The whole site can still be used for WP:ABOUTSELF, but not about others, especially politics and science. Because most of the site is a misinformation and propaganda source, and there isn't always a clear separation between its news and opinion content, there is too much danger associated with allowing use of the news division. Use other RS for news, politics, and science. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade or Status Quo: I'm leaning toward downgrading, but would not be opposed to the SQ. I think Fox is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and a downgrade would be appropriate. However, I think the SQ also offers editors leighway to use Fox for non-controversial claims (somewhere in the comments or survey another editor mentions birthdays as an example). Fox is probably reliable for only the most basic factual political reporting (where candidate lives, age, maybe party membership), but anything past that they tend to be opinionated in their coverage and, most concerning to me, very late and hesitant to issue corrections.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo – Per others here. It is generally reliable for non-controversial claims and actual news. If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well, but I’m not making the argument for any. United States Man (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about errors that are "bugs" or "features": I frequently see this argument about Fox News, as made above: "If this source is downgraded then there are plenty more that should be as well." No, that argument makes no sense, because Fox does it on purpose. The others just make human errors. We do not downgrade or deprecate sources because they occasionally "get it wrong". Journalists make mistakes, and it happens to the best. That's a "status quo" situation. As long as the source has a habit of correcting such errors, then things are "as they should be". These errors are seen by the source as a regrettable "bug" in the system. It's the price of using human journalists.

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

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

"staff say has helped mold the websites more in the image of the network’s right-wing opinion programming."[44] Andre🚐 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast is a yellow source at RSN - "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar material in the NYT: [45] More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Andre🚐 20:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GretLomborg, are you seriously that unfamiliar with this topic? The better news anchors will correct glaring errors when confronted, unlike Carlson, Hannity, Gutfeld, Bongino, Perrino, Piro, Doocy, et al. The problem with the news side is that they consistently refuse to cover certain very important events that are contrary to the GOP and Murdoch party lines, and when they do cover such events, they do it in a very one-sided manner that seeks to undermine the facts. The news anchors who won't do that get openly ridiculed and persecuted and have left Fox News. Even Chris Wallace has left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox has fabricated information: for example that Clinton paid to infiltrate White House servers.[46][47] or that the Biden admin redefined 'recession'[48][49] and they remain uncorrected. If other sources do it, downgrade them too. Andre🚐 17:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Deprecate Fox News is, without a doubt, a propaganda apparatus, first and foremost. They were acceptable for a time due to the relative neutrality of their general news reporting, but this is being eroded steadily, and it's time we stopped pretending like that's not a major red flag for unreliability. Happy (Slap me) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Almost all of this "downgrade" garbage is based on political motivation. NYT and others that are "reliable" consistently push a political viewpoint. FoxNews is no worse/better. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this downgrade has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how it communicates misleading information (like Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL). This Vox video shows how Fox News's mixed messaging from opinion programming to factual reporting has actually created internal conflict among viewers of the Fox network, specifically in the area of the COVID vaccine. And even though Fox News does report some truths (just as RT reports some facts as well), it has become clear that News Corp wanted Fox News to appeal to a conservative audience. This is, in fact, the same problem with MSNBC; its attempts to appeal to partisan audiences has resulted in both MSNBC and Fox News losing its ability to present information in a non-misleading way. CNN is slightly left leaning and yet it at times can be quite reliable (its online articles, not the screaming matches on TV). On the other side, Wall Street Journal is slightly right leaning yet it too also does not knowingly publish misinformation. This is about the marketing to political appeal affecting the credibility of Fox News, not "political motivation". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Meirick, Patrick C.; Franklyn, Amanda E. (29 June 2022). "Seeing and Believing Pro-Trump Fake News: The Interacting Roles of Online News Sources, Partisanship, and Education". International Journal of Communication. 16: 23. ISSN 1932-8036.
^ Szeidl, Adam; Szucs, Ferenc (2022). "The Political Economy of Alternative Realities" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
^ J. Froehlich, Thomas (2021-09-08). "A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump". Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism. doi:10.5772/intechopen.95000. ISBN 978-1-83962-421-6. S2CID 230609712.
^ Conklin, Michael (2022). "The Real Cost of Fake News: Smartmatic's $2.7 Billion Defamation Lawsuit against Fox News". University of Dayton Law Review. 47: 17.
^ Simonov, Andrey; Sacher, Szymon; Dubé, Jean-Pierre; Biswas, Shirsho (1 March 2022). "Frontiers: The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Noncompliance with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Marketing Science. 41 (2): 230–242. doi:10.1287/mksc.2021.1328. ISSN 0732-2399. S2CID 245299737.
^ "The unique role of Fox News in the misinformation universe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-07-31 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
^ Kizito, Kalemba (November 2021). "Media: Fox News, Racism, and White America in the Age of Trump". Impacts of Racism on White Americans in the Age of Trump. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 137–149. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75232-3_9. ISBN 978-3-030-75232-3 – via Springer Link.
^ "Black Lives Matter protesters say Seattle's autonomous zone has hijacked message". Fox News. 12 June 2020.

Discussion (Fox News news website)

For when this RFC ends… what we really need is a project wide discussion about How our articles cover politics and politicians, and the sourcing we use to do so. RECENTISM and UNDUE WEIGHT is a real issue in these articles. Thus goes beyond using Fox (or not). My feeling is that we are far too quick to include breaking political news, and we should be much more reluctant to use breaking news coverage (in general) to do so. We handle the whole thing inappropriately. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably many examples of undue recentism, but we also must remember that recent breaking news very often is notable, verifiable, and relevant to making an encyclopedic article. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that it can react a lot quicker than Britannica or in some cases even the real news orgs. Certainly, reliable academic journal articles and scholarly books take quite a bit of time to be written. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article or information until it is, the source mix will change over time when it becomes available. Recent events will be largely based on reliable news when they are first happening, I think. Andrevan@ 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, recent news is not actually notable, it is editors that think it is. This has led to articles with an incredible lack of neutrality because of editors' implicit bias that favors the left, when really we should be waiting a lot longer before having in-depth coverage of certain events so that we know how to write the overall positioning better. Editors need to think of writing for the 10-year view, not as if we were a newspaper. Masem (t) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to debating this topic with you when Blueboar starts the discussion in wherever that should be. Suffice it to say, that I agree with you on the 10-year view, but that doesn't preclude responsible notability and sourcing of recent events. For now, it's clear we don't see eye-to-eye on the bias or lack thereof of said practice. Andrevan@ 21:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more I see !votes on this, particularly those echoing "status quo" the more I think that there's a bigger picture discussion on the need to assess how we should be writing articles that are current events in the news, at least drawing the line between "just the fact ma'am" objective details and the talking head subjective ones. This applies to then how Fox News should be used, and/or the overreliance on mainstream commentary in light of Astme's !vote. This is the importance of RECENTISM, that we shouldn't be trying to measure the public opinion temperature while an event is currently in the news, as as soon as we do that, we often start falling into endless debates on source reliability. If we were far less focused on capturing the short-term public opinion (instead waiting for the 10yr view), then the issue of using Fox News becomes far less of a complex issue. But that aspect is beyond the scope of this RFC. Masem (t) 03:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re #1, Leadstories take issue with the statement that Trump Tower servers were infiltrated saying that in fact only DNS data was accessed. There is some difference between infiltrating and "exploit[ing] ... access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data" [50] but it feels like splitting hairs.

Re #2, Fauci "cautioned not to use the study to make decisions about which vaccine to take for a booster shot" but "did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings," per Politifact.[51] This is not the same as dismissing the study entirely but "not to use the study to make decisions" is pretty close to "to reject serious consideration of" which is one of the definitions of the verb dismiss. They also write later in the article that he doesn't "doubt what they’re seeing." I can see how their bias impacts what they emphasise but I don't see misinformation. Alaexis_¿question? 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the statement about "infiltrating" the White House servers is inaccurate. It is not found in the indictment and apparently comes from Kash Patel, so they should have attributed it [52]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

3, Fox makes statements such as: "The researchers concluded that limiting gatherings may have actually increased COVID-19 mortality. ... Researchers also pointed out other unintended consequences of lockdowns, such as rising unemployment, reduced schooling, an increase in domestic violence incidents, and surging drug overdoses." Fox calls it "Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of several studies. " However according to Politifact,: "The research represents a non-peer-reviewed "working paper" ... The paper’s authors — Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke — all come from an economics background. Hanke, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, has aired opinions about lockdowns and "fascist" vaccine policies on Twitter and has repeatedly elevated false claims about the pandemic. Hanke is the only one affiliated with the university." So first of all, only one of the economists is affiliated, and they have a political axe to grind. So it's attacking lockdowns from a political perspective, and attempting to make it seem like a public health study, making statements about mortality etc, when it was actually written by economists. Politifact says, ""The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in an emailed statement. "To reach their conclusion that ‘lockdowns’ had a small effect on mortality, the authors redefined the term ‘lockdown’ and disregarded many peer-reviewed studies. The working paper did not include new data, and serious questions have already been raised about its methodology." Because Johns Hopkins is known as a leading medical university, there's credential confusion going on here by calling it a JHU study, though it is not from the public health or medical dept at all. It's more than insufficient context: it's overstating, obfuscating, misinformation for political reasons.
4, Fox states that "revealed that the dossier had, at the time, only "limited corroboration." The dossier has now been largely discredited. " However our own article states, " However, some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated, namely that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton, and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians"'. Not "was corroborated at the time" but some of the dossier remains true, so Fox is spinning or ignoring facts. Fox conveniently ignores this and says that it originated politically with the Clinton campaign, and attacks that Mueller's team donated to Democrats etc. It also states, "Mueller's investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election." We know that's not true: there was evidence, though not sufficient to charge a conspiracy, particularly pertaining to Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Wikileaks, as well as the Internet Research Agency and GRU, but Fox omits this information. The article says "despite acquittal...," but ignores the actual acquittal, instead claiming that Mueller et al unfairly attacked Trump. It's political hackery and contains several false statements about the dossier and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 14:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting the cart before the horse. The Wikipedia article about the Steele Dossier is out of date and badly in need of a rewrite. A recent NYT op-ed went so far as to call the dossier a "hoax." There was a lot of contemporaneous bad reporting about the dossier (but we haven't downgraded anyone for that). You'll notice the lead now says Five years later, it was described as "largely discredited", "deeply flawed", and "largely unverified" with a cite to a WaPo article noting they took the unusual step of correcting and removing large parts of 2 stories. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That op-ed is not usable, of course, it's a piece by right-wing-leaning columnist and provocateur, Bret Stephens (see his controversy section, I've never looked at his article so I have no idea if it's fair or balanced) and is WP:RSOPINION and only usable for attributed and very disclaimed claims. The Steele dossier was partly corroborated, which is what our current article states. Regardless, the Fox News piece has significant errors in its description of the Clinton campaign, the Durham case, and the Mueller report. Andrevan@ 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use a claim on Wikipedia to try to prove something a reliable source says is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a CNN article which has some of the same detail but doesn't have the same errors as Fox: Steele was right that Russia used "trusted agents of influence" to target Trump's inner circle. And he was correct to suspect there were secret contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials, even though Trump denied any Russian ties. But Steele was wrong about so many of the key details. [53] Andrevan@ 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished. A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources. We've never revisited any of the RS who pushed misinformation about the dossier 5 years ago, and I see no reason to single out Fox. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

We can't make an RSNP decision based on cherrypicked unverified claims about content on a single topic. That's counter to the core purpose of RSNP evaluations of publishers. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan, I've asked for specific examples, I'll let others decide if they have been provided. Re #4, I can only repeat that a recent NYT article calls the Steele dossier discredited without any caveats ([Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry]). Alaexis_¿question? 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also says it doesn't undercut the Russia stuff - whereas Fox specifically undercuts all the Russia stuff. Andrevan@ 16:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This won’t change my !vote (above)… but… The argument for downgrading is that Fox’s reliability has declined recently (last few years)… If this is consensus, how will we handle older reporting from Fox? Is the intent to retroactively downgrade all Fox reports including reporting from before the decline, or just apply it to reports since the decline? If the latter, what would be the cut off date? Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid question but I'm not sure we need to draw a line between reliable Fox and unreliable Fox. It's always been pretty unreliable, just has gotten worse. I don't think we're doing anything useful by keeping old Fox reliable. Andrevan@ 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially you are now just saying that our previous consensus was wrong… that Fox has always been bad and we should have seen that before? got it. Thanks for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said, our previous consensus was that Fox was "marginally reliable" at best, and not usable in many cases, so we don't need to draw a line and say "marginally reliable" here and "unreliable" here - easier to just mark it all as unreliable. [18:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)] adding further clarification: "Marginal reliability" requires a case-by-case basis evaluation, which already contains some caution and doubt for contentious claims. "Generally unreliable" is stronger but still does not fully deprecate the source. If we do downgrade to "generally unreliable" I believe that some older Fox News content could be marginally reliable if there were a sufficient consensus to do so, but I do not believe from a simplicity and a pragmatism perspective, it will be beneficial or necessary to carve out a case-by-case marginal reliability for older Fox News content as a matter of categorical determination. If Fox News had previously been "generally reliable" at an earlier point then I can see the necessity and wisdom of doing this. The current marginal reliability already excludes Fox News for contentious political uses that would also be prohibited under a downgrade so I don't see the value of carving that out, it just makes more work for editors and judges of consensus. Andrevan@ 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading I would not say it has declined recently (there are a fair number of older sources discussing its tendency to push misinformation, and the more recent ones often treat it as simply an accepted fact that Fox works to advance misinformation, often as something that goes right back to the original purpose it was founded for.) Rather, I think that there is more coverage of that fact, and the coverage tends to be more strongly-worded, in part because COVID made Fox's willingness to push misinformation when it advanced its ideological agenda more pressing. There's a wave of coverage discussing how we got here in terms of vaccine denialism or people taking horse dewormer, and much of that coverage focuses on the role Fox plays in constructing, as one source put it, an alternate reality formed out of misinformation. But they don't treat that tendency as a new thing, just as a particular pressing and alarming case of it due to the public health concerns involved. (That said, I'm basing this more on the sources I presented rather than Andrevan's, since I feel that secondary sourcing describing a source as producing misinformation or otherwise being generally unreliable is more important than examples which we personally feel are wrong. The key point for reliability is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Among high-quality sources that examine the news, I don't think that Fox ever has, but I think it's become easier to demonstrate this recently because the pressing case of COVID has produced more coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it has declined recently, in 2018 when former Hannity producer took over the digital arm, and after the election in 2020 there were significant layoffs and reduction in staff in the digital news reporting, fact-checking and research departments. This has only continued to accelerate under the Biden administration and with the COVID pandemic continuing. See [54] [55] Andrevan@ 19:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox quotes Warnock's response to NBC: "I have never been opposed to voter ID," Warnock told NBC News in an interview published Thursday. "And in fact, I don't know anybody who is — who believes people shouldn't have to prove that they are who they say they are. But what has happened over the years is people have played with common sense identification and put into place restrictive measures intended not to preserve the integrity of the outcome, but to select, certain group."' That seems clear. Voter ID is a tool of voter suppression, but the compromise that was supported was deemed acceptable. It would be reasonable to cover some nuanced evolution of his position, but the way Fox spins it for political propaganda is a serious problem. And please note this article, though it's essentially an op-ed[56] is marked as News, under "Voting," and does not have the badge for "Opinion." Andrevan@ 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fox puts opinion in the news section, and ignores or invents facts when they are inconvenient for its narrative. I've never seen an article under "analysis" in another publication that just accuses a partisan actor of lying so brazenly (I do not except your McCarthy example, there were tapes for god's sake). This is a pattern from Fox. See another article from them about the same topic, voter suppression in Georgia.[57][58]. "Democrats, corporations and the liberal media repeatedly decried Georgia’s Republican-passed Election Integrity Act as the next Jim Crow, but the Peach State is now seeing record-breaking turnout for early voting ahead of Tuesday’s primary. Last year, President Biden called the law, known as SB 202, a "blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience," ascribed it as "Jim Crow in the 21st century" and was supportive of Major League Baseball moving the 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta as a response. Biden urged Congress to pass sweeping federal voting laws, including the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Biden, along with Democrats and members of liberal media, argued that the law would deny people the right to vote, especially minority Americans, and could lurch U.S. democracy off balance. But voting in Georgia is breaking early records despite the state’s "controversial new election law," as The Washington Post put it." The Washington Post admitted over the weekend that the number of Georgians turning out to vote in this year's midterm election primaries was "surging," despite its previous reporting and claims that the state's new law aimed at election integrity would lead to voter suppression. "Corporations and the liberal media," right?

The Brennan Center said the bill was a wide-ranging bill that targets Black voters with uncanny accuracy. [59]
Brookings said, [60] Just three short months ago, a violent mob overran our nation’s Capitol Building to revolt against certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Many of the rioters carried signs proclaiming “Stop the Steal”—reflecting the lies that President Donald Trump and his team stoked about voter fraud. Today, many elected officials are using that same pretext to dismantle the voting rights won during the civil rights movement..
[61] "The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers."
NBC: [62] The measure, Senate Bill 202, limits early voting sites and restricts both the number and the available hours of drop boxes.
NPR: [63] "Poole is one of millions of Georgia voters affected by sweeping changes to state election laws enacted by lawmakers last year. The changes include restricting access to drop boxes in counties that used them the most, which also have the highest number of voters of color and Democrats, according to an analysis by NPR, WABE and Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) of drop box locations, voter registration and other data."

According to Fox News, because voting was up, despite voter suppression, therefore there is no voter suppression! This is typical Fox, they can't resist taking a potshot at the liberals. But Fox conveniently ignores the "400 percent increase in mail-ballot rejection rates in last year’s municipal elections... the bill’s provision allowing any voter to challenge registrations led to an attempt in Forsyth County to reject the registration of 13,000 voters."[64] in the Washington Post story that would suggest that those worries may have been reasonable. In fact, the Washington Post story actually describes how voting rights groups have helped people to vote IN SPITE OF the voter suppression going on. It's just bad journalism on the part of Fox, it goes beyond spin, it's selective reporting of facts, and misinformation, along with a healthy dose of unprofessionalism. They're not calling balls and strikes, there are no pretensions of reporting facts, instead, we just get the all-spin-zone right down the middle. There is no comparison to CNN. I guarantee you if CNN tried to mention the "liberal media" or the "conservative media" that reporter would be fired. Here is the same article that Fox News called news as an opinion column in the Hill[65]. The same Warnock piece was a GOP article [66] NRSC post [67], but on Fox, partisan op-eds are just news. Andrevan@ 02:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a little befuddled by your response and the edit summary. I've shown that Fox has failed fact checks, and that some are inappropriately adding Fox to articles. Voter suppression is real, it's pretty unequivocal^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13], but that's really not the point. Fox News spins the facts, ignores facts, or misstates facts in a misleading way, in content marked as news. Fox took a WaPo article that pointed out how voter suppression is real, and has led to an increase in mail ballot rejection rates, and removal of primarily black Democrats from voter rolls. Yet despite this, due to the action of voting rights groups, voting has increased. Fox has reported on this by saying that voter suppression isn't real, and puts these words in the mouth of the Washington Post. Even if you don't think voter suppression is real or a problem, that isn't what Wapo said. This goes to Fox being an irredeemably flawed source. You are free to disagree, you are also not obligated to respond if you tire of this, but I don't agree and I do not think you've made your case that these errors and misstatements are forgiveable or par for the course. Andrevan@ 04:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status quo from WP:RSP and past RFCs

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

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

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

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

Suggestion for List of References: I suggest we group all references in one list rather than per editor. First, it is easier to view all sources when they are a single list. Second, a number of these sources are being challenged. Separating the challenge from the source in question[68] makes it much harder for others to follow the sourcing discussion, especially when there are multiple editors and replies. Editor specific lists are not common in RfCs. Springee (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence added by Andrevan

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

headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. ^[14] - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers ^[15]"The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." ^[16] Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE ^[17]
2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective ^[18]^[19]Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues ^[20]
Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation Headline was "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'", body says: Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance.^[21] Headline was "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia", body says: The dossier has now been largely discredited. ^[22] Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated^[23] ^[24]^[25]
headline was "What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe", body says "Hunter Biden, who famously had his scandalous laptop dismissed by much of the media in the run-up to the 2020 election" (really? RS say that it was correctly dismissed when only NY Post could corroborate the story - giving cover to bad journalism practices) Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy^[26]: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. ^[27]^[28] See related Vanity Fair piece ^[29]
Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict^[30] Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE ^[31] (response to WP:HEADLINE objection: yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact: In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." )
Headline was "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused", body says "Ever since the Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession was"^[32] Politifact: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”"^[33] (fact check is not of Fox but it's the same false statement)
Lab leak conspiracy theory Headline was "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report", body says "The United Kingdom's government is increasingly reassured that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China, according to a new report. While the theory that the coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dismissed by world governments early into the pandemic, evidence continues to trickle out supporting the claim. Government officials in the U.K., U.S., and elsewhere have begun voicing support for further investigation into the lab leak possibility." ^[34] Lab leak theory, articles claiming lab leak theory is likely despite it being a fringe theory. Science.org: Why many scientists say it’s unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a “lab leak” ^[35] Fox headline was "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory", body says: "The true origin of the virus that has killed millions around the globe remains unknown."^[36]^[37]body: New reporting from Fox News' "Special Report" showed there was an effort by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and other scientists to not mention the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. The consensus was reached on a call in early 2020 that the lab leak theory should be left out of an early paper on COVID-19 origins because it will add "fuel to the conspiracists." Two years later, there is no definitive proof that the virus started in nature or that it leaked from a lab. But the theory that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses, is no longer shunned as a conspiracy and is gaining more traction among scientific communities calling for further inquiry. FOX NEWS SPECIAL REPORT OUTLINES FRESH QUESTIONS ON WHAT FAUCI, GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT COVID ORIGIN Fox News talked to several scientists and investigators who have studied COVID-19 origins, and here are some reasons – science-based and circumstantial – why they believe the evidence points to the global pandemic originating from a Wuhan lab, possibly from a researcher accidentally getting infected during an experiment with coronaviruses and spreading it into the community. ^[38] CNN: "The Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, was most likely the epicenter for the coronavirus." ^[39] The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? ^[40] more lab leak articles that claim some kind of cover-up by Fauci et al ^[41] ^[42]
Headline was "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story", body calls Daniel Dale, CNN fact checker, a "liberal reporter","very obviously a rank partisan" ^[43]
Headline was "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric", body says: "PolitiFact appears to be shielding President Biden and Vice President Harris from criticism over their past rhetoric expressing distrust in the coronavirus vaccine during the Trump administration. "^[44]
Headline was "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'", body says, more doubting the fact checkers: Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton pushed back against the fact-check, writing, "@Politifact is corruptly lying about Biden WH change to the definition of ‘recession.’ And now this lie, to protect Joe Biden, will be used to censor countless users on @Facebook and other social media platforms." ^[45]
Headline was "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'", body says: "But the so-called "fact-checkers" at PolitiFact felt the urgency to defend the president from the tongue-in-cheek mockery." ^[46]
Headline was "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'", body says: PolitiFact's fact-check garnered criticism across social media platforms, with several accusing the outlet of bias, dishonesty and of "twisting facts." "It’s not like @PolitiFact has any credibility," NewsBuster's Dan Gainor tweeted. "And this is why."^[47]
Headline: "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration", more calling PolitiFact left-biased ^[48]
Headline was: "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: The so-called "fact-checking" news outlet ^[49] Headline was "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'", also "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal", body says: Critics panned the liberal fact-checker for its "false" ruling on Trump's remarks. ^[50] ^[51]
Headline was "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says", body says: A new study suggests that PolitiFact is doing more to "defend" President Biden rather than fact-check him. ^[52]
Headline was "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'", body says: The liberal-slanted "fact-checking" website PolitiFact was the butt of the joke on Thursday over a job opening on its so-called "misinformation team." Critics pummeled the fact-checking website and its reporter for unintentional "honesty." ^[53]
This isn't a failed fact check but goes to the general blurring of facts and opinions. Fox News frequently uncritically amplifies sources we consider unreliable, "Three reporters on the byline for this story that could have been written by Ron Klain alone," Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross tweeted, referring to the White House chief of staff. ^[54], they also frequently cite The Federalist and its publisher is a major contributor. ^[55] Andrevan@ 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence added by Anachronist

(2021) "Biden's climate requirements" will "cut 90% of red meat from diet" to a "max 4 lbs per year" and "one burger per month." - FALSE^[56] - from TV but shown on news programs.
(2022) Natural immunity protects better than vaccination; "the mortality risk of an un-boosted person under age 30 was zero"; cloth face masks, school closures had zero benefits for children and some harm - MOSTLY FALSE^[57] - although this one is under "Opinion," it does claim to be written by a doctor, and offers specific health info.

Evidence added by Softlemonades

~~(2022) "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all"~~ ^[58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from GoodDay

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

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

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

Critique of evidence from SamuelRiv

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

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

1 - confirmed - valid. False statement, failed fact check. Not corrected to this day. Also appears throughout other coverage about the Durham situation. There's a fire here, not smoke, not minor.
2 - the error appears in the body, first sentence, reading: "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." so this is not limited to the headline, instagram aside. I don't know the policy on instagram, it's not relevant to this. It also quotes Fauci out of context to make it sound like he had dismissed the study, whereas he was merely cautioning people from getting a Moderna booster on the basis of the study, because the study was still a pre-print. Clearly misleading at best and Politifact clearly calls it false, not on the basis of the headline.
6 - Yes this is a headline, but it goes toward their sloppy journalism practices. Politifact explains: "In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." Look at the current editor's note: "EDITOR’S NOTE: This report’s headline was updated to more closely reflect the Black Lives Matter tweet." This editor's note is itself a bit misleading since it was a false or misstatement or error, but they just call it "more closely reflect" which is a bit dishonest. [69] It still counts as a failed fact check toward their reliability. The body still implies that BLM supports Hamas even though it doesn't state it outright: "The leading Black Lives Matter organization declared "solidarity with Palestinians" Monday, a week after Hamas terrorists in Gaza began firing a relentless barrage of rockets into Israel" It also still includes the URL slug "black-lives-matter-hamas-terrorists-israeli". The entire article claims to be about BLM but still mostly discusses Hamas, so I would say this one still damages Fox's credibility in a significant way and shouldn't be discounted. Andrevan@ 19:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on the entire political news issue by Iazyges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Pssst: Fox is MSM.

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

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

Critique of "Evidence added by Andrevan" by GRuban

headline was, "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds.", body says "First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. ^[59] - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers ^[60]"The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
And that fact check comes from Lead Stories, which we don't have an article on, because it's a fairly obscure site. Let's see what the major sources have to say about it. CNN: "Special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump" "Special counsel John Durham accused a lawyer for the Democrats of sharing with the CIA in 2017 internet data purported to show Russian-made phones being used in the vicinity of the White House complex, as part of a broader effort to raise the intelligence community's suspicions of Donald Trump's ties to Russia shortly after he took office. The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters"; The Independent "Did the Clinton campaign ‘infiltrate’ Trump Tower and White House servers?" "The tale recounted by Mr Durham — a complicated spying operation conducted at the behest of a presidential candidate, stretching over a period of years — would make a compelling storyline if it were remotely true. But according to experts, it’s not." In other words, The Independent says that what Durham said is false - but he did say it. CNN says that what Durham said is so complex that it's understandable that journalists got confused. I'm guessing they would include The Independent's reporters in that confusion. So is this a shining example of Fox reporting? No. But neither is it sufficient cause to ban them for most political work. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fox: Something happened, person finds

CNN: Person alleges something happened

Even before getting to whether it was true, there's a huge difference between the reporting here. In the headline and first paragraph of the article, Fox is presenting this as a scandalous fact first, then attributing it. And when it's attributed, it's a "finding" not an "allegation". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - it's a headline, and we are prohibited from using headlines – it's a BIG NO-NO – because they ALL do the clickbait. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
headline was "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots", body says "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." ^[61] Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE ^[62]
Well, yeah. If someone "cautions against using a study for choosing a booster", he is "dismissing the study as a guide for booster shots". That's what the words mean. In this case the headline is strictly correct. The sentence from the body is stronger than that, but it's taken out of context, as the very third sentence of the article makes it clear in which sense Fauci is dismissing the study. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's taken out of context - It's not taken out of context, it's the very first paragraph of the article, in its entirety, and it's flatly wrong in a predictable, damaging way. Good journalism shouldn't present something that's entirely wrong, which also happens to be a scandalous line that plays well with their primary demographic, followed by a clarification multiple paragraphs later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, isn't this is a case of medical science having opposing views? We don't use news sources for medical information anyway - we use MEDRS, so this is a moot point, move along. Atsme 💬 📧 20:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective ^[63]^[64]Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues ^[65]
Again, let's see what our other sources say. "A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good" that's WUSF (FM), which is National Public Radio, "generally reliable for news and statements of fact", and I don't see the nominator urging they be deprecated. I'm going to stop here as the top three examples by the esteemed nominator are way too weak to completely silence the generally acknowledged political voice of half of the United States. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are reliable sources for claims about the effect of lockdowns on public health, so this one doesn't really matter either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it still goes toward their unreliability as an outlet that they publish bad, partisan-cooked info and don't take it down later when it's fact-checked by external experts and fact-checkers. Andre🚐 21:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have MEDRS for a reason; even the NYT gets it wrong sometimes. This case is just overhyping a single study, which is fairly common in general. Ovinus (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On #1, the fact check stands, the person who writes for Lead Stories is a credentialed person despite the outlet not being itself notable[70], and the Independent source you linked clearly supports that this interpretation was factually incorrect, and Trump used to make false statements: "He weighed in once more on Monday to connect Mr Durham’s allegations to his own false claim to have won the 2020 election, declaring: “I was proven right about the spying, and I will be proven right about 2020!” It’s not the first time Mr Trump has made unfounded allegations of political espionage against prominent Democrats." The Durham indictment DID NOT MENTION "infiltrating White House servers." It's a lie being used to advance a political POV that the Clinton campaign spied on Trump or attempted to infiltrate servers - they did no such thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Extended content

^ Pitzer K, Mcclendon GG, Sherraden M. Voting Infrastructure and Process: Another Form of Voter Suppression? Social Service Review [Internet]. 2021 Jun [cited 2022 Aug 2];95(2):175–209. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=151159427&site=eds-live&scope=site
^ Venetis, Penny M. “Opposition to Voting by Mail Is a Form of Voter Suppression That Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color.” Rutgers University Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, June 2020, pp. 1387–416. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.rutlr72.56&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Hardy, Lydia. “Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws.” Mercer Law Review, vol. 71, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 857–78. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.mercer71.46&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Ravel, Ann. “A New Kind of Voter Suppression in Modern Elections.” University of Memphis Law Review, vol. 49, no. 4, June 2019, pp. 1019–64. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.umem49.40&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Ross, Bertrall L., II, and Douglas M. Spencer. “Passive Voter Suppression: Campaign Mobilization and the Effective Disfranchisement of the Poor.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 114, no. 3, Jan. 2019, pp. 633–704. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.illlr114.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Murillo, Matthew. “Did Voter Suppression Win President Trump the Election: The Decimation of the Voting Rights Act and the Importance of Section 5.” University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 51, no. 3, Jan. 2017, pp. 591–614. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.usflr51.27&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Keyes, Scott, et al. “Voter Suppression Disenfranchises Millions.” Race, Poverty & the Environment, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 11–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41762523. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
^ Bentele, Keith G., and Erin E. O’Brien. “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 11, no. 4, 2013, pp. 1088–116. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43280932. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
^ Murty, Komanduri S., and Bridget Holyfield-Moss. “Racial Microaggressions Related to Voter ID Laws in the United States.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 24, no. 1–2, 2017, pp. 120–32. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529240. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
^ Shah, Paru, and Robert S. Smith. “Legacies of Segregation and Disenfranchisement: The Road from Plessy to Frank and Voter ID Laws in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, pp. 134–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.08. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.
^ Elikann, Peter T. “Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America.” Massachusetts Law Review, vol. 102, no. 2, Apr. 2021, p. 58–i. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.barjournals.malr0102.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Weeden, L.Darnell. “The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Rational Basis Standard in Shelby County v. Holder Invites Voter Suppression.” Mississippi College Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2, Jan. 2014, pp. 219–34. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.miscollr33.16&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Ellement, Michael. “The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters.” Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice, vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2013, pp. 261–92. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.schom15.14&site=eds-live&scope=site.
^ Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.
^ "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.
^ Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.
^ "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.
^ Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.
^ "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.
^ Rutz, David (November 9, 2021). "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'". Fox News.
^ Singman, Brooke (May 25, 2022). "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia". Fox News.
^ Perez, Jim Sciutto,Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier | CNN Politics". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News.
^ Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry (January 26, 2019). "Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians" – via NYTimes.com.
^ Flood, Brian (July 21, 2022). "Hunter Biden probe: ABC, NBC and CBS skip damning 'critical stage' report that charges are on table". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 20, 2022). "MSNBC buries NBC News report on Hunter Biden laptop, offers less than 4 minutes of coverage". Fox News.
^ Kornick, Lindsay (April 10, 2022). "Howard Kurtz: Hunter Biden laptop story 'nothing short of a major embarrassment' for media". Fox News.
^ "The Wall Street Journal Cold War Explodes Into the Limelight". Vanity Fair. October 23, 2020.
^ "Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict | Fox News". Fox News. May 19, 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-05-19.
^ "PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn't say it stands with 'Hamas terrorists'". @politifact.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 28, 2022). "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused". Fox News.
^ "PolitiFact - No, the White House didn't change the definition of "recession"". @politifact.
^ Nerozzi, Timothy (February 23, 2022). "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report". Fox News.
^ "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'".
^ Rutz, David (June 3, 2021). "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory". Fox News.
^ Nerozzi, Timothy (January 27, 2022). "US scientists who downplayed COVID-19 lab leak origins theory sang a different tune in private, emails show". Fox News.
^ "10 reasons why scientists believe coronavirus originated from lab in Wuhan, China". Fox News. 29 January 2022.
^ CNN, Jen Christensen (26 July 2022). "New studies agree that animals sold at Wuhan market are most likely what started Covid-19 pandemic". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Thacker, Paul D. (July 8, 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734 – via www.bmj.com.
^ Halon, Yael (December 19, 2021). "Outgoing NIH director dismisses Wuhan coronavirus lab-leak theory as a 'distraction' on last day in office". Fox News.
^ Creitz, Charles (June 2, 2021). "MacCallum pushes back on NIH chief denying he rejected lab-leak theory: 'You and Fauci jumped to conclusions'". Fox News.
^ Flood, Brian (September 8, 2021). "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 26, 2021). "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric". Fox News.
^ Hays, Gabriel (July 29, 2022). "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (April 20, 2022). "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'". Fox News.
^ Penley, Taylor (February 20, 2022). "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'". Fox News.
^ Lanum, Nikolas (May 16, 2022). "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 15, 2021). "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 19, 2021). "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 16, 2021). "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 4, 2021). "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 29, 2021). "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'". Fox News.
^ "Politico declares Biden 'back in the game' as US enters a recession". Fox News. 28 July 2022.
^ "Columnist criticizes left-wing media for virtue signaling on Ukraine-Russia war". Fox News. 29 March 2022.
^ "PolitiFact - Joe Biden banning burgers? Fox News, GOP politicians fuel false narrative". @politifact.
^ "Fox News article listing alleged mistakes in COVID-19 public health response mixes accurate information with unsubstantiated claims". March 23, 2022.
^ "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all". MSNBC.com.
^ Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.
^ "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.
^ Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.
^ "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.
^ Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.
^ "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.

What's the exigency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that we're giving air to the idea that Rittenhouse is going to go around suing people for "Media Accountability," basically free publicity to his baseless legal threats. According to Snopes[71] there was no case pending. This problem remains in the article and originates with the Fox News media section coverage.

While I'm here, I also just want to point out that as of today the front page of CNN, NYT, are Kansas abortion rights, WSJ right below Taiwan/China, and Fox is running with Pelosi's husband DUI. The only coverage of the abortion thing is way down below the fold[72]. Andrevan@ 16:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

That's true, it is not usable, but it was the only news at the time on the site on the issue. Their actual news on Kansas has now since been posted although Paul Pelosi is still top billing. The first story isn't bad.[73] The 2nd one I guess you could call an op-ed but isn't labeled as such. [74] The 3rd is biased but has no glaring factual errors.[75] My point in bringing up these examples is that Fox very often puts opinion into factual articles, and on frequent occasions has crossed a line into falsehood for political spin. Here's one that really looks interesting[76]. I found where it seems to be from[77], it's also picked up by the Daily Mail [78] and the NY Post [79] Christian Post [80] Daily Caller [81] but interestingly enough, not the AP, CNN, NYT, WSJ, or any reliable mainstream source. I wonder why that is. Could it be because at least some sizeable percentage of Fox is a fringe unreliable source that doesn't have journalistic standards for verification? Here's reliable local news about the incident[82] The victim was not injured and the woman was released. Fox is a tabloid just like NY Post and Daily Mail, even if it sometimes publishes reliable content. Andre🚐 20:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I am beginning to question this RFC. Firstly, it was created just a day after plenty of discussion on the talk page about how this RFC should go ahead. To me, this seems like the creator was looking to get it off the ground as soon as they could and wasn't willing to let other users weigh in on whether or not the RFC should be allowed to be created - excuse me if I have missed previous conversations but I believe it is good practice to leave these things for at least a week before acting on them. Secondly, the creator has continually pushed their opinion throughout the RFC, replying to many !votes with their objections and providing mountains of evidence to support their point. While I do admire personal dedication to a cause, this really does seem a lot, and so I question whether the creator is doing this in the best interest of the project or to push their point of view over the line and get Fox downgraded or even deprecated. Anyway, this really hasn't had enough time to brew and the dominance of the RFC by a single editors makes me question whether this RFC can reach a meaningful consensus and one which will accurately reflect the feelings of the community on such an important and widely debated topic. While I do have opinions on Fox News, I have tried my best to look at this through they eyes of a neutral observer on just another RFC on Wikipedia. Regards, Willbb234 21:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please, I worked with a number of editors on the talk page before opening the RFC, and there were several other Fox RFCs that were attempting to be opened by other users. I don't agree with the logic that the RFC maybe should not have been "allowed to be created." You may disagree with me, my evidence and arguments, and I have tried to give those who disagree due space and respect, and civility, so I ask the same good faith. It is far from clear how the RFC will end up, and I am acting in the interest of the project, I will respect the consensus whatever way it ends up. Andre🚐 21:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Analysis of effects of this proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematic use/editing disputes examples

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

I provided these examples [83] [84] [85] which were discussed at length above. Andre🚐 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first was recently re-added from a different source[86] and I broke down my objections to it in a different section of this RFC above. The 2nd removes the section with CounterPunch and Fox News called "Telecommunications Leak," see the bottom of the diff and responding user edit summary[87]. The 3rd is problematic on a BLP basis since the article subject is making baseless legal threats about others, and problems still exist in the article today, which can be traced to that Fox content. Andre🚐 01:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites?

I don't think this question has been asked, at least in full, and no entry exists on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for this, but this is something that might be helpful for the record. I have used NewsGuard for a while to separate potentially false/misleading sources from sources with a reputation of truth and fact checking. I don't notice any problems with NewsGuard's nutrition labels, but I wanted to ask to see what others think about the accuracy of NewsGuard. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the information on NewsGuard's methodology or its current rankings to provide so we can review it? Andrevan@ 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their criteria can be found here: Rating Process and Criteria - NewsGuard (newsguardtech.com) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no. It's one more opinion on who they like or don't like. That they rate MSNBC lower than Fox News is a reflection of exactly that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you happen to agree that MSNBC should rate lower than Fox, that rating is a mark in NewsGuard’s favor. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some digging in the dropping of the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC and it seems as if there were three or four blunders that were greatly highlighted by NewsGuard and were left uncorrected. Here is nontrivial coverage of NewsGuard in the press. If you actually look at the reason MSNBC is rated lower than Fox News, it is because of transparency and conflict-of-interests, otherwise they would be rated the same as Fox News. Transparency and credibility are a bit different from each other. I did a quick maths check and 75% of the score is credibility, 25% transparency. Also, I don't think 5 points is a significant difference in rating, but 22 points is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's not that the issues they highlight aren't issues, it's that the scores are magic puff numbers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they weighted each based on the importance of it. They may seem arbitrary but not repeatedly publishing false content is an extremely important journalistic criterion that dictates whether a site is reliable or not. Some of their other ratings also seem to go hand in hand. For example, a site which "fails NewsGuard’s criterion for not repeatedly publishing false content"^[1] may also fail the criteria for "gathering and presenting information responsibly". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, its a business not a reliable source... Their patented snake oil is no better than any of the other snake oils. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if NewsGuard, MBFC, etc. are just good starting points for assessing the reliability of a site, but should not be considered authoritative as some outlets treat it. Interesting, Daily Mail (a deprecated source) initially got a red rating, but it got changed to green after they modified some of their practices. Still, Daily Mail is rated very low green source. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're crutches for lazy editors who can't be bothered to actually evaluate a source because thats hard work. We already have a starting point for any discussion of reliability, the specific context its used in on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others here that NewsGuard is no more authoritative than MBFC or Ad Fontes, and should be considered generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hemiauchenia and Headbomb- this is a generally unreliable source. Its rating system is absurd, like MBFC and Ad Fontes, which we consider generally unreliable (please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). How is The Daily Mail and Fox News more reliable than MSNBC? Technically, there's an criteria, and an editorial policy. But this one is entirely ad-like for its company, Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable. So it's a good tool and starting point, but in no way IMO should it be used in a mainspace article commenting on a source's bias or reliability, or being used as the only source for downgrading in an RfC (e.g., for MSNBC). Besides, even The Daily Wire, albeit this is a dated PDF, is rated the same as MSNBC, which for me is even more indication of its bizarre criteria. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the posts from others above, I agree with VickKiang that we shouldn't use NewsGuard or at least, it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Andrevan@

It looks to me like it has a strong conservative slant and Wikipedia if anything tends the other way. And that division in America has unfortunately become more important than practically anything else in how people assess what they read. It's like knowing how the Supreme court will decide a case just by looking at the political aspects and ignoring anything to do with the law or constitution. So that's why MSNBC rates low and Fox News high. Actually I do think the Daily Mail has been rated too low by Wikipedia, it should definitely be allowed in some cases. NadVolum (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think most USSC cases are decided by politics then you don't see most USSC cases. And while you are correct that the court has swung, it is an extremely recent effect, only starting in 2020. I just feel that often needs clarifying. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few cases where Daily Mail can be used, but they are rare and in general Daily Mail shouldn't be used. They have published misleading stories and attack articles. Even though what they publish on is now true, it is overly sensationalized, and thus not reliable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail ban does not apply to opinions, and there is an exception for old articles, and the WP:DAILYMAIL1 wording "use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" seems to me to be suggesting that leeway exists, but I know others see things differently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be considered how RS have cited and discussed NewsGuard?[88][89][90] Perhaps more for its summaries than the color labels or scores. [91] Llll5032 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is an "additional considerations apply", where descriptors for nutrition labels may be cited, but not the nine criteria itself. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more examples of RS citing or describing NewsGuard generally as a credible source, at least for some of its information: [92][93][94][95] Llll5032 (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up here. I've been doubtful of NewsGuard's reliability for a long time and have been waiting to see some discussion on it. I've not seen anything that demonstrates it is reliable. The articles from Llll5032 (thanks for finding them), show that it's been good at marketing itself and it is now profitable. I don't see their relevance to whether or not it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one thing we can probably agree on is we can try to apply the same nine criteria NewsGuard applies in RSNB discussions (if we are not already) to help evaluate the reliability of a source. Of course NewsGuard is in here for the money, but also worth noting that Wikipedia (which has a lot of verifiable information) is also not considered a reliable source. The other problem is NewsGuard is only available to those with the Edge browser on PC or Mac and requires a paid subscription on other platforms (though occasionally, they make it free on all platforms so that people have access to their ratings during an extraordinary circumstance like the COVID-19 pandemic). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a Firefox on Linux user, that explains why I am unable to find their actual material outside of the general links. Andrevan@ 00:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, enabling the extension requires buying a subscription if you do not have Microsoft Edge. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Hipal. It might be okay for routine summaries (that are covered and cited in some RS) but you can find that in much better secondary RS compared to this. Besides, IMHO the scores are subjective and should be frowned upon in articles, or as the only ref challenging a source's reliability. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a Firefox on Linux user, I was able to find their current article re Daily Wire via Wayback, as discussed in thread NewsGuard cites on the article talk page, which I regard as the appropriate place. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if an uninvolved editor could consider adding the consensus to rsps because people might use newsguard in rsnb discussions. I have already done so as well, but I think this would be good to add and check. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rating Process and Criteria". NewsGuard. Retrieved 2022-08-01.

CSPAN

What's the story with CSPAN (also, didn't mean to link to a defunct proposal for fair use of Wikipedia:CSPAN?)? Anyone know? Is it considered reliable? Since it's primarily a source of primary source transcripts and videos of Congress - but some of it is secondary coverage I think? Andrevan@ 01:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think footage from inside Congress can be considered a "primary source". As for the commentary, I think it should be mostly reliable as a secondary source, but I do not know. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this point. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be reliable. The footage from congress isn't doctored. Commentary is balanced and informative.PrisonerB (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unedited footage from Congress hosted by CSPAN falls under WP:PRIMARY. Commentary falls under WP:RSEDITORIAL. The unedited congressional footage is reliable, but limited to WP:PRIMARY usages. The commentary would be considered the same as commentary/opinion/editorials as any newspaper: useful for quotes and direct attributions, not useful for statements in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron 32 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Website

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

odialive.com [96]
exchange4media
www.bestmediaifo.com [97]
MediaNews4U [98]
MxMIndia [99] PravinGanechari (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable for what? How are these sources being used or proposed to be used in what specific articles? Without that context the question is meaningless and any answer is useless. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banks Irk , Users are adding this website link as source in Sidharth TV page. So I suspected that these websites are not reliable. So I started a conversation

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

MxM, MediaNews4U, Bestmediainfo.com and Exchange4media are all media and marketing news websites, most of which just reproduce press releases, paid pieces and churnalism without much care for disclosures. I would add Afaqs (afaqs.com

), Adgully (adgully.com

) Times Group's Brand Equity (brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com

) in the list as well. They can at best be used as non-independent primary sources. Exchange4media (exchange4media.com

) is somewhat of an exception though, it has produced critical and investigative journalism from time to time (e.g [101]) but they are still prone to the issues mentioned so judge their articles on a case by case basis.

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

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

SPLC at ALEC

This is about [102], please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC is an RS for hate groups, but not "as an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source." Has SPLC designated ALEC as a hate group? BBQboffin (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALEC desires that homophobic hate speech organizations don't get censored by Big Tech. So, even if ALEC is not a hate group, it is their friend, ally and enabler. It protects the fame and fortune of racist and homophobic organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose written around the SPLC is a bit OR and going way beyond what is actually published by the SPLC, but it absolutely fair to include that the SPLC states it "furthers efforts to push companies to eschew diversity and maintain ties with anti-LGBTQ hate groups" (quote fro the SPLC page). Masem (t) 03:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it would be libelous. According to ALEC and its CEO Lisa Nelson, it is good to be homophobic. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Person's name] is a champion of homophobia and transphobia (diff) is unsupported by the source, and a serious BLP violation. gnu 57 03:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the entire challenged addition reads to me more as arguing for the SPLCs view than neutrally summarizing it. Additionally, the added sentence, in Wikipedia's voice "[X] is a champion of homophobia and transphobia" is inappropriate, even if one assumes it falls under the attribution umbrella of the introductory "According to..." in the previous sentence (if it does, this is not clear to readers). More troubling, the purported source does not contain the words "champion", "homophobia" or "transphobia", so it appears some POV has been added while paraphrasing. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But she is described as:

Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.

I don't know what you make of it, I construe it to mean that she is a homophobic activist. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that even supports "is a champion of homophobia and transphobia", that's absolutely OR and against BLP. If you are reading that that way and writing that as your conclusion, you really need to step away and understand what BLP, NOR, and NPOV all imply. Masem (t) 04:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is described in all the article as a homophobic activist. I mean: there is a difference between "being called" homophobic and "simply described as" homophobic. I agree the former is not the case, but the later is. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: to take what you have just quoted and add into an article that Its CEO, Lisa Nelson, is a champion of homophobia and transphobia is BLP-violating original research. Endwise (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that my conclusion is a tad too simplistic, but it is not false. The overall tone of the article and its overall message is that she is homophobic.

If you want me to translate from English to English, "champion" means CEO or board member of homophobia-promoting or -enabling organizations. This is the conclusion of reading all that article, and I don't see why it would be wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all acceptable to infer it from the "overall tone" of an article, which does not describe a living person as homophobic or transphobic, and then write in Wikipedia's voice that that person is a "champion of homophobia and transphobia". This should not even be a debate. Endwise (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But she is CEO or board member of such organizations. Do we agree upon this fact?

I am perhaps too many steps ahead, but I can assure that I have been praised for my talent of grasping the essence of the texts which I have read. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case you have several editors saying you need to work on your accuracy. Maybe propose an edit and see if it passes consensus.--Animalparty! (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly ridiculous discussion, so I'll just reply to this comment and then disengage -- the article said she was a board member of NCPPR, who "purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives", have "teamed up with the Koch-funded New Civil Liberties Alliance to challenge the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to approve Nasdaq’s Board Diversity Rules", and have "petitioned Amazon’s board of directors to stop using SPLC’s hate designations to guide the company’s philanthropy, without success." If you think being on the board of such an organisation means we can describe her in Wikipedia's voice as a "champion of homophobia and transphobia", you should maybe consider taking a step back from editing BLPs/information about living people. Endwise (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She stated We are certainly a part of that. Part of what? Part of a coalition begging Big Tech not to deplatform homophobic, racist, and violently extremist organizations.

So, whether she is herself a homophobic activist or just a political activist who is an enabler of homophobic organizations, seem to me just a quarrel about parsing words. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, buddy. Have a nice day. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the current form, the wording is unacceptable. You can use SPLC to say organization X is homophobic/transphobic, but this must be explicitly said or at the very least they must very strongly hint they mean it. Deducing the correct adjective from the description of its activities is OR. That said, there are other types of questionable activities that the SPLC mentions, so you can write about them instead. Or you can find another source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: Are you objecting to the following?

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, ALEC is part of a coalition that includes two anti-LGBTQ hate groups and undertakes a range of anti-LGBTQ activities.^[1] The coalition is begging Big Tech to refrain from deplatforming homophobic, transphobic, racist, and violently extremist organizations.^[1]

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is OK. As for the second, "begging"? "Lobbying" is better here. Besides, I don't see the fragment that supports the label, and I'd question the need to include it here based on the fact it does not describe ALEC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: Back to Neutral opposed Amazon, Apple and Google..., and all other mentions of the purposes of Back to Neutral. Let me spell out the choices:

ALEC/Nelson are:

gay-loving;
gay-friendly;
gay-neutral;
not politically active in respect to gays;
gay-bashing;
fight against homophobic organizations;
are neutral about homophobic organizations;
defend and enable homophobic organizations;
not politically active about homophobic organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basing on this sentence, I'd basically say that they lobbied these companies to quit booting Parler, and you can describe Parler based on what is in the lead of that article, with sourcing. Again, I will not label them "homophobes" by themselves based on this fact, unless SPLC explicitly says their whole activity is homophobic, which it doesn't. Just like you won't label ALEC conspiracy theorists based on the fact that Parler hosted a lot of these and they did not want Parler to disappear - even if this is true in practice, it is OR. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But choice 8 is not WP:OR.

This is a verbatim quote: A highly influential, “nonpartisan” group of lawmakers and corporate lobbyists focused on advancing free market principles also furthers efforts to push companies to eschew diversity and maintain ties with anti-LGBTQ hate groups, an investigation by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) Hatewatch found.

People who haven't even read the title of the article are telling me I'm faking WP:BLP info through WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title does say that but WP:HEADLINES applies for this piece of info. While the policy says this also applies to subheadlines - and apparently this is one, this is also quite accurate summary of the article's content, so I think you can paraphrase this sentence you quoted in the last reply. Which means that the only thing you can say from this sentence is that it lobbies companies against implementing diversity initiatives and that it has ties to anti-LGBT groups.

When you compare this with the description of the lobbying group as a staunch defender of extremist organizations which propagate hate speech about homosexuals and transsexuals, e.g. ALEC fights against the deplatforming of such extremist organizations by Apple, Google and Amazon, that's a bit far-fetched. "Have ties" and "be an apologist of" are two different things. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: You did not get it: ALEC is pushing Big Tech to maintain ties with LGBT-hating organizations, i.e. pushing Big Tech to refrain from deplatforming LGBT-hating organizations, racist organizations, and violently extremist organizations. All three categories of organizations are mentioned in the article as being defended by ALEC in general and Nelson in particular. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still remain unconvinced. It's the coalition, not ALEC by itself. Anyway, I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: That's true: it's the Back to Neutral coalition which does that. But both ALEC and Nelson belong to the Back to Neutral coalition. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The Back to Neutral coalition is simply one of their many Mitläufer organizations. And none of this is original research. It's all in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the specific words that you are using, and when you are introducing labels and subjective terms, you cannot pull those out of thin air if the article does not state them directly, otherwise that's OR. Masem (t) 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: So if an article says there is an animal, which could be both feral and domestic, having four feet, a long tail, catches mice and birds, but also eats packaged food, and meows, I cannot say "it's a cat"? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cat" is not a subjective term or label. Anti-LGBT does not necessary equate to homophobic, though they are often common, but you're trying to state they are one and the same. Masem (t) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Okay, let's state anti-LGBT instead of homophobic. Problem solved? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an NPOV issue, not an RS issue. The source is good enough to use -- the issue is the language used in the summary and inferences made therein. An issue here is while the source is primarily about ALEC, it doesn't say all that much directly about it and LGBTQ issues. It talks about other organizations it has defended or is involved with through Back to Neutral, but we can't attribute those organizations' activities/views to ALEC; we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are. Admittedly, the way it's written is a little confusing, with all the acronyms, and tripped me up, too, when I made an edit yesterday to dial back some of the language (*facepalm* thankfully Genericusername57 caught it). Probably better to continue this on the talk page IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really concerning to me that after making this egregious WP:BLP violation, and being called out on it by numerous editors, that tgeorgescu does not seem to be hearing the feedback and is instead doubling down. I changed the article content to actually reflect what the source says. Marquardtika (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The edit reports the SPLC's opinions. Certainly the SPLC website is a reliable source for its opinions. Whether or not including that opinion in the article is a matter of weight, and therefore should be discussed at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. TFD (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a BLP violation? ALEX is not a "living" person. TFD (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: "Its CEO, Lisa Nelson, is a champion of homophobia and transphobia." See this. Marquardtika (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, frankly, solving a BLP violation by simply hiding her name seems like a sleight of hand. That would mean anyone is fair game as long as we don't mention their name in the article. If that's the only secret to obeying WP:BLP, I wish somebody told me that before. Or better, write it in big shinny letters. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is Legal persons and groups: BLP "does not normally apply to material about corporations, [etc.]" Since most corporations have CEOs, I don't see why ALEC is an exception. In any case, BLP merely says that extra care should be taken to ensure that NPOV, V and NOR are followed. We are therefore allowed to report criticisms of even the ALEC CEO, provided it is properly sourced, significant and accurately summarized. Some articles for example report serious accusations against Donald Trump, although he has not been convicted of any crimes. We are able to do that because they have been widely reported. TFD (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit I was guilty of a WP:BLP violation. In my defense, as I have argued at [103], that's pretty much a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Hayden, Michael Edison; Hodges, Raven (7 December 2021). "Leading Free-Market Policy Network Enabling Anti-LGBTQ Hate". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 4 June 2022. ... shows Nelson telling the private audience of activists and lawmakers: "Four or five years ago we had a session just like this, and out of that, there are a number of really good organizations. It's not our day job to fight that issue, but we have a new coalition called the Back to Neutral coalition that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that." ... The Back to Neutral coalition brings together right-wing think tanks, advocacy groups, media organizations and two anti-LGBTQ hate groups, ...

Trellis.law

Trellis.law has been used at Myong J. Joun to source the sentence "Joun has worked with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the National Lawyers Guild, the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the American Bar Foundation and the Massachusetts Bar Foundation". Upon looking at the source it appears similar to Wikipedia in content/format but offers no sourcing of its own beyond several paragraphs describing the career of said judge. I did tag it with {{better source needed}} because it doesn't appear reliable to me. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting site, not what I was expecting. Trellis is an aggregator of information on cases and judges to be used for legal analytics in litigation. The CEO describes it as "Google for state court data".<ref>[https://www.technolawyer.com/hot-product/trellis-1428312.html]</ref> The profiles of the individual judges look to be reliable, and are not simply search engine results, but written by the site, compiled from other sources on the web.Banks Irk (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical demographics source

Can the following source A contribution to the history of the Nothern Epirus' Hellenism: Mathiew Papagiannis be considered reliable for the purpose of adding the following text At the beginning of the 16th century the settlements in the valley of Dropull were Christian and Greek speaking. to the article Dropull? The source is academic and the claim uncontroversial, as the area of Dropull in Albania is inhabited by ethnic Greeks. Khirurg (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's a conference paper (Πρακτικά Α΄ Πανηπειρωτικού Συνεδρίου), right? If so it's not the same as a journal article and its reliability depends on whether the authors are subject-matter experts. I believe it still can be used. If there are other sources which contradict it, WP:NPOV should determine the appropriate weight given to different viewpoints. Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Sydney Zatz on Royal Central

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia proposals
Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey/Discussion: Royal Central

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

Seems persuasive that at least option 3 if not 4. Andre🚐 04:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - Taking no action about plagiarism (and they are probably plagiarizing from other sites also) renders the site unacceptable. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for the whole site: ironically enough, articles that copy from Wikipedia without attribution i.e. contain copyright violations must not be used as external links, including in references (WP:ELNEVER#1). If one author is publishing plagiarism then the editorial process and thus the whole site is unreliable (except SPS usage). Usage is substantial enough that I think it's worth listing at RSP, but not enough that I think it's worth formally deprecating. — Bilorv (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Shark

Is Next Shark consider reliable media in field of entertainment and business? Link: https://nextshark.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's a blog. Andre🚐 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andre🚐 ok thanks..

LibraryThing for the existence and credits on a book

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

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

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

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

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

Sky News Australia

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

Survey (Sky News Australia)

Option 3 - generally unreliable, (2nd choice deprecate if that has sufficient consensus Andre🚐 19:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)) any outlet that promotes covid and climate misinformation should be considered generally unreliable. Andre🚐 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate - climate pseudoscience and COVID pseudoscience are reasons for deprecation. Anything else the source publishes, in any medium, is profoundly Generally Unreliable at absolute best. The purpose of Sky News Australia is to promote an extreme political viewpoint, and they're just fine with deliberate disinformation to achieve that - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We should make clear that Sky News UK is completely separate from Sky News Australia - they share a name and logo for historical reasons, but Sky News UK is a perfectly normal NEWSORG owned by Comcast, and has openly made fun of Sky News Australia to distance themselves from them previously - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - additional considerations apply. Of course, this is where I would place EVERY news outlet. No news outlet is 100% reliable. They ALL contain errors from time to time. And when they do, I have no problem with saying that a specific erroneous report is unreliable for a specific statement.

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

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

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

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

Option 1 unless examples of inaccurate reporting are provided. The BBC article provided as evidence says that the "videos had showed network hosts including Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean expressing views that have been rejected by global medical authorities." We should never ever use TV hosts for medical information per WP:MEDRS, no matter if it's Sky News or any other channel. Alaexis_¿question? 19:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - they have a Corrections section which is an indication of RS. Just because a news source doesn't align with one's political opinion doesn't make the source any more or less reliable than when it doesn't. Please stop misusing RSN to deprecate/downgrade RS that don't align with a particular POV - that is not its intended use. If the OP has a question about material published by that source, where is it? This forum is for helping to make determinations when deciding if a source is reliable for material proposed for inclusion in an article. Atsme 💬 📧 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Source, as a website, is used 129 times on wikipedia. Looking at the first 20, there appears to be no issue of source being used to present a POV outside the norms, only factually statements. Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 I would like to point you to a publication by Ad Fontes Media, which gave it a 45.32 reliability rating (anything above 40 is "generally good"). So with a study done by a media watch dog and no evidence of widespread unreliability I think it's usable and should be labeled "generally reliable". With the BBC article talking about concerns with health misinformation, maybe it should be used with caution with medical claim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and don't disagree with your rating too much, but sadly I strongly disagree with your evaluation. I won't vote on the site's reliability, but a) Ad Fontes is clearly unreliable, see here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for details. secondly, do you know that the Sky News one in Australia is different compared to the UK one? Note it evaluates that Sky News is a British news organization available on TV, radio and online. Studios are located in Westminster and London, with 13 bureaus around the world, but the AU one is owned by the News Corp with ties to the Murdoch, see Sky News Australia. As it's appallingly right-wing, I'd like to vote option 3, and prefer deprecation for its opinion pieces, which is right-wing, horrible, anti-climate change, anti-vax, and so on. But there isn't much failed fact checks for its news sections, so I'm torn (maybe option 2 for news?) I'm not really too active on WP now, so I probably wouldn't reply until tomorrow, but I believe that I strongly disagree with your evaluation. VickKiang (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Sky News UK is an entirely separate organisation from Sky News Australia, since Comcast bought it in 2016. Sky News UK is a normal centrist NEWSORG, Sky News Australia is the one that really isn't - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that it's unreliable because it's biased? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 As previously stated it is important to be able to distinguish statements made by talk show hosts and what is made by the publication itself. Basedosaurus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, pending rebuttal Having read the !votes and comments, I've not seen any evidence given that supports misinformation by the actual reporting aspects of the website, while defences have been made of its general reliability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Sky News Australia

Bad RfC and a flagrant failure of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If you want to make arguments about the source's reliability, it is absolutely inappropriate to do so in the RfC prompt. As such, this RfC should be procedurally closed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we move the nominator’s non-neutral commentary into this discussion section… does that fix the issue? Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would also fix the issue, provided that nobody !votes in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has there been any prior discussion or issue related to this source prior to this RfC? I think we should use RfC's as something that comes up after we have had clear discussions with examples of use/disputes etc. We shouldn't start with a cold RfC with no other discussion. Suggest close as malformed and start a discussion first. Springee (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm… Valid concern… no objection from me. We can always reopen an RFC later. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think gatekeeping this kind of RFC is a good idea. Just my 2c. Andre🚐 19:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bad RfC. I may be a bit confused but it seems to me that the above comment is due to a movement by Blueboar from its original position which strikes me as WP:INTERPOLATE making it harder for late-coming readers to follow that there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL problem. Anyway, fixed-formula RfCs with no mention of a dispute affecting a Wikipedia article are bad regardless of the attempts to salvage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes any difference… no one had !voted prior to my “fix”… in fact, there wasn’t even a “survey” section for them to !vote IN (I added it with my fix). The only discussion was from RTH and Springee. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the Blueboar Fix of 2022. Andre🚐 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People can place !votes in discussion sections when the RfC only has one section (which, by the way, is a perfectly valid RfC form). I personally don't appreciate the creation of a survey section that precedes the discussion section, since in the case of a two-section RfC I would have firmly placed my comment in the survey section. There's an WP:INTERPOLATE and WP:TPO issue here, albeit one that was very clearly created in good-faith. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So move your comment. {{Sofixit}} IMHO. No offense. Andre🚐 20:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also move all of the comments that were made in response to it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IMHO. Andre🚐 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that we (Wikipedians) are deciding on which news sites are reliable & which aren't. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should downgrade all sites, left or right, any country, any publisher, that publishes mis- or dis-info, like Occupy Democrats or Raw Story on the left end. Andre🚐 20:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources provided by the nominator are about statements made by talk show hosts and their guests, not news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable sources no matter who broadcasts them. The sources complain about the platform Sky News gives to climate change deniers. However, a 2019 study by the University of California showed that American media in general misinforms the public by providing an equal balance between climate scientists and climate change sceptics.[104] CNN once had both Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, who later moved to Fox, hosting shows every night. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC recently won a defamation case by saying that her statements should be seen as opinion rather than fact. If you want to ban U.S. media as rs, I am willing to entertain it. But singling out one source makes no sense. TFD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even less evidence provided than Fox News RfC. Just scare words of they lie about Climate Change and COVID. Both of which are topics with ample scholastic writing that newspapers should be the source of last resort, if at all. If someone wants to reduce the reliability of all MSM coverage of COVID and Climate Change, that's a position I would support. Besides, fringe positions are already covered by policy. Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Here is the evidence I found for failed fact checks of Sky News Australia.[105][106] [107] [108] [109] [110][111] Andre🚐 03:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those failed fact checks are about its talk shows... every single one of them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Andre🚐 04:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would love to see a general “downgrading” of ALL news media. We should be relying on scholarly analysis, not journalism. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we still have a strong place for reliable news. Andre🚐 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

That sounds like a terrible idea —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News media shouldn't be outright deprecated, but I do think it's use should be reined in. Churnalism, partisanship, and over-reliance on social media all contribute to a reduction in quality journalism. At the very least, facts originating in news media should be given time for competitors to confirm/rebut. Slywriter (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should start of by saying my political bias is right of center, but even so I will admit that there is a lot of truth to the saying that "facts have a liberal bias" (at least when applied to popular sources of information and not academic ones, for academic it probably goes the other way). When combined with wikipedia's strong and inherent bias towards facts this can lead to a perception of bias against conservative mass media. I would be worried about it if we didn't hold academic work above the mass media's work because at the moment that corrects any skew which would result from an overly liberal pool of mass media sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my 2c: "Facts having a liberal bias" is said tongue-in-cheek, which refers to, in the U.S., that a faction of right-wing in our present era have abandoned rigor. You can talk about Nixon, maybe Iraq/WMD, maybe Qanon or Stop the Steal. Some examples of unreliable sources are Newsmax and One America News. Some sources which are right-lean but not-unreliable are National Review, Reason, Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, San Diego Union Tribune.

There are also left-fringe unreliable sources. Occupy Dems and Raw Story that we currently do not use. Other examples could include Mercola, ThinkProgress, CounterPunch, RT, WSWS, Palmer Report, Jimmy Dore, Young Turks. Mainstream center or center-left-ish sources like CNN, NYT, WaPo, NPR, aside from op-eds, are reliable and don't have strong political edge/bias to reporting. Lefter-leaning sources like MSNBC, HuffPo and Vox are AFAIK generally reliable even though they have a stronger partisan lean than the more staid and "conservative" establishment publications. The "liberal media" is largely a right-wing mythology used to attack center or minorly-center-left reporting to claim it is far-left. Andre🚐 21:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to tell you -- you only had to google it. Journalists are more liberal, the U.S. media are more liberal in general; you can easily find more recent work on both, and one saving grace is it may be that there is generally not much bias in the selection of coverage (2020 study that links to more recent studies also). Part of this is going to be inherent to the general rise of investigative and counter-establishment journalism. Of course this very tendency in journalism that may be attractive to liberal activism may also be eroding essential democratic institutions. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry-picking. Here's an alternative: "Despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias" ^[1] Andre🚐 22:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a study looking at whether public perception of media bias depends on partisanship, not on whether the media itself is partisan, and it does something remarkable for a 2010 study as in its literature review it claims that no media bias exists but only reviews literature as late as 2002 (and spanning as early as the 1960s, which really makes no sense to me). The 2002 reference is Niven's book, which seems fine but also pretty wide and sparse in scope. That seems to be the case for this topic of research in general however. See a more detailed review (2013). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense go back to the 60s when reviewing media holistically in the US - remember WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YEARS, and that whole Watergate thing? If not, I recommend All The President's Men, book or film. Anyway, the 2013 article you linked looks more interesting than the 2004 Barro piece [note: the piece is a BusinessWeek op-ed from 2004, relies on Groseclose, is an archived link, and it is not a journal article. I removed it from his article and the Groseclose article because it is no longer published, is an opinion piece, and he is not an expert on this field Andre🚐 00:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)]. Barro is a right-wing economist (he believes the Keynesian multiplier is less than one and has trashed Obama-era stimulus), not a media theorist, and a partisan on this question. It's true that many journalists themselves, and academics, tend to hold more liberal views than the population at large. There's a well-known association with education and tolerant/permissive views on a number of things. However, it doesn't follow that that translates into biased mainstream sources, and the 2020 Science Advances study you linked^[2] reinforces this idea that their personal views don't translate into systemic biases in the content. This other recent study is a great example^[3]. They had Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month and it actually taught them a couple things. Andre🚐 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, after reading some of the 2013 text^[4] you posted, it mostly emphasizes the work of Groseclose. Two main critiques of him, Brendan Nyhan^[5], and JT Gasper^[6][112] who couldn't replicate Groseclose (quoting) : "Using the same data but analyzed over different periods of time, I find a different conclusion than the previous article. I examine four-year rolling time periods and find that the data produce different parameter estimates in the early- to mid-1990s as compared to after 2000, with all analyzed outlets appearing more moderate or conservative in later time periods.."^[6] Nonetheless, Groseclose 2005^[7] considered CNN, PBS, and ABC the "most centrist" outlets, which contributes to my point that the generalization of "liberal media" is flawed, even if you don't like the Tien-Tsung Lee [113] article. Many mainstream middle-of-the-road outlets with robust fact-checking and journalistic integrity tend not to be substantially biased. [00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)] Here are the cites for David Niven (mentioned)^[8]^[9], a related Eisinger 07^[10] and the reviews of Groseclose including Nyhan and a critique by Nancy Rosenblum and one by Kathleen Hall Jamieson^[11]. Andre🚐 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The print versions of CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but the TV versions are not. This is the same with any media company. ~~Also, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin are all considered unreliable, so I don't know what you're talking about.~~ They are in the same vestige with The Daily Caller and the New York Post of "partisan print media that is occasionally correct, but presents the information in their slant". Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed Andre🚐 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Well actually, that's overstating it. Some of those you mentioned are considered reliable but biased/opinionated. Andre🚐 22:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: Just as a note, WP:RSP has The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin as WP:GREL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk, Honestly had no idea that those 3 ere considered GREL, so striking as I was clearly talking out of my ass. I've always operated that they weren't, in particular with The Nation, which I've found to be quite consistently poor. Curbon7 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree that consensus is being read correctly in the RSP entries, but I wanted to just let you know. It could be the case that the three perennially discussed sources are ripe for a new discussion/an RfC if you believe that they are miscategorized there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage such a discussion. Andre🚐 05:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

^ Lee, Tien-Tsung (2005-03-01). "The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49 (1): 43–64. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4. ISSN 0883-8151. S2CID 145778912.
^ Hassell, Hans J. G.; Holbein, John B.; Miles, Matthew R. (2020-04-03). "There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover". Science Advances. 6 (14): eaay9344. Bibcode:2020SciA....6.9344H. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay9344. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7112764. PMID 32270038.
^ Broockman, David; Kalla, Joshua (2022-04-01). "The impacts of selective partisan media exposure: A field experiment with Fox News viewers". doi:10.31219/osf.io/jrw26. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Groeling, Tim (2013-05-11). "Media Bias by the Numbers: Challenges and Opportunities in the Empirical Study of Partisan News". Annual Review of Political Science. 16 (1): 129–151. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123. ISSN 1094-2939.
^ Nyhan, B. (2012). "Does the US Media Have a Liberal Bias?". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (3): 767–771. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001405. S2CID 14168016.
^ ^a ^b Gasper, John T. (2011-08-22). "Shifting Ideologies? Re-examining Media Bias". Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 6 (1): 85–102. doi:10.1561/100.00010006. ISSN 1554-0626.
^ Groseclose, Tim; Milyo, Jeffrey (2005). "A Measure of Media Bias". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 120 (4): 1191–1237. doi:10.1162/003355305775097542. ISSN 0033-5533. JSTOR 25098770.
^ Niven, David (2002). Tilt? : the search for media bias. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. ISBN 0-313-01234-2. OCLC 52779209.
^ Niven, David (June 2003). "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 80 (2): 311–326. doi:10.1177/107769900308000206. ISSN 1077-6990. S2CID 143501967.
^ Eisinger, Robert M.; Veenstra, Loring R.; Koehn, John P. (January 2007). "What Media Bias? Conservative and Liberal Labeling in Major U.S. Newspapers". Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 12 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1177/1081180X06297460. ISSN 1081-180X. S2CID 146398717.
^ Nyhan, Brendan; McCarty, Nolan; Gross, Justin H.; Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla; Gelman, Andrew; Rosenblum, Nancy L.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2012). Groseclose, Tim (ed.). "Does the US Media Have a Liberal Bias? A Discussion of Tim Groseclose's "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind"". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (3): 767–785. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001405. ISSN 1537-5927. JSTOR 23260193. S2CID 14168016.

Is The New Republic's Soapbox section a reliable source?

I've seen it called opinion but[[114]] says "As part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics; Apocalypse Soon, on climate change; Sold Short, on inequality; and Critical Mass, on culture." TNR itself calls it " our politics vertical."[115] They also have "Apocalypse Soon, our vertical dedicated to climate change, science, and the environment." See this on "Sold Short"[116] which clearly says "Anything you don’t want? Anything best described as an op-ed." Doug Weller talk 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"TNR launched four new editorial verticals" editorial pieces are opinion pieces. Did you know that The New Republic is an editorial magazine? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TNR is generally reliable, and the "Soapbox" section strikes me as an opinion/editorial section, not a news/factual section, but should still be usable for WP:RSOPINION and other situations where reliable op-ed is usable. "There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. " Andre🚐 19:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that when I look at the linked discussions at perrenial it seems to have been repeatedly noted that everything in The New Republic falls under WP:RSOPINION. So generally reliable for opinion, but they don't publish anything else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to ignore RSNP in favour of your interpretation of discussions? Doug Weller talk 19:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RSNP entry is written by an editor based (in the best case) on their interpretation of discussions. It's not like there was an RfC on the precise wording. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring RSNP, I'm providing context for the summary at RSNP. It is generally reliable, but for opinion because thats the only kind of article they publish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They intermix reporting and opinion, hence why attribution is so important. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion journalism - use sparingly and with in-text attribution. A LOT depends on who the author of a specific article is, and that author’s reputation. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To lazily pull the very first words out of that very first source... "The New Republic is the premier US journal of liberal opinion, dedicated to addressing today’s most critical issues with commentary on politics, culture and the arts." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Soapbox vertical appears to be a mix of analysis and opinion journalism. And of course, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Spot-checking a few articles on the front page, "Projecting Strength Abroad Isn’t Simply About Killing Terrorists. It's About Standing Up to Despots, Too." is clearly an opinion piece (even going beyond the headline, with statements like "If Biden is serious about projecting strength abroad, he needs a new playbook."). On the other hand, the article "The Democrats Suddenly, Unexpectedly Have Some Momentum" is more of a summary of current and recent events, with nothing that stands out as particularly contentious or attribution-needing opining until the closing sentence: "the repeal of Roe and the January 6 hearings have given Democrats an opening to stake out a firm position on a favorable issue for the first time in months. They may as well take their best shot." "The Ecstasy of Watching Alex Jones Get Trounced in Court" summarizes the Jones libel trial, with a little more obvious bias/opinion/schadenfreude/commentary thrown in. Probably every fact in the article can be sourced to a less sensational source, and the staff writer's commentary like "Nothing has really shown the depths to which Jones would sink like..." probably isn't encyclopedic. So the reliability, appropriateness, and due weight depends on the statement a source is being used for. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this reading Andre🚐 23:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Evaluation of self-published sources

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

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

Benford's law has also been misapplied to claim election fraud. When applying the law to Joe Biden's election returns for Chicago, Milwaukee, and other localities in the 2020 United States presidential election, the distribution of the first digit did not follow Benford's law. The misapplication was a result of looking at data that was tightly bound in range, which violates the assumption inherent in Benford's law that the range of the data be large. According to Mebane, "It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds."^[1]^[2] Similarly, application of Benford's law to the last pairs of digits in the same data shows an expected distribution for Joe Biden, but a massive spike for lower values for Donald Trump, which also seems to suggest fraud; however, Donald Trump received fewer than 60 votes in a significant portion of districts, skewing the results of such analysis by adding a standard normal distribution in this range, rather than indicating fraud.^[3]

References

^ "Fact check: Deviation from Benford's Law does not prove election fraud". Reuters. November 10, 2020.
^ Dacey, James (November 19, 2020). "Benford's law and the 2020 US presidential election: nothing out of the ordinary". Physics World.
^ Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-published sources says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." My understanding of expert is someone who has a a body of writing about the topic in academic sources. If we decide that journalists are experts, then it will affect the accuracy of articles. People who popularize subjects take their information from reliable sources and translate it into English. Some even use Wikipedia articles as sources. What is the problem with using those sources directly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

dailypakistan.com.pk (Urdu-language ref)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are several other wiki articles which use the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC) as a RS: List of militia organizations in the United States, Ansar Al-Furqan, S14 (Ukrainian group), Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Joint Task Force 2, Ansarullah Bangla Team, Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency, Sinai insurgency, Fidai Mahaz, AlHayat Media Center, Secret Army Organization, Tigray People's Liberation Front. ~~So it appears we have a consensus among many editors who have used it for a variety of different purposes that this source is reliable.~~
That sort of legalese on their website is pretty standard and doesn't really change much about how we uses sources on Wikipedia.
The editorial group which runs TRAC (Beacham Publishing [117]) is a well-regarded publishing house which puts out such works as The Official WWF Guide to Endangered Species of North America [118] and Beachams Guide to International Endangered Species [119].
From their about page [120] it appears TRAC has an editorial board, is created and edited by topic experts, and accepts corrections. ~~All of these make it clear that TRAC is indeed a reliable source.~~ I would say open source and having copied content from wikipedia means many of its articles are unreliable. Those which have other sources would be useful, but should cite those other sources. (edited 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC))

— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

fair point. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Babylon Bee and Not the Bee reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead and deprecate both. They both publish some amount of content presenting satirical takes as straightforward news. Moreover, Not the Bee reposts anonymously authored pieces apparently without meaningful editorial oversight, and without differentiating what might be either opinion or satire from real news. The bottom line is that whatever actual news might be reported there would always be better reported and cited in other sources. BD2412 T 00:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Then should The Onion also be deprecated? Currently, it is only listed as "generally unreliable." TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, actually, The Onion at least does recognized non-satirical movie reviews. Obviously it should be deprecated as a source for real news, if it isn't already. It (and the Bee) might be useful to show examples of events being parodied, but not as a source for information about the events themselves. BD2412 T 01:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The AV Club you mean. I think it came up or is listed in a past thread or on the board. Andre🚐 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to formalize that satire sites aren't reliable, thats just common sense. notthebee.com/ also appears to be largely a joke site although its hard to figure out whether its just highly unreliable or whether its jokes and given that theres repeat writers named "Harambe" and "Jesse James" with matching avatars I'm leaning towards its all a joke but either way its a hard no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They do consider themselves to be legit to an extent. Obviously they don't take themselves as seriously as the average news organization, but they do have the belief that Not the Bee is simply uncovering truths that sounds so stupid it sounds fake, or something along those lines to a lesser degree. And I assume many others believe Not the Bee to a similar extent. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a heck of a hard time finding any sources which talk about them as different from The Babylon Bee other than their own press releases. What are you seeing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their podcasts. I can't cite it cause I don't remember which ones, but I consume news and comedy from both sides of the spectrum, so I've seen them comment on it a couple times. To be fair, I have never seen Not the Bee make clearly unironic comments on themselves, but Babylon Bee have commented on Not the Bee on their podcasts. Additionally, there wouldn't be a point in Babylon Bee expanding to Not the Bee if they didn't take Not the Bee seriously to an extent. Also, the content Not the Bee publishes just seems like the kind of stuff that would be taken seriously by a sizeable percentage of people, as most of it seems to be some American conservative perspectivies, told in a humerous, sarcastic manner. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't Not the Bee merely indicate a disclaimer of responsibility for anonymous content? BD2412 T 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, found this excert from the Babylon Bee Wikipedia page: "Seth Dillon has described it as 'a humor-based entertainment site that offers commentary on stories that are so outrageous they should be satire, but somehow aren't'" TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose an addition to the MOS that editors must not spit on the floor. I don't have a specific example of an editor spitting on the floor that I can link to, but I'm sure we can all agree that spitting on the floor is disgusting and should be deprecated! 00:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Satire sites are not reliable (except as primary sources for quotation purposes… and quotation would inappropriate except in very limited situations). That said - I oppose adding it to WP:RSP. RSP is not supposed to be a general list of “good” and “bad” sources… it is a compiling of sources that have been PERENNIALLY discussed… (discussed repeatedly at RSN, with the same results over and over again). The two sites under discussion here are not PERENNIAL. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are people actually citing it? If not, then who cares? And if so, when challenged are they maintaining it is still reliable? If not, then who cares? nableezy - 01:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a satirical RfC? I'm going to use XKCD as a RS to answer that question[121]. Seems this question didn't need to be answered. Springee (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhere out there someone is reading a piece from The Bee (or The Onion, for that matter), taking it seriously, and preparing to cite it in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Heavens to Murgatroyd, what ever shall we do? If they publish that citation here we'll be powerless, powerless to stop it! Won't someone please think of the children! SamuelRiv (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This being a mature effort to build an encyclopedia, we should document which sources are known to be appropriate and not appropriate to use. 23:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Being mature editors, we don’t need to have every inappropriate source documented. We only add them to RSP if they become a “Perennial” issue. Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blueboar: I agree that we don't need to, but the issue was raised so we may as well. BD2412 T 01:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    @Blueboar: Based on WP:RSPCRITERIA, the requirements seem to be: Either two significant past discussions OR a Reliable sources Noticeboard discussion. So correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that both sources should be added solely because this discussion exists.
    
    If that is not the case, I went ahead and searched all talk pages for discussions, and found six discussions (three for each source) about the reliability of the sources, but zero Babylon Bee discussions and one Not the Bee discussion was significant (if you're interested in viewing the discussions, there's an array of links below this reply, only the first Not the Bee link is significant, at least from what I can tell). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's nothing. I've seen someone cite a literal fiction novel for a claim about a company (that wasn't even related to the novel). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Babylon Bee shouldn't be listed, there are certainly many people that believe Not the Bee is a legit site that "mainstream news media" would not cover unbiasedly. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many! Uncountably many! So many that it's simply not feasible to list one, let alone all! (I'm giving you the opportunity to prove us wrong, by the way. I've done the search, but maybe I made a mistake.) SamuelRiv (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the Babylon Bee wikipedia page about the Babylon Bee CEO, "Seth Dillon has described it as 'a humor-based entertainment site that offers commentary on stories that are so outrageous they should be satire, but somehow aren't'". Also, doesn't Not the Bee just post the kinds of points American conservatives believe? Not the Bee, albeit in a sarcastic tone, unironically portrays talking points that is common in conservative media. To say people won't take them seriously to some extent is kind of like saying no one takes Tucker Carlsen seriously. Regardless of how wack it might be, it clearly will happen.

Also, not that I can cite it since I don't remember exactly which one, but I've listened to Babylon Bee's podcasts (I consume news/comedy from both sides of the spectrum), and have heard them unironically comment on how Not the Bee supposedly exposes the absurdity of the left. If Babylon Bee takes it seriously to an extent, chances are Not the Bee does too, and it's most likely the case that many consumers do too. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the most accurate numbers I could get in less than 45 seconds of effort, your assertion that with a current citation rate of (I'm still letting you do this search for yourself) 0.00 out of at minimum 5.3 million, the use of Bee and/or !Bee as sources is clearly problematic? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no idea how to search that, even with the link you provided. And also, shouldn't it be listed if it happens a number of times, as opposed to common enough to happen a noticeable frequency of times? I'm under the assumption that The Onion will have the same issues as Babylon Bee. If this is not the case, then it isn't. If it is the same, then Babylon Bee should get the same treatment as The Onion. Perhaps that would mean Not the Bee shouldn't be listed because it is more trivial, but it seems reasonable to list Babylon Bee. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An example of how to do this search is "insource:babylonbee.com", or use whatever other site you worry might be used in citations. Sorry, I didn't realize you didn't know how to look -- I was pretty convinced you were trolling us. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so as of right now, yeah it seems Babylon Bee isn't currently being used inappropriately, but I don't see that as relevant. Isn't the point to prevent people from doing it to begin with, rather than to establish that the currently used ones are wrong? Babylon Bee is likely to be incorrectly used periodically. That's a different thing from saying it's likely it is currently being incorrectly used. Unless there's a way to also search previous usages of the site as a source, there's no way of us knowing how frequently it is used. Since it's a satire site, and usage will probably be deleted soon after it's added much more often than other sources. I kinda assumed it wasn't being misused at this current moment, my point is that it will be periodically. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now with that said, I don't have any knowledge of it actually being a perennial issue. Looking at the discussions about The Onion, it doesn't appear they brought more than one example. And yeah, there's currently one example of a misused Babylon Bee source on the Ethan Nicolle article. If you're suggesting we do not add Babylon Bee, I'd say we should also remove The Onion, unless there's some distinct difference. However, the way I see it is that the mere fact that there's any misused Babylon Bee sources point to the likelihood that it is occassionally inappropriately added, and probably quickly removed after. Though, it might also be the case that it's considered a reliable source in this particular non-political case about a previous staff member, and the only reason it would be inappropriate is because their name is no longer on the link provided. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing anything from RSP that isn't actually Perennial. The burden is on you however to demonstrate that there has been, continues to be, or will be a problem that needs a remedy. Look at your audience -- most of the people here evaluate the credibility of claims as a hobby. The force of words alone won't convince anyone that a Phantom Menace is worth paying attention to (And for the 100th time, that film was terrible when it came out -- I'm not going to rewatch it and suddenly call it a misunderstood masterpiece in the context of Abrams!). You could, say, write a simple program to use a wiki search tool like WikiBlame on a representative random sample of pages over the past few years and see if your assertion about these sources being commonly cited and then reverted is true. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: @SamuelRiv: I figure probably the best way to determine whether this is a reoccurring issue is searching Talk pages. I have done so and found the following:

Babylon Bee: 1, 2, 3

Not the Bee: 1, 2, 3

Also, the criteria for a source to be included is WP:RSPCRITERIA. This is a discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard, and so the sources should be included on the list, if I'm not misinterpretting it. However, if we're going off of the other qualification, neither Babylon Bee nor Not the Bee passes for the "past signficiant discussions" thing, as there is no significant Babylon Bee discussions, and only the first linked Not the Bee discussion is significant. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If any other editors are thinking about engaging in this conversation, doing this search themselves, or checking those links TheGEICOgecko just posted, don't. They're all garbage and I wasted far more time double-checking them than what is justified from the minuscule amusement this thread gave me. It was funny for a while, but the joke is dead. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you don't automatically assume this is a satire thread. If what I'm saying makes little sense, the fact of the matter is that there's a good portion of people here that also think at least one of them should be added, if there is an issue with the logic presented, describe the issue instead of mocking it. Also, you did not respond to what I said about WP:RSPCRITERIA with how it says both should be added solely because there was a discusssion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard (as it says, there should either be significant discussions OR a Reliable sources Noticeboard discussion). So either both of the sources should be added, or neither.

Also, not sure why you took so long to verify the six links I gave. Shouldn't the only point in checking the links be checking it for substance and for the number of people commenting on whether the sources should be included? To do further verification seems unnecessary, considering how black-and-white it generally will be when discussing sites like these. Just Ctrl + F it, and skim the comments below it, it took me a less than 30 minutes to check ~30 pages. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse a necessary condition with a sufficient one. That you did not properly vet your own links confirms my assessment of the amount of time other editors should spend on this thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a waste of time if it isnt something that is regularly brought up ad argued about. Nobody checks RSP before citing a source. You can use it to explain to somebody why a source is not reliable and that we already have a consensus for that, but for some source that clearly is not reliable you can just as soon explain hey I see you used this site, its actually a satire news site so we shouldnt be citing it. Thats it, the end, you dont need to have an RSN thread much less an RSP entry for that. If people are constantly pushing back on that, sure. But until then, waste of time and energy. nableezy - 02:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 The Babylon Bee should be listed as generally unreliable with text mirroring the WP:RSP entry for The Onion: "The Babylon Bee is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts." We can discuss Not the Bee if it turns into an actual issue or something. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 Keep Babylon Bee at generally unreliable and list Not the Bee as No Consensus, as it is not currently an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of listing something as No consensus is for when there is no consensus on the reliability. However, the discussion is whether it should be listed. I think we can all agree it is generally unreliable, the only question is whether it should be listed as generally unreliable (or deprecated) or not listed at all. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Treat it the same as the Onion. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close and carry on. Please don't open these discussion on a source merely because it exists. If someone can't recognize satire then that's a them problem and not an us problem. We are not in the business of evaluating sources unrelated to real world examples of article work.
This is supposed to be a process that saves time and achieves a broader consensus because particular sources are repeatedly the subject of debate on article talk pages. It is not supposed to be a forum for general discussion about sources for its own sake. GMG ^talk 15:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is BeachSearcher a reliable source for content about beaches?

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

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

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

newscentralasia.net

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

[1] Meirick, Patrick C.; Franklyn, Amanda E. (29 June 2022). "Seeing and Believing Pro-Trump Fake News: The Interacting Roles of Online News Sources, Partisanship, and Education". International Journal of Communication. 16: 23. ISSN 1932-8036.

[2] Szeidl, Adam; Szucs, Ferenc (2022). "The Political Economy of Alternative Realities" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.

[J._Froehlich_p.-3] J. Froehlich, Thomas (2021-09-08). "A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump". Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism. doi:10.5772/intechopen.95000. ISBN 978-1-83962-421-6. S2CID 230609712.

[4] Conklin, Michael (2022). "The Real Cost of Fake News: Smartmatic's $2.7 Billion Defamation Lawsuit against Fox News". University of Dayton Law Review. 47: 17.

[5] Simonov, Andrey; Sacher, Szymon; Dubé, Jean-Pierre; Biswas, Shirsho (1 March 2022). "Frontiers: The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Noncompliance with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Marketing Science. 41 (2): 230–242. doi:10.1287/mksc.2021.1328. ISSN 0732-2399. S2CID 245299737.

[6] "The unique role of Fox News in the misinformation universe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-07-31 – via www.washingtonpost.com.

[7] Kizito, Kalemba (November 2021). "Media: Fox News, Racism, and White America in the Age of Trump". Impacts of Racism on White Americans in the Age of Trump. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 137–149. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75232-3_9. ISBN 978-3-030-75232-3 – via Springer Link.

[8] "Black Lives Matter protesters say Seattle's autonomous zone has hijacked message". Fox News. 12 June 2020.

[9] Pitzer K, Mcclendon GG, Sherraden M. Voting Infrastructure and Process: Another Form of Voter Suppression? Social Service Review [Internet]. 2021 Jun [cited 2022 Aug 2];95(2):175–209. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=151159427&site=eds-live&scope=site

[10] Venetis, Penny M. “Opposition to Voting by Mail Is a Form of Voter Suppression That Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color.” Rutgers University Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, June 2020, pp. 1387–416. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.rutlr72.56&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[11] Hardy, Lydia. “Voter Suppression Post-Shelby: Impacts and Issues of Voter Purge and Voter ID Laws.” Mercer Law Review, vol. 71, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 857–78. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.mercer71.46&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[12] Ravel, Ann. “A New Kind of Voter Suppression in Modern Elections.” University of Memphis Law Review, vol. 49, no. 4, June 2019, pp. 1019–64. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.umem49.40&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[13] Ross, Bertrall L., II, and Douglas M. Spencer. “Passive Voter Suppression: Campaign Mobilization and the Effective Disfranchisement of the Poor.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 114, no. 3, Jan. 2019, pp. 633–704. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.illlr114.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[14] Murillo, Matthew. “Did Voter Suppression Win President Trump the Election: The Decimation of the Voting Rights Act and the Importance of Section 5.” University of San Francisco Law Review, vol. 51, no. 3, Jan. 2017, pp. 591–614. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.usflr51.27&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[15] Keyes, Scott, et al. “Voter Suppression Disenfranchises Millions.” Race, Poverty & the Environment, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 11–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41762523. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

[16] Bentele, Keith G., and Erin E. O’Brien. “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 11, no. 4, 2013, pp. 1088–116. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43280932. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

[17] Murty, Komanduri S., and Bridget Holyfield-Moss. “Racial Microaggressions Related to Voter ID Laws in the United States.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 24, no. 1–2, 2017, pp. 120–32. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529240. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

[18] Shah, Paru, and Robert S. Smith. “Legacies of Segregation and Disenfranchisement: The Road from Plessy to Frank and Voter ID Laws in the United States.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021, pp. 134–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.08. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

[19] Elikann, Peter T. “Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America.” Massachusetts Law Review, vol. 102, no. 2, Apr. 2021, p. 58–i. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.barjournals.malr0102.20&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[20] Weeden, L.Darnell. “The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Rational Basis Standard in Shelby County v. Holder Invites Voter Suppression.” Mississippi College Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2, Jan. 2014, pp. 219–34. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.miscollr33.16&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[21] Ellement, Michael. “The New Voter Suppression: Why the Voting Rights Act Still Matters.” Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice, vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2013, pp. 261–92. EBSCOhost, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.schom15.14&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[22] Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.

[23] "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.

[24] Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.

[25] "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.

[26] Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.

[27] Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.

[28] "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.

[29] Rutz, David (November 9, 2021). "10 times the media declared the discredited Steele dossier was not 'disproven'". Fox News.

[30] Singman, Brooke (May 25, 2022). "Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia". Fox News.

[31] Perez, Jim Sciutto,Evan (February 10, 2017). "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier | CNN Politics". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[32] "FBI vets: What many are missing about the infamous 'dossier' amid Russia probe". ABC News.

[33] Yourish, Karen; Buchanan, Larry (January 26, 2019). "Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians" – via NYTimes.com.

[34] Flood, Brian (July 21, 2022). "Hunter Biden probe: ABC, NBC and CBS skip damning 'critical stage' report that charges are on table". Fox News.

[35] Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 20, 2022). "MSNBC buries NBC News report on Hunter Biden laptop, offers less than 4 minutes of coverage". Fox News.

[36] Kornick, Lindsay (April 10, 2022). "Howard Kurtz: Hunter Biden laptop story 'nothing short of a major embarrassment' for media". Fox News.

[37] "The Wall Street Journal Cold War Explodes Into the Limelight". Vanity Fair. October 23, 2020.

[38] "Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict | Fox News". Fox News. May 19, 2021. Archived from the original on 2021-05-19.

[39] "PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn't say it stands with 'Hamas terrorists'". @politifact.

[40] Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 28, 2022). "Politico, CNN, MSNBC journalists back off recession definition they previously espoused". Fox News.

[41] "PolitiFact - No, the White House didn't change the definition of "recession"". @politifact.

[42] Nerozzi, Timothy (February 23, 2022). "UK government believes Wuhan lab leak most likely COVID-19 origin: report". Fox News.

[43] "Why many scientists say it's unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a 'lab leak'".

[44] Rutz, David (June 3, 2021). "Media fact-checkers, Facebook cited Wuhan lab-linked scientist to knock down lab leak theory". Fox News.

[45] Nerozzi, Timothy (January 27, 2022). "US scientists who downplayed COVID-19 lab leak origins theory sang a different tune in private, emails show". Fox News.

[46] "10 reasons why scientists believe coronavirus originated from lab in Wuhan, China". Fox News. 29 January 2022.

[47] CNN, Jen Christensen (26 July 2022). "New studies agree that animals sold at Wuhan market are most likely what started Covid-19 pandemic". CNN. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[48] Thacker, Paul D. (July 8, 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734 – via www.bmj.com.

[49] Halon, Yael (December 19, 2021). "Outgoing NIH director dismisses Wuhan coronavirus lab-leak theory as a 'distraction' on last day in office". Fox News.

[50] Creitz, Charles (June 2, 2021). "MacCallum pushes back on NIH chief denying he rejected lab-leak theory: 'You and Fauci jumped to conclusions'". Fox News.

[51] Flood, Brian (September 8, 2021). "CNN fact checker Daniel Dale slammed for taking the 'conservatives pounced' approach to false ivermectin story". Fox News.

[52] Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 26, 2021). "PolitiFact declares claims Biden, Harris distrusted COVID vaccine under Trump 'false' despite past rhetoric". Fox News.

[53] Hays, Gabriel (July 29, 2022). "Twitter torches PolitiFact for saying it's 'false' that White House is redefining recession: 'Brazen hackery'". Fox News.

[54] Wulfsohn, Joseph (April 20, 2022). "PolitiFact runs cover for Biden, declares viral clip of him 'shaking hands' with air is 'false'". Fox News.

[55] Penley, Taylor (February 20, 2022). "PolitiFact ripped for fact-check comparing Super Bowl to schools in masking debate: 'Got to be kidding me'". Fox News.

[56] Lanum, Nikolas (May 16, 2022). "PolitiFact parent institute's praise of Jen Psaki continues fact-checker's ease on Biden administration". Fox News.

[57] Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 15, 2021). "PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.

[58] Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 19, 2021). "Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: PolitiFact blasted for fact-check saying Trump's comments on incident were 'false'". Fox News.

[59] Wulfsohn, Joseph (November 16, 2021). "PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal". Fox News.

[60] Wulfsohn, Joseph (May 4, 2021). "PolitiFact has done only 13 fact-checks on Biden in first 100 days, 106 others 'defending' him, study says". Fox News.

[61] Wulfsohn, Joseph (July 29, 2021). "Critics mock PolitiFact's 'unintentional honesty' for job opening on its 'misinformation team'". Fox News.

[62] "Politico declares Biden 'back in the game' as US enters a recession". Fox News. 28 July 2022.

[63] "Columnist criticizes left-wing media for virtue signaling on Ukraine-Russia war". Fox News. 29 March 2022.

[64] "PolitiFact - Joe Biden banning burgers? Fox News, GOP politicians fuel false narrative". @politifact.

[65] "Fox News article listing alleged mistakes in COVID-19 public health response mixes accurate information with unsubstantiated claims". March 23, 2022.

[66] "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all". MSNBC.com.

[67] Singman, Brooke (February 12, 2022). "Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds". Fox News.

[68] "Fact Check: Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers | Lead Stories". leadstories.com. Retrieved 2022-07-30. Lead Stories Managing Editor Dean Miller has edited daily and weekly newspapers, worked as a reporter for more than a decade and is co-author of two non-fiction books. After a Harvard Nieman Fellowship, he served as Director of Stony Brook University's Center for News Literacy for six years, then as Senior Vice President/Content at Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Most recently, he wrote the twice-weekly "Save the Free Press" column for The Seattle Times.

[69] Aitken, Peter (August 15, 2021). "Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots". Fox News.

[70] "PolitiFact - Fauci didn't doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster". @politifact.

[71] Best, Paul (February 1, 2022). "Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand'". Fox News.

[72] Wulfsohn, Joseph (February 3, 2022). "CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective". Fox News.

[73] "PolitiFact - What to know about the study on lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths by economists". @politifact.

[74] "Rating Process and Criteria". NewsGuard. Retrieved 2022-08-01.

[Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_2021-75] Hayden, Michael Edison; Hodges, Raven (7 December 2021). "Leading Free-Market Policy Network Enabling Anti-LGBTQ Hate". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 4 June 2022. ... shows Nelson telling the private audience of activists and lawmakers: "Four or five years ago we had a session just like this, and out of that, there are a number of really good organizations. It's not our day job to fight that issue, but we have a new coalition called the Back to Neutral coalition that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that." ... The Back to Neutral coalition brings together right-wing think tanks, advocacy groups, media organizations and two anti-LGBTQ hate groups, ...

[76] Lee, Tien-Tsung (2005-03-01). "The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49 (1): 43–64. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4. ISSN 0883-8151. S2CID 145778912.

[77] Hassell, Hans J. G.; Holbein, John B.; Miles, Matthew R. (2020-04-03). "There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover". Science Advances. 6 (14): eaay9344. Bibcode:2020SciA....6.9344H. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay9344. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 7112764. PMID 32270038.

[78] Broockman, David; Kalla, Joshua (2022-04-01). "The impacts of selective partisan media exposure: A field experiment with Fox News viewers". doi:10.31219/osf.io/jrw26. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[79] Groeling, Tim (2013-05-11). "Media Bias by the Numbers: Challenges and Opportunities in the Empirical Study of Partisan News". Annual Review of Political Science. 16 (1): 129–151. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-040811-115123. ISSN 1094-2939.

[80] Nyhan, B. (2012). "Does the US Media Have a Liberal Bias?". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (3): 767–771. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001405. S2CID 14168016.

[gasper-81] Gasper, John T. (2011-08-22). "Shifting Ideologies? Re-examining Media Bias". Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 6 (1): 85–102. doi:10.1561/100.00010006. ISSN 1554-0626.

[82] Groseclose, Tim; Milyo, Jeffrey (2005). "A Measure of Media Bias". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 120 (4): 1191–1237. doi:10.1162/003355305775097542. ISSN 0033-5533. JSTOR 25098770.

[83] Niven, David (2002). Tilt? : the search for media bias. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. ISBN 0-313-01234-2. OCLC 52779209.

[84] Niven, David (June 2003). "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 80 (2): 311–326. doi:10.1177/107769900308000206. ISSN 1077-6990. S2CID 143501967.

[85] Eisinger, Robert M.; Veenstra, Loring R.; Koehn, John P. (January 2007). "What Media Bias? Conservative and Liberal Labeling in Major U.S. Newspapers". Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 12 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1177/1081180X06297460. ISSN 1081-180X. S2CID 146398717.

[86] Nyhan, Brendan; McCarty, Nolan; Gross, Justin H.; Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla; Gelman, Andrew; Rosenblum, Nancy L.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (2012). Groseclose, Tim (ed.). "Does the US Media Have a Liberal Bias? A Discussion of Tim Groseclose's "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind"". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (3): 767–785. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001405. ISSN 1537-5927. JSTOR 23260193. S2CID 14168016.

[87] "Fact check: Deviation from Benford's Law does not prove election fraud". Reuters. November 10, 2020.

[88] Dacey, James (November 19, 2020). "Benford's law and the 2020 US presidential election: nothing out of the ordinary". Physics World.

[89] Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[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]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 403: / Line 403: @@
 <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">'''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''<span style="border-radius: 50%; border: 2px solid #073642;margin-top:-16px">[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]]</span></span> 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
-:'''Downgrade''' - Fox News has systematically wrong reporting and disinformation that goes beyond the general biases that do exist. Leaving it as "no consensus" would be inconsistent, as other sources with similar tendencies were considered unreliable as well. I fully concur in the analysis of Anachronist and after reviewing the "Evidence added by Andrevan" section conclude that we can certainly conclude that Fox News is an unreliable source for politics. [[User:CrazyPredictor|CrazyPredictor]] ([[User talk:CrazyPredictor|talk]]) 19:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 ===Survey (Fox News news website)===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards