Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 1 May 2023

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.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• 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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

This page is not a forum for general discussion about subjects unrelated to the reliability of sources for encyclopedic content. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about subjects unrelated to the reliability of sources for encyclopedic content at the Reference desk.

More on the reliability of BtVA

The Anime and Manga Wikiproject does not consider Behind the Voice Actors to be a reliable source. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, From March, 2022 concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen somewhere and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --Jayron32 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion is in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 1 and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and also per WP:TIMETRAVELISN'TPOSSIBLEASFARASWEKNOW, an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Misplaced Pages cannot override an existing consensus which was established later. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one is a red link. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC)

Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. jp×g 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC)

It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that WP Anime does consider Behind the Voice Actors to be reliable in most circumstances. You would see this if you actually read the entry at WP:ANIME/ORS#Situational. Link20XX (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It actually says "Roles and lists that are not check-marked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used", which means that BtVA is unreliable, since the only thing it is considered reliable for is providing screenshots of the primary source that is a show's credits.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Irish Central

We use this website in a number of articles.. Its own article was deleted via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IrishCentral. My latest encounter with this was at where it uses a reliable source to push the idea of Egyptians in Ireland by using it alongside a fringe video. I think at best this should be classified generally unreliable. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. People shouldn't be using a light news source for such material in any event. Do you have evidence that the website willfully or negligently has a habit of publishing known falsehoods, or is this one story (which shouldn't be used in any event, even if it covered things that weren't WP:FRINGE, because this is not that kind of source) the only thing that makes you want to eradicate the source from Misplaced Pages? --Jayron32 11:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32There's this:John F. Kennedy's uncanny coincidences with Abraham Lincoln]. See Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend. claims ancient Irish culture was polygamous and implies gender equality, but see Ancient Celtic women (maybe some but not much polygamy). No time for more, sorry. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a light reading source. The "Kennedy-Lincoln" coincidences are a cultural meme that predates the internet by some years, I remember it from the 1980s for goodness sake, so much so that we have the Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend article. As I said, the source shouldn't be used in places where obviously better sources do, but that's not special to this source that makes it different from other fluffy listical-y websites. There's thousands of such websites, and I'm not sure this board's resources are well spent discussing each and every one. Go ahead and remove the bad uses, WP:SOFIXIT means you don't need permission to do so. It is not the sort of thing that we need to have a formal vote on or anything like that. Self-evidently bullshit articles can be removed from Misplaced Pages without any prior permission or discussion about the publisher of those articles. --Jayron32 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Stacker to list of reliable sources

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: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines 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.

Should Stacker be added to WP:RSP as a reliable source? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Stacker is a newswire and "storytelling platform" focussing on data-driven journalism. The Editor-in-Chief is Micah Cohen, the former Managing Editor of FiveThirtyEight. Their "full-time newsroom includes over two dozen data journalists, editors, and writers who have worked with and been published in leading national publications."

For more information see:

• Discussion above
• Their about page
• Their editorial standards page
• This report and interview on Press Gazette

Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose This isn't to say Stacker is or isn't a good source. Instead, we simply don't have enough discussions about it. It should still be handled on a case by case basis with no presumption that it is or isn't acceptable for what ever specific claim it is being used for. Springee (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  My hope was to have that discussion here. This was not just intended as a vote. I have now split this into a Survey and a Discussion section to make that clearer. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Springee. This is not how RSP works. If it turns out that there are multiple discussions about Stacker in the future, those discussions will resolve if, how and when it is listed at RSP. At this point there isn't even a single dispute, let alone a perennial dispute A RFC is not the correct path to RSP. Banks Irk (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard." (WP:RSPCRITERIA)

  I think it is significantly more efficient to establish a source's status once, instead of discussing it several times before coming to a result. Why have multiple discussions when one will do? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a bad way to handle RS questions. First we need to remember that no source is considered always reliable and few are considered never reliable. Second, we really need to be looking at a case by case basis. One of the big issues with the RSP page is it leads to a level of gaming where it becomes important to get this site listed as "green" vs "yellow". Certainly a passing mention at the bottom of a "green" article is more important than a well crafted discussion in a "yellow" article. How dare an editor would try to use a yellow article to show that my green article is wrong! Also, people tend to think "green" means DUE vs just, "generally reliable". Part of the benefit of having multiple discussions about specific uses of a specific source is we get a better feel for the source over time. We also avoid the case, where just a few discussions result in a "conclusion" that is then enshrined in the RSP list. Personally, I think the standard should be at least 5 discussions but certainly not when we don't have any previous discussions. Springee (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Further, there is no actual dispute over the use of the source in any article. I can find only one article in which it is currently being used as a reference. There is zero context for an RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, not only has there not been enough discussion on the site, but they don't have a page of their own and are known for making listicles and sponsored content so it fails to pass WP:SPONSORED. Scu ba (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I am bothered by the use of this discussion board and of RSP to "pre-approve" a canonical list of sources. It is not intended for such. This board is to resolve genuine disputes over the use of a source, not really a place to get something preemptively approved or preemptively banned. Apply the criteria at WP:RS and decide for yourself if using any particular source (including this one) is appropriate. --Jayron32 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support this only because I was confused by searching for Stacker in the chart at WP:RSP and hitting only Stack Exchange. Don't know if anybody else would have the same problem. I'm not impressed by the site's content but only by the editor, Mr. Cohen. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  RSP is not a canonical list of sources. It only list those which have generated repeated controversy (they are perennially discussed). --Jayron32 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News summary judgment

I read two caveats around published data on Fox's knowing promotion of the Big Lie raised in the last RfC - that it was court filings, not established facts, and that it was from opinion sources, not news. The legal situation has developed, not necessarily to Fox's advantage. Summary judgment has been granted in part to Dominion (https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed). The arguments that this was either opinion or accurate reporting of notable claims are both rejected in the judgment (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment). It is clear from the facts established that the problem was not opinions, or reportage around a false narrative, but provably false statements of fact.

In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously - very much the Misplaced Pages consensus that has governed use of Fox as a source for some time. The judgment forestalls that argument. Whether they were uttered with actual malice remains a question for the jury, as it relies on their assessment of the state of mind of the various individuals involved, but this distinguishes the Big Lie from the habitual use of hyperbole by opinion hosts.

It's also bigger than the opinion shows, regardless of whether anyone would mistake them for news. We now know that when Neil Cavuto cut away from a White House presser in which Kayleigh McEnany aired Big Lie claims, Raj Shah notified senior Fox News and Fox Corporation leadership of the 'Brand Threat' posed by Cavuto’s action. Cavuto is a news anchor, not an opinion host. When Jacqui Heinrich, a reporter, tweeted "top election infrastructure officials there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", Carlson texted "Please get her fired Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." Heinrich then deleted her tweet. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott wrote to Lachlan Murdoch: "It's a question of trust the AZ was damaging but we will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them" and "We can fix this but we cannot smirk at our viewers any longer."

This shows a Fox exec team determination to steer its content to what the viewers wanted to hear (because they were deserting Fox for NewsMax) rather than objective fact. With hindsight, this was obvious the day they sacked Chris Stirewalt for correctly calling AZ for Biden. Benkler et. al. described exactly this dynamic in Network Propaganda - in my view it has always been a "when, not if" thing. We have been working on the basis that Fox's obvious dishonesty applies only to opinion programming, but I would suggest that we now have sound evidence that - at least since 2020 - it also infects editorial policy, and that this is acknowledged by those responsible. Notwithstanding the "boiling frog" problem of the creeping radicalisation of Fox leading to endless RfCs after each new outrage, it would be a mistake to think that 2023 Fox News is the same beast as 2019 Fox News. It's not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we set a cutoff point where it clearly turned unusably bad? (I mean, I'd concur that Fox was launched in bad faith, but ...) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

2016 for sure, when they became the personal press for the Trump Administration. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The least contentious point would probably be after the Arizona call, since that appears to have been the catalyst for a conscious decision by management to publish knowing falsehoods more widely than the opinion shows in order to preserve audience share. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

While I'm on the record as saying they were already unreliable, the Arizona call strikes me as the most obvious inflection point, yes, since coverage here seems to show that after that, the distinction between news and opinion largely started to collapse as the owners panicked and gave news hosts like Bartiromo the green light to spread outright falsehoods in non-opinion venues. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting. Additionally, what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward? As with the previous discussions, the problem element is already viewed as not reliable. Springee (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward? Then that remarkable and entirely hypothetical event would be worth a new discussion. the problem element is already viewed as not reliable The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• The problem here was the talk shows - that seems to be specifically untrue. The entire issue here is that there's increasing evidence that the news side is subject to pressure to avoid contradicting the talk shows, and in some cases has also published falsehoods, which makes it equally unreliable. In particular, Bartiromo, whose statements at the center of the case, was classified by Fox as a news anchor at the time. From here (linked above): Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host. Or in more detail here, But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony. She was one of the ones most vocally spreading claims that Fox knew was false; and she was doing it as news, in her capacity as a news anchor, not as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It was. And then it changed. Evidence in this case very clearly shows executives responding to demands from the opinion side that the non-opinion side of Fox stop "disrespecting" viewers by giving them accurate information. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind is that every source that is a for-profit company is going to be thinking along the same lines as Fox, in that they will focus and adjust how it presents the news to keep their audience happy and thus maintain and/or gain new subscribers. This is not to say that the NYTimes operates as heavily biased as Fox did in the years in question, but we do have to keep that in mind. A more "obvious" example is the Wall Street Journal, which, ignoring its editorial board, still favors news that impact the wealthy, and thus tends to be more right-leaning than other news sources. Pure objective news coverage is dead because there's no market for that type of coverage.

Yes, what Fox did here is a problem for us in how we use them, but lets be clear that some of its actions at the core are those other sources readily follow as well. Masem (t) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This sort of spurious equivocation between Fox and the NYT is a common pro-Fox talking point on RSN, and it isn't any more convincing this time around - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I clearly pointed out that what the NYTimes may do compared to what Fox does is definitely not equivalent in terms of impact on current bias, but simply that we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes. They have a paying audience which they serve first and foremost over neutral news coverage, and while their neutral coverage really hasn't taken that big of a hit from it, its still there in the sidelines (eg their writing on trans rights has left much to be desired). Masem (t) 12:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We have concrete evidence here of Fox News' malfeasance, there is no such equivalent for the NY Times. {{|we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes}} is just you handwaving as what you imagine to exist. False equivalence. ValarianB (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say we need to take action against the NYTimes because there's no evidence they have done it purposefully or with malfeasance, or at the scale Fox has. But this should remain a guiding factor when evaluating sources in the future, that most news organizations have a commercial motive that they have had to adopt since the 2000s to keep alive. Most of the time, that may only become apparent in small parts of their coverage, but in the case of Fox, the evidence is clearly against their use of favoring the readers' interests rather than journalistic integrity. Masem (t) 12:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes investigative reporting brought down Eliot Spitzer, New York’s Democratic governor; derailed the election campaign of his Democratic successor, David Paterson; got Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in ethics trouble; and exposed the falsehoods that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, told about his Vietnam service. Fox and the NYTimes don't belong in the same paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an utterly unbiased source; but WP:BIASED covers a more narrow and specific sort of bias - obviously if you consider every source equally biased then the policy becomes useless; I don't think there's any room to seriously entertain people who argue that the entire mainstream media falls under BIASED. But either way, with both sources that meet the threshold of BIASED and those that do not, there are still reliable sources - ones that don't allow their biases, such as they are, to taint the accuracy of their coverage. And then there are some unreliable sources, where a source's biases lead them to eg. allow their news anchors to publish intentional falsehoods because it advances some institutional agenda In those cases, the bias is a noteworthy component of their unreliability because it suggests that the problem is institutional and systematic. Obviously the coverage here suggests that Fox is the latter. (An obvious caveat is that I believed that previous coverage already adequately established this; but this makes it glaringly obvious that they do not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.) That is not something that is common among the mainstream media, hence why this lawsuit is making such a splash. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is true that the media are all biased, some much more so than others. But what happens with a 'reliable source' is they go in for ignoring inconvenient truths and things their audience don't like or doing a bit of spin rather than sticking in outright lies. Outright lies puts them definitely in the not reliable camp. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

See "Network Propaganda" by Benkler et. al. There is asymmetric polarization in US media. Liberal-leaning media (e.g. MSNBC) will lose viewers if they publish ideologically preferred but factually inaccurate content. As the filings and the summary judgment show, Fox, an exemplar of right-wing media, has the exact opposite dynamic. Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable." Great, an echo chamber in action. I will not not speculate what is their brand of a purity test is, but we have established that Faux News can no longer claim that it is "reliable for statements of fact". Dimadick (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What new information do we have now that would change the non-consensus from just after Dominion released these messages? The summary judgement seems to be based on statements made by the commentary shows. Where is the new information that says the news programs are releasing false information? This would seem just to support the status quo conclusion we already have. We don't have a problem with people excessively relying on Fox News as a RS for contentious claims. Springee (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you missed a key point of the coverage. Maria Bartiromo, who was the source of some of the defamatory claims at issue, was classified by Fox as a news anchor at the time, not a talk show host. (See here, Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host - or in more detail here, But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.) Fox has retroactively taken to calling her a talk show host, but I'm sure that you understand that from the perspective of our policies, that makes things even worse - it means that Fox doesn't maintain a clear distinction between news and opinion, which resolves one of the key issues that previously blocked us from reaching a consensus on their unreliability. If Fox themselves is inconsistent on whether Bartiromo is a news anchor or an opinion host, and if she was saying false and defamatory things while they were calling her a news anchor, then clearly that suggests that we can no longer reasonably split Fox into news / opinion sections - if they're not making a clear distinction, then they have to be judged as a whole. Likewise, failing to distinguish between news and opinion is one of the textbook indicators of an unreliable source, especially when they have someone who is notionally on the news side publishing what the network as a whole knows are deliberate falsehoods. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we treat her commentary as need reporting or as commentary? Can you show examples where FN is being used inappropriately? Springee (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect Springee, I don't follow the logic here. Why would we need existing examples of inappropriate use? Does lack of evidence for inappropriate use mean that all future uses are per se appropriate? Entirely possible I am missing something. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't show that FN's news reporting is unreliable. It shows that the talk shows are clearly not reliable. We already say FN political and science reporting is use with care/discretion. Do we have examples where that caution hasn't been followed? If not, what is the issue? What about the previous RfC is no longer valid? Springee (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think it would be hard to find an example where I introduced (vs argued that an existing reference is acceptable) Fox as a source. I'm not sure I ever have. Springee (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not accusing you of doing so--but Aquillion has introduced an argument above as to why we can't simply rely on the talk/news distinction anymore; I find it persuasive. You may not, but you haven't really addressed it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we treat the person in question as an anchor or as a source of commentary? I presume we already put her in the same bucket as Carlson thus already not a RS. Springee (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the network itself equivocated on her role, meaning (at least for myself and Aquillion) that the division has become at least somewhat porous. To me, that's enough--we have an admittedly unreliable opinion side which (again, to me) is not clearly cordoned off from news, and thus I think the entire operation is presumptively unreliable, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously -@Guy"

Not really. His defense was that it was hyperbole. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Please get her fired Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke."

I'm still not really understanding what the allegation of wrongdoing is here. I see this quote repeated on this noticeboard a lot as evidence that Fox intentionally lied about the 2020 American election, but I have never seen anyone explain how. I have also seen editors reproduce Carlson's quotes regarding his hatred of Trump, as well as his negation of Sidney Powell's claims regarding Dominion, seemingly as evidence of Fox's lying. It's also not clear to me what these facts have to do with Fox's credibility--the latter even seems to evince Fox's credibility, since Tucker Carlson attacked Powell's Dominion-Venezuelan voter-fraud theory both in private, and on his show. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson, a high profile star and stockholder, was demanding that fact-checking of Trump's big lie should stop, because viewers were deserting Fox for OANN and Newsmax, and it was hurting the stick price. This would not happen in a legitimate journalistic enterprise. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly untrue, because he attacked the Venezuela-conspiracy claims himself, publicly. How does it fit your theory that he attacked some claims of voter fraud, but not others? And are you honestly saying that no "legitimate journalistic enterprise" does not care about stocks or ratings? Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No legitimate journalistic enterprise would continue to report what it knew to be false information because doing so would hurt its ratings or its circulation or its stock price. A news source with journalistic integrity would bite the bullet, issue corrections, and then take whatever non-journalistic steps were necessary to bolster its ratings, circulation, or stock price. I suppose there are those -- such as the folks at Fox News -- that think that the other course of action is acceptable, but they clearly don't really understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that they knew to be false information, but promoted anyway? I often see it claimed that it was Tucker Carlson's assertion, in private, that Sydney Powell's claims were false. But he also asserted that they were false publicly, on the Fox News channel. There is no contradiction there. When Carlson said that Heinrich should be fired for saying that "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", this does not contradict his attacks on Powell, which were never private or hidden from the public in any way. The two claims are not equal, and can only be connected tendentiously.

If A alleges that B specifically did not steal the election, and C alleges that the election was not stolen at all, and A attacks C for saying so, that does not mean that A has contradicted themselves in any way whatsoever. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've believed that Fox should not be considered a reliable source for quite a while, but just to be very clear about this I do indeed believe that this new evidence is relevant and that it establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that they fail our standards for being a reliable source at least dating from November 2020, if not earlier. Loki (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just as a brief addendum to my colloquy with Sprringee above, this is very much my take, and for me, the date of the 2020 election is as good a cutoff as any (though I can see arguments for earlier). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above takes, but I would propose March 15th (the beginning of covid lockdowns and close to the beginning of serious campaigning for the 2020 election) as the cutoff date. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If some solid justification could be provided, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. But, the current evidence seems to weigh mostly on events post-election.

I personally feel like if not November 2020, there just shouldn't be a cutoff date: some of the issues with Fox have been long-standing and while it definitely seems to have gotten notably worse in November 2020, issues revealed in this court case do seem to bear on their editorial policy in general. It's not clear to me, for instance, that Fox ever made a clear internal distinction between opinion and news. Loki (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. There's no clear cutoff date because Fox has literally always been like this - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While I may empathize with that sentiment, I wouldn't condone going back further unless it is also backed by RS, which may or may not be possible. The 2020 "Big Lie" Dominion debacle is documented, and therefore something every reasonable editor (regardless of their persuasion) should be able to agree on. It's conceivable that this event may have a domino effect that creates doubt that goes further back in time, but it requires RS and we definitely should start at 2020. DN (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a change that would require a new RfC. Springee (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against an RfC, but this seems to be a policy issue, and RfCs do not supersede policy. DN (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a policy issue. WP:V is policy. A blanket view that FN is or isn't a RS in some given subject area is not a policy question. Additionally, this would be trying to supersede a recent and very well attended RfC. Springee (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This falls under the umbrella of WP:V, ie the reliability of a source, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source". To paraphrase Aquillion, FN does not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.DN (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you are arguing for FNC. Coverage of this case very clearly shows that the opinion side drives policy. Notional news anchors were coerced into following the demands of opinion host (and stockholder) Tucker Carlson. Whether this was out of concern for financial impact or personal ideology is largely irrelevant.

Recall, Fox News is largely the result of Roger Ailes, a media advisor to Nixon, setting out to ensure that no future Republican should be forced to resign after being found out criming. The only person who would see this as anything other than "broken by design" is Mary Poppins. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, those are claims made by Dominion selectively releasing information. We don't know the opposing side's version of events. In all of this I don't recall seeing anyone claim the news side was proving bad content. The talk side may have driven what they wanted the news side to focus on but that isn't the same as false information from the news side. Combine that with the lack of evidence that editors are using Fox disruptively and the fact that we already say use with caution and I don't see an issue that needs to be fixed. Springee (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To expand on this, Misplaced Pages has an issue in that, instead of deciding to use sources on a case by case basis we often resort to blanket decisions. In general those decisions are more favorable to sources on the left vs right. This can result in a skew in our articles. As an example, take the indictment of Trump by DA Bragg (or any of the other potential cases against Trump). In articles on those cases we presumably want a range of legal analysis/opinions on the way the law is being applied to the facts in question. If we only cite news sources on the left we risk having only analysis that left leaning audiences. It's easy to claim this is just a case of the right not picking good sources. However, take someone like Allan Dershowitz. In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE. It certainly comes from a one of the absolute top US legal scholars. However, sources like CNN don't ask him to come on. According to Dershowitz, most sources on the left no longer talk with him because he defended Trump during his first impeachment. This means in the end we may not get balanced coverage of the legal opinions on a topic because we have decided that sources that carry opinions that are more likely to appeal to the right are not reliable and thus can't be included. I think that is a serious blind spot in our neutrality. I certainly can see the issue if we were to pack Biden's article with every negative thing reported by Fox. However, if we have an article about the legality of something the president or Congress etc is trying to do then we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview. Springee (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please reduce the verbiage. I already commented on your Dershowitz analogy. And I was polite enough to not include that highly regarded legal experts disagree with him with increasing frequency. And your claim that no one on the left will speak with him is unsourced and imaginative; and your comment that we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview. is also unsourced. Frankly, I don't see why you keep talking about him. Are you saying that only Fox, of the massive news sources, will say anything about him? If that's true, wonder what the reason is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please check the time stamps. The edit above (00:06, 19 April 2023) was the first time I mentioned Dershowitz and predates your first comment on the subject (13:22, 19 April 2023). Springee (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK I'll strike; but twice is twice too many. It's not a good example. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Specifically re. Dersh, people won't ask him for his opinions as a legal scholar because he flushed his own reputation down the toilet.

His lawsuit against CNN for "ruining his reputation" by accurately reporting his actual words, failed, because he'd already said that his reputation had been ruined by the Epstein allegations.

We're not in danger as a project from not hearing Dersh's hot takes on anything. He was a respected legal scholar, he's now a hack, and nothing he says can be taken at face value. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic but, to set the record straight, the lawsuit failed not because the judge ruled Dershowitz wasn't defamed. It failed because he wasn't able to show that CNN's actions met the actual malice standard . CNN didn't accurately report his words when they truncated a quote and then suggested Dershowitz said something he specifically did not. From the ABA Journal article, Dershowitz claimed that a shortened clip and CNN news commentators falsely suggested that he thought that a president could do anything—including illegal acts—as long as a president thinks that it is in the public interest. Dershowitz had actually argued that a president can’t be impeached simply because he takes action based on a desire to be reelected, if a president thinks their reelection is in the public interest. But Dershowitz had also said a president can be impeached if they did something illegal, regardless of their motive. Dershowitz complained that CNN should not have taken out this sentence in edited clips: “The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were some way illegal.”Also from the article, ... while actual malice wasn’t established, the facts did show “foolishness, apathy and an inability to string together a series of common legal principles” on CNN’s part, Singhal said. Springee (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Then he wasn't defamed under the legal definition. And, I agree with all that Guy posted. But then, why would we want to get into a legal argument here. Not our job. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just feel the need to pipe in very briefly about Dersh -- he is obviously notable and his opinions might well be notable, but he is very much an outlier on many things (a statement with which I believe he would agree), and so we have to be careful about according him too much weight, as that might be WP:UNDUE in some circumstances where he is alone or part of a very small group in the legal academy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Guy said CNN accurately reported his statements. The judge disagrees. Springee (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope.

As CNN aptly argued during the hearing on this case, there is no requirement under the First Amendment for a reporter to talk about everything Dershowitz has ever said about impeachment or even all the various ways one can be impeached.

In context, he said:

Policy-based judicial opinions have had a twisted history in American jurisprudence. Some rulings are just ridiculously bad despite what common sense demands and what the author may have thought. See Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Other decisions cause deep-rooted political and emotional turmoil by creating a “Constitutional right” that others then believe in, that isn’t anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). And in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court’s holding—while laudable in a different era—that the First Amendment requires public figures to establish actual malice simply has no basis in and “no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution, and it baldly constitutionalized an area of law refined over centuries of common law adjudication.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., 991 F.3d 231, 251 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Silberman, J. dissenting).

(Emphasis added). I take it we all know what "dissenting" means. FedSoc judges are constantly quoting dissents. They want to strike down settled law, here explicitly including Sullivan, to allow the super-rich to stifle criticism.

Reminder:

It is understandable why Dershowitz brings this case. Once Dershowitz responded to Senator Cruz’ question, reporters and commentators from around the globe ran with his answer in today’s “race to publish” world and spoke about his January 29 comments without contextualizing the comments with what had been said on January 27, and without any reference to impeachment law. And again, they were not required by law to do so.

Emphasis added. What he's arguing, is that he wishes they were required by law to do so, to apply maximum deference to obvious bad-faith arguments, to allow the powerful to silence criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually they did accurately report his words. His beef was that they didn't report them the way he would have preferred, after the event. He knows that he advanced a monumentally silly argument, for which he was roundly criticised not just by CNN but by pretty much every respectable legal commentator. Singhal's comment doesn't undermine CNN, it's in the context of FedSoc's intent to strike down Sullivan - a long-term goal in service of the hyper-privileged, which we have heard from Trump (who appointed Singhal), Thomas, and others.

You don't get summary judgment if it's a close call.The judgment itself contains a pretty brutal slapdown of Dersh's abject failure to meet the required standard of pleading. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a gap between "did CNN's actions meet the legal standard" and "did CNN accurately report what Dersh said". It's clear the judge thinks the legal standard wasn't met but not because CNN's reporting accurately reported what Dersh said. There is a big difference between, "You can do what you want so long as it is legal" vs "You can do what you want". Leaving off a very important qualifier, as CNN did, is either grossly incompetent reporting or a lie by omission. Since the standard for a public figure would have to be lie by omission we can assume the judge felt the evidence only rose to grossly incompetent. I think my quote from the judge is sufficient to show CNN didn't accurately report what Dersh said. Springee (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Given that we already say don’t use the talk shows, and already strongly caution editors about using Fox for certain topics (especially politics and science), I really don’t see a need for this. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you show an example of this? Honestly, this comes off as a bit of a character attack/personal attack against unnamed editors. Springee (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here. DN (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Again, do we have examples of this? If not then the existing RSP entry works fine. Springee (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature. DN (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you provide links to any examples? I don't follow those topics and honestly, try to avoid them. Springee (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Seconded. This seems like a reach. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    I agree that we do, and copious evidence of problem attempts to use Fox have been provided. I also agree that it would be great to establish that Fox is generally unreliable starting in 2020 even if prior to that remains as status quo. Andre🚐 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you share some example links? Springee (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Here's a recentish example Andre🚐 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    What's the issue? It seems like a reasonable add. It seems reasonable to use Fox as a source for an attributed POV. Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC. Springee (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Looking into your example a bit more, it was added once then removed. How is that an issue. There was no edit warring and, right or wrong, the content didn't make it to the article. Honestly, this is a very poor example of a "problem". Springee (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving. The discussion here is about the recent summary judgement against FN, and how that relates to it's assigned level of reliability. To reiterate, as far as this discussion is concerned, what unnamed editors are doing with FN is less relevant than what FN has been doing. If anyone wants to discuss editor behavior, maybe start a separate discussion somewhere else, otherwise it may be hatted, as it seems fairly off-topic. Cheers.DN (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    What goal post is shifting? I asked where the use of Fox was problematic. The diff offered doesn't support the view that Fox is being used problematically. It does relate to the overall question since any change to RSP entry should include some indication that we are fixing a problem. Springee (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable sources...not reliable editors...DN (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    I don't understand your reply. Springee (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    A Fox RSP entry does exist, and that entry needs to contain accurate information on how Fox should or should not be used in the future. The subject of current or past editor behavior is unnecessary to that discussion. I believe DN was requesting that we all simply drop that topic. Alsee (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    An earlier comment was that the use of FN has been problematic. I asked for examples and none were provided. Springee (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    None were provided? I think you are mistaken. After an example you requested was given to you, you dismissed it stating "Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC.". From a certain perspective, you provided a brand new example in this very discussion. DN (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Again, that isn't an example of a problematic addition. It infact was a perfectly reasonable use. So, no, you are wrong. No examples of problematic use of FN have been provided. Springee (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Its reasonableness is disputed, and it substantiates an existence of a disagreement on the usability of Fox for such issues. Our current RFC closure indicates that Fox should be used with caution and possibly not used for controversial political topics, and that it should not be considered a high-quality source. Since policy and guideline already urge multiple high-quality sources for controversial statements and issues, this would not be usable. But, your disagreement proves that Fox should be downgraded since editors are still trying to wiggle it in for issues where it shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Your argument is circular. It pre-supposes that any use of Fox for political content is a problem. So you show an example of someone citing FN and proclaim it proof of a problem. However, your argument is based on the false premise that any use of FN is by definition problematic. That premise conflicts with the "use with caution" RfC closing. By your thinking any use of a yellow source is problematic thus proof that source needs to be downgraded. The burden is on you to show that this example, your example, illustrates a problematic use. An editor added an opinion of the Heritage Foundation reported by Fox with all the required attributions, I presume in good faith (do you think they acted otherwise). Another editor decided it was UNDUE and removed it. Where is the problem? Are you going to suggest any time anyone adds verifiable but arguably UNDUE claims that the source is now problematic? That would at least be logically consistent with your claims here. Springee (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Do you believe it is acceptable to use FN for politics? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Per the RfC closing yes. Use with caution is not the same as don't use. Springee (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    I never said all claims are UNDUE or Fox is UNDUE by definition, it just so happens that most of the time editors want to use it to launder right wing propaganda. Andre🚐 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    But you presented that specific diff and said it was evidence of a problem. A single example of FN being used, with no evidence of edit warring etc, without some sort of explanation why it was totally unreasonable to have been ever added doesn't support your case. It might actually be a perfect example but you would have to say why. Springee (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    I second everything Springee has said.

    @Darknipples, your comment about moving the goalposts is very curious. @David Gerard commented that "Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do" You, @Darknipples, seemed to support this, writing that "Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here", and that "If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature." When there seemed to be a paucity of evidence for such edits, you commented "This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving", not seeming to acknowledge that it was you who had moved the goalpoasts. When Springee, reasonably, responded to this about-face with confusion, you condescendingly wrote "Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable sources...not reliable editors..., " despite the fact that it was @David Gerard alleging that there was a problem with "reliable editors", not Springee, and that you were encouraging David Gerard's position, not attacking it. It's all well and good that we return to talking about Fox itself, and not the editors that use it, but I don't think this about-face should go unnoted. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  • "In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE." It depends. I would suggest that we should avoid Dershowitz's legal opinions on sexual abuse cases involving minors, since he has been accused of "misconduct"" in such cases since 2015, and he is accused of having non-consensual sex with minors in his own right. Dimadick (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    The person who made that claim recanted . Springee (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    Dersh's legal opinions are not what they were. Very much not. He is now a pariah, by his own admission, and no reputable source calls on him for his legal views, again, by his own admission. He sued CNN for it (and lost). Guy (help! - typo?) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• The talk shows of the likes of Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc are already unreliable. This does not really change anything...  Spy-cicle💥  20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News Rating

Looking at WP:FOXNEWS(excluding politics and science) the rating is currently green and considered reliable, while WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS(including politics and science) is white with no consensus. Given the RS provided by Guy at the beginning, I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded. DN (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree regarding the political coverage… but not on the rest. Their coverage of mundane news is fine (example: their reporting on things like tornadoes or hurricanes is probably MORE reliable than the other cable outlets, since they can draw from local affiliates for information). Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Forgive me if this is something obvious to US based editors, but would the point on affiliates not equally apply to other affiliate based stations with news divisions like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• As was mentioned above, any change like this would require a new RfC. I don't agree that the issues associated with their talk shows warrant a change to their news reporting. Springee (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Only some of the issues are related to the talk shows. And I'm tired of asking when the news shows are on since nobody seems to watch them, whenever they are on. Seriously the "news" media defamation case appears to be the largest lost in history, and an hour after, the Fox News site had a huge article at the top of the main page suggesting someone in the Biden administration cheated in the 2022 election for what was actually a minor infraction in front of a small audience as opposed to KelleyAnne Conway's multiple, widely seen public infractions for which there was no penalty. But, this is all pointless. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Provide the examples where the issue was the regular reporting. Springee (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  This was already provided at the very beginning by Guy and Aquillion, which it seems you dismissed, seemingly without actually reading the parts that mention it involves news anchors and EXECUTIVES. It goes all the way to the top including RUPERT MURDOCH, who quickly took to calling news anchors "hosts". There is undeniable evidence FOX news intentionally blurs the lines between opinion and fact for years and years. How is any reasonable editor able to ignore this well known fact? Here are the diffs...Guy Springee Aquillion....DN (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have asked multiple times when is this "regular reporting" and no one responds, presumably because no one watches it. Is Kurtz one of them? He stated two days ago he was ordered not to talk about the case. Is that news? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• The “regular mundane reporting” occurs on programs such as: “Fox News @ Night” with Shannon Bream (airs at midnight), “America’s Newsroom” with Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer (9 - 11 AM), “America Reports” with Sandra Smith and John Roberts (1 -3 PM), and “Special Report” with Bret Baier (6 PM). There is also some mundane news reporting during the morning “Fox and Friends” show… but morning news tends to be superficial no matter the network.
• That said, I suspect the real issue for Misplaced Pages isn’t what gets broadcasted on air (and when), but what gets written and published on their website and app. After all, that is what is usually cited here on WP. And I do have to agree that their web site sucks… it over hypes the sensational and partisan stuff, and buries the more mundane stuff. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  This keeps coming up again and again ...... it has been decades since Fox News has been this way. Are Americans not taught about this sort of stuff in school? Moxy- 01:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  "I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded." I would support downgrading their reliability in matters of politics. But we haven't heard whether their coverage of science is equally bad. And frankly, I don't see why would editors cite a television network in a topic which it rarely covers. Dimadick (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have a feeling FOX NEWS' stance on CLIMATE CHANGE is totally accurate (snark).DN (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that given the longstanding but increasing extent and extremity of the issues, and of other RS' reporting on them, "For politics and science Fox News is considered marginally reliable" needs to be revised downward at least after 2020. This isn't a matter of guessing what the court case might have found in the future, but of acknowledging what RS have said, including about things that came out in relation to the case or which the court already did determine. (And "should the existing RSP entry on Fox continue to list them as reliable for politics?" is something we can and should determine based on whether Fox is reliable, not based on Misplaced Pages editor conduct, pace the one editor asking for examples of the latter.) -sche (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• DN is right. The key words are "any reasonable editor". Those who are still in denial need to really think about how anyone can still consider them "reasonable editors". IDHT behavior is tiring and disruptive.
• Here are the stark facts: Fox News fact-checkers were threatened and news staff blocked from covering the whole story, with the knowledge of the top brass. Fox News has a problem in maintaining their obviously false claims that they are a news agency. No, they are a propaganda agency. They fail the most basic of requirements for being considered a RS.
• This lawsuit will not change anything. They will just be more careful to not libel companies, but will still tell lies. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson says Dominion settlement ‘Won’t Change the Way Fox Does News’ -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sorry but that sort of thinking is deeply flawed. The idea that any editor who might consider citing fox is, by your definition, not a reasonable editor is really problematic. Reasonable editors can disagree and reasonable editors can evaluate sources on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say that. I am thinking of any editor who continues to defend Fox. In every discussion about Fox here, we find the same little group of editors who never change their tune. They always use the same arguments to defend Fox, even in the face of the indefensible. They are learning nothing from the history of Fox News and its consistently serious deviations from journalistic norms. It was never intended to be a normal journalistic news source. It was and is an extension of the GOP and only serves the GOP party line. That's why Roger Ailes created it, and he always defended Nixon and his unethical behavior. "Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." It's okay for a source to be openly and honestly related to a political party, but Fox News is deceptive about that issue. That's a problem.

  I definitely agree that reasonable editors can disagree, but around here they are supposed to learn, to know how to vet sources for reliability (a CIR issue), to show a progressive and positive learning curve, and to not sit entrenched in one POV and be unmovable regardless of what RS and other editors tell them. They know when to give up their opposition to progressive information and change their mind. They know when to drop out of the discussion when their opposition to progress is disruptive. That's why we have WP:IDHT. It recognizes that even experienced editors can slide into unreasonable behavior because they are not learning and progressing. We expect editors to demonstrate a positive learning curve and to give up their conservative and regressive ways of thinking that block progress here. Continued defense of Fox News is disruptive. Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News folded and now has to pay Dominion $787,500,000

See NPR - PBS - NBC - APNEWS...DN (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You listed NPR, PBS, NBC, and AP news sources -- but not Fox News. Google shows dozens of stories in RS. For humor value, read the Fox News story . Although released after the result of the suit, it doesn't say it was resolved. It only says that some of Trump's allies and legal staff made false statements, not Fox. It says nothing about Fox or about the settlement. And the Fox News site looks like a tabloid with three anti-LGBTQ stories and headlining Biden's income. Fox is not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As if we needed further evidence: they are even lying to their audience about having lied to their audience. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A key point here is that we cannot treat any of the reported evidence as being true or what it may seem on paper because the court did not rule on it, and it does not appear to be in the settlement terms that Fox has to agree to admit to lying. Thus, all that evidence that Dominion casted that got discussed here is really hard to do anything with without putting our own prejudices in place. All we know is that they still likely should be avoided for political and science news (as they are now) but little else we can extrapolate from that. --Masem (t) 01:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? So Fox News just paid $800 million because they thought they were going to win? I can't tell if you're joking or oblivious to the irony of what you are suggesting. DN (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

They folded most likely to avoid having a whole bunch of questionable details of their operation bubble to the forefront, including details from Murdoch, etc. While Fox will have to pay a lot of money, this is a win for them in terms that they appear to get scott free with their current news ethics and practices, since this case goes down without any judgement. Masem (t) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this lawsuit was never about righting the wrongs (i.e. the right-wing Lie Machinations) of the Nov 2020 elections. This was only ever about a corporation protecting its shareholder value against another corporation's malfeasance. Zaathras (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We still have to figure out how this may affect their reliability on Wiki. Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied. The evidence in the case already shows as much. They continued to push The Big Lie to the bitter end. I don't see how any reasonable editor here can be expected to ignore this, or continue to put faith in reports by FN after such an obvious capitulation.DN (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied. is not a stance we can take. We may want to believe that as much as we want, but there's going to be no legal resolution to that matter. --Masem (t) 02:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That is completely ignoring the evidence in the case. Do you really expect editors to keep treating FN as reliable after this?DN (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying a certain RS citation can't be used because some random authoritative figure didn't get a chance to give their opinion on it. DN (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Courts determine legal liability, not reality. You can live in a world where O.J. Simpson is innocent and Bruno Hauptmann guilty, if you like, but that's not the world in which I reside. Reliable sources and commentators have already weighed in on many things found in discovery in this case. Determinations by a court of competent jurisdiction should certainly be taken into account, but "no legal resolution means we must pretend it didn't happen" strikes me as unhelpful. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm hundred percent with you re "courts determine legal liability, not reality" but that also means that the outcome of this particular case by itself should not have much bearing on the status of FN. As always we should see what RS make of the evidence and summary judgement and follow them. Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

ETA: Apologies for ruminating on the fly, but I think it is categorically false that there is no legal resolution to the matter of whether Fox lied. That factual issue was completely disposed of by way of summary judgment. It was decided. The jury could not have found otherwise (indeed, the issue could not have been argued). To quote the judge, it was "crystal clear" that "that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true." That is from p. 43 of the ruling. Now, we can split hairs, I suppose, and say that perhaps the falsehoods were inadvertent, but that strikes me as a bit sophistical. Anyway, I will cease blathering now. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I will agree that you're right, the summary judgment does say Fox lied, but only about their commentary about DVS. A lot more about why Fox News should be downgraded further in the prior discussions were based on additional "lies" that were found in DVS's evidence but not directly tied to DVS (such as Fox not wanting to lose viewers). Because these fall outside the bounds of what the summary judgment gave, and now will remain only evidence (and no verification of truth or not), we have to be careful to take those all as fact in determining Fox News' status. I'll stand that what we have now (unreliable for politics and science, and definitely not anything from their talking-head shows) remains as best consistent with the knowledge from this trial. Masem (t) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for sort of doubling up on Loki below, but I am still a bit confused (honestly, that's me more than anything else). I would certainly agree that we can't take Dominion's allegations as "true" for any Misplaced Pages purposes. But certainly we can take note of reliable sources commenting upon things that came out in discovery? Dumuzid (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: Fox News is not currently unreliable for politics and science. From WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS: For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable. Shells-shells (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not true: if it's reported as true in reliable sources, we can rely on it, even if a court did not actually judge it to be true. Notably the court actually did judge several of Dominion's claims to be true already in summary judgement (and that's a major reason why they settled).

It's also not totally clear yet that Fox did not have to admit fault of some kind. Loki (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Fox News is reliable should be determined by conclusions published in reliable sources, not by our own. CNN settled with Nicholas Sandmann, while the SPLC settled with people they accused of Islamophobia. Having to settle libel cases is of course evidence of unreliability, but whether it is conclusion is a determination for which we should look to expert opinion.

So far, the majority of RS I've seen (above) all seem to come to the consensus that FOX not only lied, but knew they were lying...and did it anyway.DN (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, both The Washington Post and SPLC took steps to correct the record, something I think noteworthy in the reliability context (especially as to the Post, which did so before the suit). If Fox news does nothing more than the statement released in the immediate aftermath of settlement (yet to be determined, obviously), I would say the record remains uncorrected, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do they say that Fox actually lied or simply that Fox hosted external commentators who they internally doubted (in stronger terms). Given this was a legal case it's always important to be clear about what has actually been shown etc. As an aside, Dershowitz's take on the case (self published on YT) is interesting. On one hand he questions some of the judge's actions. My understanding is he feels the judge was wrong to declare findings of fact (a task that should be left to the jury). However, he also felt that there is likely more to the case that is publicly known. The feeling being that the potential avenues for appeal were strong based on both the preliminary rulings and the feeling that damages on this scale would be very hard to prove (did any states drop vote counting contracts)? He suggests this might mean Fox had more that they wanted to hide but that is purely speculative. Springee (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I would invite you to read the judge's decision for yourself. And while it is quite true that in most cases, juries decide facts and judges decide law, motions for summary judgment are filed incredibly often in common law jurisdictions. In fact, I'd say it's very difficult to find a civil case without them. Now they are not granted nearly as often as filed, but there was nothing remarkable or unusual about the judge's decision here--which is not to say, of course, that it can't be disagreed with. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly some good context to go along with that . Ultimately I don't see this really changes things since we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue. Springee (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought the heart of the issue was that the news reporting, not just the talk shows, was specifically omitting facts and publishing blatant lies without retraction relating to the topics at hand at the pushing of Murdoch and Fox executives? It's funny, I see multiple people pointing that out to you in discussions above. Strange you would still be pushing such an inaccuracy after having been repeatedly corrected. Almost as if you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable, as all of your arguing in this thread seems to indicate. Silverseren 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

First, the accusation is totally uncalled for. As I previously mentioned I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded). Second, not publishing or over/under emphasizing aspects of a story is not the same thing as publishing false information. Anyway, since you say I've been corrected, please show the diff and what sources are provided. I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources. I think that goes against the spirit and text of WP:V as well as WP:RS. Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox. This is especially problematic in cases where we cover the views of legitimate experts on a topic. Many of the news sources seem to focus on experts who share their perspectives. See my recent Dershowitz hypothetical. Springee (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded). I find no difficulty in believing this claim, simply because your style of mainspace editing appears to focus on removing content and reverting edits (I say this not as a criticism—plenty of content needs removing—but merely as a neutral characterization of your style). Your claim is, however, unresponsive to the allegation that you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable, because whether or not you have a bias in favor of Fox News being a reliable source is totally separate from whether or not you personally choose to add Fox News as a source to articles. (But I must note that your personal bias is irrelevant to the question of whether Fox is reliable.)In response to your request for the diff and what sources are provided that corrected your assertion that we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue, I will provide an example. Some days ago you claimed that The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting the problem element is already viewed as not reliable. David Gerard and Aquillion both responded directly to you, explicitly refuting your claim and providing sources: see here and here. In particular, Aquillion demonstrated that Fox News has blurred the line between news and opinion, which you apparently did not contest. I hope these examples suffice to fulfill your request.Finally, you also say that I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox. I think I agree with you on this point, but your position is not in opposition to the users questioning the reliability of Fox as a source. As far as I can tell, no user in these discussions has argued in favor of totally throwing out Fox News. The focus has been almost solely on Fox News's political coverage, and it is my impression that users are on the whole entirely open to Using Fox with caution in that area. Many of them are simply convinced that Fox News is in fact less reliable (in this area) than it has previously been believed to be. Shells-shells (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue. Aquillion's reply shows that Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor (and still does ) but it does so for her own shows which look like talking head shows rather than news reporting. Would we have considered Mornings with Maria news reporting or commentary? Given it was a talking heads show I think this would fall into the same bucket as Carlson et al which we have already said is generally unreliable. I don't think the it has been shown that the news programs (the shows we would view as news reporting, not commentary) were compromised. Why does this matter? Take the Indictment of Donald Trump article where there are sections talking about legal analysis and commentary. Given Alan Dershowitz's expertise, would it seem reasonable to include his perspective in the section? We have the legal opinions of people picked by other news sources. If someone added Dershowitz via, as an example, this Fox interview , should it be retained or not? Many editors already treat Fox News as a remove on site if the topic is even remotely political. Is that approach reasonable in my hypothetical case? What if Dershowitz gave the exact same content to MSNBC, would we then consider it acceptable? wp:RS tells us we really should be considering the claims in question, not just the source. However, over time this has evolved into a game of "do we collectively agree with that source". That doesn't make for better articles in the end. Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Dershowitz example is interesting. Just this morning, CNN had a Republican insisting that after slavery, Blacks got full freedom because of the Second Amendment. Craziest concept I've heard on a news program in ages. Of course the anchor heavily challenged the concept. Would have Fox? So yes, it matters on what program Dershowitz is a guest. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The thing about Dersh is that, years ago, his opinions on legal questions were respected and often worthy of inclusion. That is very much no longer the case. So the only reason we would need to discuss him is in response to RS reporting of something he did. I would never use the primary source for that anyway. So we lose nothing by not being able to cite Fox for some statement he made on their shows. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Dersh is firmly on the lunatic fringe at this point, not a respected academic and legal thinker. So this example really proves the opposite. Andre🚐 22:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence of this? Where are the scholars who are claiming his legal analysis and understanding of the law is no longer accurate? When did this change occur? Surely this is something we would have covered in is BLP. Springee (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

the fall from grace is real. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

From the Politico article, "Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz.

Maybe it’s what happened to everyone " Two of the article are just op-eds that are mad he was willing to defend Trump. If this is the best you have it's very weak. Springee (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You say that David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue. This is an inaccurate characterization of David Gerard's comment. David Gerard replied directly to your statement that the problem element is already viewed as not reliable by saying that The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element. David Gerard's comment does address if our existing rating already covers this issue; it argues that our existing rating is outdated because newly available evidence demonstrates that the problems are broader than they were once thought to be.With regard to Bartiromo, you say I don't think it has been shown that the news programs were compromised. Yet you simultaneously say that Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor. What is your criterion for identifying something as a news program? Shells-shells (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fringe fringe and more fringe Andre🚐 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we are missing something here. Yes, we must be very careful about what we print in mainspace. But, we are allowed to make our own judgements on reliability of sources for use in Misplaced Pages. We don't need a court of law for that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t disagree… but… I think we need to make those judgements on a more granule level - on a case by case basis. We all know that source X can be unreliable for statement Y, yet reliable for statement Z. We can apply this to Fox.

As a community, we can determine that FN is unreliable for its coverage on Dominion, yet we can also deem it perfectly reliable for its coverage on other stories… a massive warehouse fire in Detroit or a flood in Texas.

We need to resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that everything is political these days. A flood or fire is caused by Biden's "woke" policies, or Rothschild space lasers. What came out of the recent case is that Fox management believes keeping their viewers happy is more important than facts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should be basing such decisions on clear evidence that the source is bad for us. EG for the Daily Mail, it was pushed hard to be classified as unusable, but only got consensus to be that way when multiple documented cases of falsification and made-up information were demonstrated. Here, we can use the case to definitely keep Fox News out of any political story, and strengthens why we don't ever want to see opinions from Tucker and the other talk shows on here, but that doesn't speak to the rest of Fox News in other, more general news departments. Masem (t) 12:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by the distinction. I believe we are creating a distinction here for Fox that we would not for almost any other WP:NEWSORG. If the San Francisco Chronicle was found to have lied knowingly and repeatedly at the direction of the editors about a particular topic, would we really say they're still reliable for reporting on other topics? Or would we just toss the whole source? Loki (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The general news departments of Fox News took their direction from the big bosses in terms of what to cover in terms of their priorities on the 2020 election lies, that is what the Dominion case summary judgment finds. Andre🚐 18:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should ditch the over-generalizations that are inherent in such listings. Actual reliability is context specific.....expertise and objectivity with respect the the text which cited it. Also remember that in Misplaced Pages this isn't just about wp:ver. It ripples through into using wp:NPOV to POV an article, to suppress coverage of one side of political issues, in this case by far the largest news organization which covers that "side" North8000 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, Fox doesn't cover that one side reliably. Fox broadcasts lies -- for years. And is it actually a "news organization" just because it says it is? And don't other news organizations cover both sides? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No, in the US that era is unfortunately long gone. The major medias are now all at least partially advocates or tilted towards for one side or the other. And they under cover, over cover or fail to cover things and angles accordingly. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's really not the case, but for the sake of argument, if it were the case, we should deprecate all of the corporate news media in the USA. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, NYT, WSJ .... I'd say they're all reliable except FOX. I hadn't heard that WSJ was on the chopping block. Do you consider WSJ tilted? Andre🚐 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

With regard to making over-generalizations, in my opinion, We should ditch the over-generalizations that you just now made in your comment. These are very broad, very absolutist assertions that are not particularly helpful to the question at hand. Do you have sources to support your position? Shells-shells (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that claim is constantly made by the extreme right. I don't see it. CNN has Republican guests every day. The NYTimes has performed embarrassing investigating of Democrats. Both have had critical articles of the Biden administration. With the wealth of news sources, I cannot accept the idea that only Fox can be used for right-wing (extreme in many cases) angles. Besides, it sounds like you are saying we should start using Fox for politics and science, unlike most everyone here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Replying to the above three post, to clarify, what I advocate is ditching this entire process of overgeneralization regarding media sources. The standard should be expertise and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it Eliminating the largest cable news source would have widespread negative effects. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, and that's not a viable approach to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Andre🚐 14:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with North8000 here. Springee (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of particularized reliability, if I may call it that, is that Misplaced Pages's current idea of reliability is heavily premised upon the ideas of editorial oversight and fact-checking. While expertise definitely plays a role, institutional norms and culture certainly do as well. I agree any results here will have widespread effects, but what was revealed in the Dominion suit strikes me as fairly unprecedented for a major media organization. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with North8000, blanket bans of established news organizations are bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and since Fox News is not a real news organization and does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking (our minimum requirements for being a RS), we don't need to worry about its ignominious fate. Only fake news organizations like Fox, OANN, Newsmax, Daily Wire, Breitbart, etc. should be banned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the only news organizations you think should be banned just happen to all be American media organizations allied with the Republican Party. Are there any organizations that don't fit this description that you think are fake as well? Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been attempts to start left-wing radio stations. Problem is, no one listens to them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet they exist. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As no one listens to them, they quickly fail. It appears folks on the left aren't into listening to lies, exaggerations and extremist thought. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Harry Sibelius, you need to factor in the huge differences between people on the American political left/liberals and right/conservatives. The highly-respected and politically neutral Pew Research Center studies this stuff. In their coverage of Political Polarization & Media Habits, they found that consistent liberals view a wide variety of sources (and tend to trust all mainstream media, both American and foreign), whereas consistent conservatives tend to focus on few sources, and 47% focus on Fox News, and they distrust all other sources, especially after Trump told them all sources that said anything negative about him, true or not, were "Fake news#Donald Trump's misuse of term" and to not trust fact-checkers.

ONE SOURCE(!!!), with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, and a proven history of lying and pushing conspiracy theories, think about that. What type of damage does constantly listening to their deliberate disinformation (not just accidental misinformation) do to the thinking of conservatives? We must follow what RS say about Fox News and downgrade them. Many other sources have been deprecated and blacklisted for far lesser offenses, so be thankful we are currently giving Fox News undeserved favorable and preferential treatment, contrary to our PAG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does FOX News get a free pass on Politics and Science? Do we do this for all news outlets?

• Um… responding to whoever created this sub-header… we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science. Which is the opposite of giving them a “free pass”. Perhaps you meant something else? Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Could the assertion be that we're giving Fox a free pass by separating its politics and science coverage and assessing it separately from its coverage on other topics? _signed, Rosguill 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  But that's not exactly special, and it happens for other outlets, too (e.g. Rolling Stone, Sixth Tone, WP:BUZZFEED vs WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, CNET, The Points Guy, Newsweek). Distinctions get made when they have value, and my list would be longer when those were made without using separate entries. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Many of those are time-based, which is a different situation: we're not trusting editors that are unreliable for one topic to be reliable for other topics if we say that the reliability of a source has declined over time. The remainder have some very concrete reason why their unreliability in one area would not spill over to other areas. Buzzfeed News is a separate organization that just happens to be under the same brand as Buzzfeed's clickbait content, for instance. Loki (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  You claim that we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science. This is not entirely accurate. Fox News is considered marginally reliable with regard to politics and science. It is not considered unreliable. Shells-shells (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  oops...Sorry It looks like my signature didn't take on mobile. I see now that these rules seem to apply to many sources, and for politics it kind of makes sense, but a major news network not being reliable for SCIENCE seems like an extremely egregious line to cross from a standpoint of RELIABILITY.

  What other major networks are considered generally reliable, but not for SCIENCE?

  Not being reliable for reports that involve SCIENCE seems like a huge issue. If it is politicizing something that is supposed to be as fairly mundane as science in order to appeal to an audience that doesn't care about empirical research or WP:VERIFIABILITY, then why would anyone be surprised when they cross the line into plain old journalistic reports? They seem to cater EVERYTHING around a biased political viewpoint. It has been documented that Fox News has been pushing scientific falsehoods for years. See Fox News controversies-Coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and Guardian-Fox Climate misinformation. The list goes on and on... DN (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be fine to use Fox as a source for anything that does not intersect with either politics or science. I doubt they lie about sports results (though even that would not surprise me at this point). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is, what doesn't ever interact with either of those things? We know they're not reliable on business or law news either because they're lying about this case. Sports isn't completely apolitical: what if Colin Kaepernick decides to try to make a comeback? Do you really trust Fox to report on that accurately? Loki (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  For that matter, you can't trust them on anything involving race or LGBTQ; both of which arise often in sports. And they did spend months lying about gas prices. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  They never lied about gas prices. You keep making that claim and it's wrong each time you do it. Springee (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  They never lied on gas prices. It was infographics that at a casual glance biased the data to make it look more severe, but the text data 100% matched up with their source (a reputable one). Tha/ type of problem falls info the "93% of statistics are made up" realm that all sources do even if the simple text numbers are fine. Masem (t) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a link to this infographic and the story about (alleged) lying abut gas prices? Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oddly, no. But I documented here for months. Over 100 times it was updated near the top of the page with a number double the actual average price of gas, higher than any state average, claiming as a source AAA which never had any such numbers. Again, I'm not suggesting using this in the article -- only for our own evaluations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was discussed at length in the last RFC. Andre🚐 22:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The text stated "Average Price" and the only number statically displayed was about double. If you were on a non-mobile device, you could see accurate numbers by state by hovering your mouse over a state. But, the one number that you could see without effort was higher than any state. The text stated that the source was AAA, a reliable source; but AAA had no such number anywhere on the displayed url. Interestingly, they did not link the url, so you had to take extra effort to see it was a lie. This was a lie repeated with a different wrong number each day. This number was of enormous importance to tens of millions of Americans and fit FN's claim that inflation was the fault of Biden's "woke" policies. If you believe this wrong number was a technology problem, as Springee repeatedly claimed with no evidence; then their carelessness is beyond anything I would consider RS. And all sources' statistics are NOT grossly incorrect 93% of the time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you were wrong then and wrong now. It was a script error that didn't auto adjust the color scale as gas prices changed. Contrary to your repeatedly incorrect claims, it was not falsely presenting the average price of gas. Springee (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is not correct. It clearly advertised a number that was not correctly calculated, and was significantly higher than any gas price in any state. Andre🚐 22:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  A.) This has NOTHING to do with the colors. B.) You are just making that up. You have zero evidence of anything about any script. It stated "Average Price" and then had a number which was higher than the average in every single state. And this number was nowhere at the AAA page cited. If this was a "error" reported in a prominent spot for over 100 days; we shouldn't trust them to report the time of day. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, you were wrong then and you are still wrong. The issue was a color bar on the side of the screen that didn't scale correctly as the averages changed. It was a simple scripting error that you tried to claim was a big conspiracy to mislead readers. Springee (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think I can see where you're coming from with this "scripting error" hypothesis. It is, however, a red herring. Earlier, you said that the infographic was not falsely presenting the average price of gas. I believe this is an inaccurate statement, and I will provide a concrete example.Here's an archive of Fox News's homepage captured at 00:12 23 August 2022 (GMT). On the right side is the infographic in question. The only value displayed there is $6.309. If you hover your cursor over the map, you will see individual state averages (which appear accurate) and another value will pop up on the low side of the color-bar: $3.963. Now here's a capture of gasprices.aaa.com around midnight, 22 August 2022. The average gas price given there is $3.901; moreover, no state average even approaches the value $6.309. There is an apparent discrepancy here, one that I think justifies to a great extent the claims made by Objective3000. I encourage the reader to open up both these links and compare them. Shells-shells (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  This was all discussed last time O3000 complained about this script error. Please note that the plot is a heat map with relative values across different states. Now notice that the key for the heat map is almost all red. That would suggest to anyone who say has experience creating such tables/plots in things like Matlab that the key is not scaling to the updated data in the table. As an example consider this heat map (with gas prices that look very low) Now consider what the key would look like if a script error said the minimum price (on that plot) was $3/gallon. It would show red from end to end. One of the common mistakes amateurs make when doing things like FEA studies is looking at the auto generated color map and ignoring things like the actual strain limits of their material. Yeah, this looks like a scripting error, nothing more. It also never says the price in question is actually an average. O3000 was wrong before and is still wrong now. Springee (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your point is somewhat undermined by the rather obvious fact that an accurate bar would have had 5.324 at the right hand end, and the red and blue shaded sections of the bar would have been roughly even sizes. Any assumption of good faith on Fox's part in making an error like this is squarely in Mary Poppins territory. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• ARRRRGH:

  I have never said anything about any bar or scaling. Why do you keep claiming this?

  You keep talking about a "scripting error". What are you talking about? I have been in the IT field for well over a half century and lectured on IT in five continents and this is an absurd statement with zero evidence. What is the name of the script? Why do you keep repeating this? What is your evidence? Has FN ever once claimed this -- or are you simply making it up?

  I said absolutely nothing about a conspiracy theory and request that you strike this accusation as per WP:AGF and WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS.

  O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because you keep claiming the number on the bar was meant to be the average gas price. The key doesn't say that and the fact that the key is almost all red vs scaled to show what all the different colors actually mean further supports this. Has FN ever said that $6 number was the average price of gas? Was there ever a time when the average US gas price was that high? Perhaps if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did you might see this mistake rather than claim Fox is trying to lie about the average price of gas. Springee (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The number shown appears nowhere. It is an error, but not one of a heat map or a color scale or a scripting error. It's just a wrong value shown and is incorrect, and not excusably so. It happens to be incorrect in a way that creates the idea of $6 gas: when in fact gas never got anywhere close to $6, anywhere at all. Andre🚐 00:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  At least you agree it's an error. I hope you can also agree that the bar graph that is meant to be the key to the heat map is screwed up since it doesn't show any of the cooler colors. Perhaps because I have experience creating and working with plots like this I recognize it for what it is, an error. I guess some people might be fooled into thinking it is trying to claim gas is $6/gallon but that is not the same as the claim that Fox spent "months lying about gas prices." That was O3000's claim. Springee (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I have explained before, I also present daily charts on financial volatility on web sites, including Bloomberg and NASDAQ. I would be extremely embarrassed if I was off by a small fraction and would apologize. This cannot happen with an RS for over 100 days. So, either they lied or are incredibly incompetent in a manner that happens to fit their political narrative. Either is non-RS. In any case, you are making this all up. You have zero evidence that this is some error. Zero. We have had this discussion over and over and you continue to claim something about which you have no knowledge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So you are backing down from the lie claim? Springee (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Stop make false statements. I did no such thing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did Actually, I am and upload realized volatility numbers to Bloomberg and NASDAQ after every business day. You need to stop these comments. Tell me, what is anyone reading their site supposed to think this number means? The number is nowhere on the cited page, and the only text says Average. How can you trust this as RS? And, it's even higher than the high in any state. In any case, a number changing every day important to tens of millions of viewers that is always grossly incorrect, rather a lie or mistake, makes is just one example of the fact they are not RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So you are saying it's not a lie now? You are accepting that is an error in the code now? I mean if you want to say it was a stupid mistake sure, I agree. But you called it a lie. Springee (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Can you two stop? You're not convincing each other, and neither of you is going to defeat the other with some rhetorical flourish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  As you likely know, the purpose of discussion on such pages is often not to convince the other person as it is impossible. It is to present your view, which cannot be done without clarifying your view in the light of false statements about your views or facts by another. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  This back and forth isn't doing that. Please stop it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely said no such thing. I said even if. It is pointless to discuss this with you. Strike your false statements and stop WP:TEND. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, you spotted my point ;-) Yes, the right has made *everything* a political purity test by now. W took action on climate change. Imagine the 2024 Republican candidate running on tackling the biggest single problem facing humanity today. Or even admitting that schools should teach accurate US history, and absolutely not teach creationism. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think much has changed. Fox News may be broadly OK for national and local US news stories, but its political coverage has a history of pandering to its audience. This was true even before the Dominion saga unfolded.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

How long

How long are we going to entertain false balance and political axes to grind on this? There should be a critical mass of support to downgrade Fox for politics based on what has been revealed about Fox and Dominion lies. The case was settled yes, but the discovery revealed factual information in RS. This information is damning and adds to the already considerable record on Fox that has been revealed in muliple RFCs, which is conveniently forgotten by a significant contingent along political lines every time it comes up. Well, let's draw a line then. Downgrade to generally unreliable starting in 2020. Andre🚐 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to start an RFC to see if said critical mass exists by all means. I dont necessarily disagree with you, but the above section is not going to come to anything. What you need is an RFC and to not have editors responding to any vote they disagree with so that the discussion does not get so unwieldy that no sane person wants to close it with a consensus for anything. nableezy - 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Not yet another Fox News RfC, please, and this is coming from the person who opened the 2020 one. The current status quo of considering Fox's coverage of politics questionable is fine. We don't need another month of this noticeboard being clogged up and then having to get somebody to spend a lot of their time assessing the consensus. Maybe we can have another RfC in a year or two, but it's too recent since the last one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you on it being too soon, but there seem to be material differences between then and now. And we're clogging up this noticeboard now anyway. nableezy - 23:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Too soon? Isn't that a bit like Thoughts and prayers, ie a way to ignore recent events and maintain Status quo? Lord forbid we clog up the notice board with discussion regarding the largest media settlement in history...so far. I honestly empathize with the cynicism, but that doesn't mean I go around telling people to just ignore it and "stay the course" like Exxon at a climate change summit. DN (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If we just had a discussion and it attracted a large amount of participants, and there has been no material change in the circumstances then it is unreasonable to ask people to do it again, thats just editing by attrition. While here I agree there are some material differences, no TOOSOON is not just a way of maintaining the status quo, its also a way to avoid generating needles animosity within what is supposedly a collaborative community. nableezy - 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I see your point, thanks for the response. DN (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to start a new RFC if we are constrained to the usual 4 point format. I'd start an RFC, downgrade to red for politics only, yea or nay. If people don't think that RFC is fair or neutral enough even though I think it's the obvious only meaningful point of contention, then let someone else start it. Currently, the status quo for politics is yellow, which indicates marginal reliability, but not general unreliability. This might, in practice, be kind of the same thing because people only seem to want to add controversial things that end up being unreliable - on the other hand, people who oppose any change to the status quo on Fox, then still act like Fox is already red for politics. Andre🚐 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much this. Stop talking here. Wait 3-6 months so the community has some time to recharge their arguing about Fox batteries, then try a highly structured RFC with word and reply limits. At the very least, everyone who's added more than 1000 words to the above discussion should just disengage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the above discussion may seem a pointless waste of time. But, Fox is the mostly viewed news source. As a result, it is constantly brought up as a source on numerous articles, where such lengthy discussions repeatedly take place because no one can point to a decision that it is not RS and just use one of the other innumerable sources, many with Pulitzers and other awards. So, as huge and silly as the discussion above may be – it is nothing compared to the sum of all other discussions on so many article TPs. At some point, reality must prevail to reduce the sum of timesinks.. Isn’t that the point of this page? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's starting to feel like truth is becoming more of a popularity contest than a measure of rule and policy. If this is the way Wiki is headed, it will fail in it's endeavor. DN (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics?

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: Media, the arts, and architecture 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 we downgrade Fox News to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020? Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox poll

• Yes, deprecate Fox News starting in November 2020 when management redoubled their efforts to portray falsehoods as truth. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, based on the new evidence given. Andre🚐 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes but I would go further back than November 2020. I don't think they've ever been reliable for politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but back to the beginning, not just 2020. "For politics and science Fox News is considered marginally reliable" needs to be revised downward. In keeping with the very reason Roger Ailes created Fox News, they have never been a RS for politics or science. There should be nothing positive left to say at WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I would actually prefer they be graded as generally unreliable across the board (at least since November 2020), but to my mind, an overreaction here is preferable to the status quo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The lawsuit is further evidence that the talk shows are are red sources. It did not provide evidence that Fox's new reporting and provided false information. Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current use with caution rating is not effective as Fox is already rarely cited. The last RfC was just 6 months back and had significant participation. The current rating is fine especially since case by case should be the standard we use rather than a blanket block which is what is being proposed here. Springee (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a source about how "serious news anchor" Bret Baier tried to reverse the network's call of Arizona for Biden in the 2020 election, saying it should be "put back in 's column", even though it never was to begin with. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for including that source. Peer review is present six times in our description of reliable source for a reason. If someone as strong as an on-air anchor at a network insisted that Arizona be "put back" in Trump's column and nevertheless Fox News refused to do it, meaning, the correct outcome was maintained by Fox News, an outcome manifestly contrary to their editorial stance and with a clear potential hit to their bottom line, that means that their peer review system worked. This is what we expect from a reliable source, and therefore the article you linked demonstrates support for an "Oppose" vote. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Mathglot, that decision to call Arizona for Biden is actually an example of the exception to the rule and seen as a mistake from which they sought to recover by doubling down on election lies. That was seen by Fox News as a mistake and loudly complained about by the rest of Fox News hosts and management. After that, they put all their efforts toward recovering from the damage caused by that correct decision. Viewers immediately fled from Fox News and turned to even more extreme right-wing sites. The internal messaging at Fox revealed in the Dominion case shows they all considered that to be a fateful and very harmful action. It was not a "correction", but seen as an "error" from which they sought to recover by lying even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. Mathglot's argument seems to cherrypick quite a bit, as you've pointed out from RS that have not recently been successfully sued for defamation damages. Not to mention the upcoming Smartmatic lawsuit, which hasn't even begun. If FOX loses again, would that still not change your view, Mathglot? Any anchor, journalist or news outlet can lie and still call themselves journalists, anchors or news outlets...The question is not whether it is "journalism" or 1st amendment speech... The question here is if it should affect FOXNEWS status as WP:RS, and currently there are about 787.5 million reasons, and counting.DN (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is, they called themselves opinion hosts or personalities. I can excuse an opinion host being wrong or misleading, but when a so-called journalist does it thats more reprehensible. CNN MSNBC and others call their hosts journalists yet fox calls themselves opinion hosts or personalities. We shouldn't take tucker or brett as a reliable source, but many of the fox online stories are fine and are actually written by journalists. PalauanReich 01:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... DN (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News was the first network to call Florida for George W Bush in 2000, which was of monumental importance given the closeness and eventual recount. Who made the call for Fox? One of Bush's cousins, who was communicating with George and Jeb throughout the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The other networks followed four minutes later. Breaking news frequently contains errors, no matter how professional the network. TFD (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News was the first to call Arizona for Biden. The man responsible was fired, and Maria Bartiromo promoted, when it became clear that the audience would not forgive them for accurate reporting. 2023 Fox is a different beast even from 2014 Fox. Read Network Propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak yes - I HATE all generalizations and am very wary of saying that any media outlet is unreliable for “politics”… that is just too broad a scope for my taste. I would much prefer a narrow it down further to a more defined scope. I would definitely agree that “Fox is not reliable for their coverage of the 2020 US presidential election and it’s aftermath - especially their claims about Dominion.”
• That said, given that I thought we already said that Fox was unreliable for politics, I can’t object to doing so now. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, provided it is time-limited, ending no later than the end of 2024.- Paying $780 million, or whatever the exact amount is, is not a good sign, to say the least, and a timed downgrade is appropriate. BUT I would oppose an indefinite downgrade as it would amount to disparate treatment. For example, the NYT was never downgraded for their lies here, which are uncorrected to this day. In light of the need to avoid disparate treatment, we need to have a definite ending, and I think a full US election cycle is enough. And has a single academic publication involved in the COVID-19 debate taken notice of the fact that academic input from the People's Republic of China is censored by Xi Jinping? Adoring nanny (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - But confining the rationale exclusively to how Fox has misrepresented reality since November 2020 really misses the point. In 2001, after 9/11, I was appalled at how Fox's quest for ratings not only drove its own coverage but how its success at poisonous warmongering drove other major channels to replicate that grotesque and dishonest approach to the news. Here's a good example from the NYT about how Fox affected public opinion, and hence, public policy. Ironically, the Times itself joined the odious ratings contest by regularly printing absolute "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish by Judith Miller on its front page. It pushed MSNBC, for example, to hire Michael Savage while it fired Bill Press and Phil Donahue who had too energetically sought to tell the truth. (Ironically, MSNBC hired Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to provide "balancing" conservative voices.} Activist (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So in effect, you're blaming other outlet's poor editorial practices on Fox? I don't think this is exactly the best point. Assuming that Fox did affect other news outlets, shouldn't that be more of a testament to the unreliability of those said sources, since they were so easily driven to replicate Fox new's practices just to pursue ratings? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and I would also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable in general. Last time this came up for an RFC, I believed that there were sufficient problems with Fox's reporting to downgrade them at that time, and I continue to believe that. The fact that there is a smoking gun now doesn't mean that Fox was reliable before.Loki (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - This has a long history, going back to Australia, the UK (where Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal likely cost over $1 billion), and now the US where Roger Aisles, media consultant for US Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was hired as CEO. The house of cards is falling and there is no reason that WP should be under the collapse. There is a wealth of news sources from around the world with Pulitzer prizes and other awards. We have no shortage of sources. How can we use FN as a source and claim reliance on our five pillars? BUT, it must be at least politics, science, economics, race, religion, LGBTQ, most anything else including sports and entertainment as they include race, religion, LGBTQ, etc. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes No question from this narrow period (2020 onward, politics only) that Fox cannot be anywhere close to reliable from their news desk. I would generally add as a footnote that for most other areas not covered by the RSP entry for Fox, that WP editors tend to look for better sources before resorting to Fox as the source, but that doesn't mean Fox is unusable on WP. --Masem (t) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The problem isn't confined to opinion - Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that they all promoted false claims about the 2020 election, which he believed was fair. But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony. See also . Even before this, there are scholars who reject the idea that Fox should be considered a news source at all, claiming instead that it should be considered something more akin to propaganda; and in 2021, the same source for the above summary describes it as ...a source of information that embraces a highly partisan perspective with inconsistent commitments to the accuracy of their reporting... A summary of the (still ongoing) Smartmatic lawsuit states that Fox News aired thirteen reports either explicitly stating or implying that Smartmatic played a role in stealing the 2020 presidential election and notes, again, that people making these claims were presented by Fox as news reporters, not as "opinion mouthpieces." It seems difficult to argue that a source whose reporting has the sort of academic coverage described here can reasonably be said to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I'd also be strenuously opposed to an expiration date; coverage makes it clear that they've had systematic problems from the start, even if things have gotten worse, and there's no particular reason to think it will ever get better - certainly not within the baffling single-year window that a few people have inexplicably advanced. In the unlikely event that Fox somehow changes its entire direction and business model, we can start a new discussion to re-evaluate it then, but the idea that it could go back to WP:MREL automatically is a total nonstarter. EDIT: I would also support a simple statement that Fox is generally unreliable for all topics. The core problems that these sources reveal show a fundamental issue with how Fox is structured, its core purpose, and its fundamental lack of a commitment to fact-checking or accuracy, which necessarily taints everything they produce. We would not usually make so many carve-outs for a source that had this much coverage indicating unreliability; we'd just declare the whole source unreliable and be done with it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes with the following Suggested Specifics:

  Extent: The deprecation shall include strictly political news reporting, but not opinions, interviews, and commentary by Fox employees or guests, for which, however, Fox can be quoted as a matter of record only, e.g. "XYZ said abc on FoxNews yesterday ."

  Begining: The deprecation should start with any and all political reporting made by Fox on the date of the November 20,2020, election, and go forward to the present. Setting a date earlier than that would only result in seriously chaotic conditions; going forward, best leave this as a task of replacing with better sources, as the opportunity arises.

  Ending: Fox News remains one of the most watched medium in the United States. An indefinite deprecation is a step that probably should be taken with significant and somber consideration, i.e. we should not get carried away too much on the basis of recent news. We should have a time limit, upon whose ending the status of Fox as a deprecated source should either be revoked or indefinitely extended. The year 2024 suggested by Adoring nanny looks about right for this. I suggest revisiting the deprecation, if it presently comes to pass, on Saturday 30, 2024, which is the last day of the month of the next U.S. presidential election.

-The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, thoroughly - Fox was started as a political propaganda exercise from the beginning - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes They have been unreliable in this regard since well before 2020. Obviously nobody should be using them as a source on the 2020 election, the January 6th insurrection, or voting machines, we know for a fact that the people right at the top of the networks' chain of command willinglt particpated in spreading false information, their willingness to do so suggests they are totally unreliable as a source of information relating to politics. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Fabrication is a no no. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Is this a proposal to deprecate or downgrade to generally unreliable? Those are subtly different as per WP:RSP. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think "downgrade to generally unreliable" was clearly what was meant, @Binksternet is using the non-jargon common meaning of "deprecate," but perhaps he wouldn't mind updating the section header text to be consistent to avoid confusion. Andre🚐 17:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with Andre. Loki (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "downgrade" is clearer. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Downgrade to unreliable, but not just for politics and not for a limited time frame. We shouldn't trust a source willing to knowingly lie to the public as being reliable at any point in time on any topic. They have demonstrated a lack of credibility as a source of information.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely. There's nothing new about Fox "News" being propaganda. Hell, that was the entire point of the documentary Outfoxed twenty years ago. And despite the equivocations and hemming and hawing, the idea that there's a distinction between news and opinion shows, or between the TV channel and the website, is and always has been nonsense. The Dominion case proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire operation is rotten to the core, and has been since day one. oknazevad (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Honestly, Id go further than this, if you can find something only in Fox then in my view it probably is not true, and almost certainly is misleading. But for the question as posed, yes. nableezy - 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, deprecate politics coverage after 2020. Also all of its other coverage. And after 2016, or 2012, or 2008, or 2000, or all they back to 1996. Whatever it takes. Fox News was founded as an alternative to perceived liberal bias in media, so it's been tainted from the beginning. Deprecate it all. Woodroar (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Downgrade only for politics. Do not deprecate the entire website as they provide reliable sports and weather coverage. However they are unreliable in politics. 69.119.89.11 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) struck block evasion ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• No - stick to status quo. There is no good reason to depreciate this source - this RFC is mainly about the settlement story on voting machines. The left wing news sources have had to do settlements over defamation cases recently too such as CNN settle $275 million over racist defamation of Nick Sandmann and Washington Post had to do the same Washington Post settles defamation in 2020. The current status quo already deals with these issues. Aside form the nightly commentators, general news reporting from Fox is reliable - as many mentioned in the last RFC last year RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for a downgrade to generally unreliable. It's been clear that Fox News has deceived and lied to its viewers for some time now, and as such should not be considered reliable. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• FYI I've listed this at WP:CENT. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The Night Watch (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - Whereas Ramos1990 cites defamation settlements regarding the 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation as proof of misconduct at other outlets, Fox News was forced to settle over lies on the fundamentals of the 2020 United States presidential election, a far more significant event, told over a far longer period. Besides the specific falsehoods highlighted in the court case, the editorial policy of focusing on viewership over fact-finding clearly disqualifies Fox News as a reliable source, at least until the Saturday, November 30th, 2024 date suggested by The Gnome. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, from the very beginning. This isn't a new thing that we're all pretending to be shocked is happening; this is fundamental to the network and has been so well-known for decades that primetime flagship shows in Fox's entertainment division have gone to the well more than once to make fun of of the news division; as Lois Griffin said in 2010, "even true things, once reported by Fox News, become lies". It's time for us to stop pretending. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and backdate so the stuff can be removed by script. It would be highly subjective to try and determine when it started to become unreliable, so best to backdate and remove. scope_creep 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable if more evidence, showing cause to do so, is revealed. Why is no one that surprised? Conceivably, we have been worn down over the years to just accept that FOX NEWS knowingly lies at seemingly conspiratorial levels, from the top executives and "hosts", including the Murdochs, to the front-line journalists and anchors, that almost no laymans and few seasoned editors seem to be able tell the difference between. Once caught, FOX quickly just moves the goal post....It's been done so many times it's no wonder even they probably can't tell the difference themselves. Some might also feel the need to argue that they did this at the risk of American democracy, at the very least according to Fred Wertheimer. Reasonable editors are rightfully bothered by these developments. How could we so cynically advocate for "business as usual," much like what FOX NEWS currently seems to be doing? It is likely because we have failed to regularly reexamine the question of where to draw the line, to prevent harm to ourselves and others. Unfortunately, FN will likely continue stonewalling and obfuscating in order to continue to muddy the water between truth and opinion. DN (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• No The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting. Statements by talk show hosts are not considered reliable. Also, there is considerable movement of talk show hosts and others between the networks, so they are equally guilty in their talk shows. Jonah Goldberg for example who achieved fame for Liberal Fascism which claims that modern U.S. liberalism has its roots in Italian Fascism, a claimed widely debunked by actual historians, left Fox and now contributes to CNN and MSNBC. He was actually interviewed about the book by CNN host Glenn Beck, who later moved to Fox. Meanwhile, the notorious Fox News host Tucker Carlson previously worked at PBS, MSNBC and CNN. TFD (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• TFD, I absolutely respect your opinions on this, and I also believe this is something where people can, in good faith, come to differing conclusions. That said, I feel like this argument is too clever by half. Which hosts on other networks spread easily debunked lies about Dominion? Could it be that other networks have stronger safeguards in place to prevent occurrences like this? And it is interesting that you choose Jonah Goldberg (for whom I have no great affection), because his own claim was that he left the network because of "propaganda that weaves half-truths into a whole lie." Apologies for the interruption. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• It's quite possible the reason for the confusion is due to the fact that FOX NEWS very likely isn't WP:RELIABLE...it's just a business that calls itself "news"..."Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections provided by the First Amendment. There is an exception to this: the defamatory lie, one that injures a person or organization’s reputation. That is what got Fox News sued...Anyone can claim to be a journalist, irrespective of their actual function. Any business can claim to be a news organization. Functioning irresponsibly in either role is largely protected by the First Amendment and is therefore optional." - John C. Watson Associate Professor of Journalism, American University. DN (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Dumuzid, we agree, but for TFD's sake I'll point out that while "stronger safeguards" are what keeps normal journalists from making egregious errors, with Fox News there does not exist ANY type of safeguard that would work because this is a "feature" not a "bug" type of thing. It was knowingly and deliberately perpetrated on viewers to keep them from running away to OANN and Newsmax, which they did immediately after Fox called Arizona for Biden. Fox New had always been lying to viewers, but when they for once told the truth, they immediately paid the price, so they returned to doubling down on lying to viewers to get them back.

When Fox News' own fact checkers sought to correct outright lies, they were threatened and the NEWS division hosts were blocked from touching the matter. This has been going on for years, but the Dominion lawsuit just brought our attention to it. All those private communications revealed that every single person at Fox News, top to bottom, knew Trump's election lies were lies and that Biden won, yet they repeated those lies to audiences to keep them at Fox. That's not an "error" or "bug", that's a malicious "feature" that no "stronger safeguards" can prevent.

There is a reason so many good journalists have left Fox News. So to sum up the problem, it involves the whole gamut of people at Fox News, including the NEWS division, because it comes from the top. They all know what's true, but deliberately lied to keep their viewers from fleeing. The outcome of the Dominion case just means they'll be more careful not to libel a company but will keep on lying and keeping vital information from their viewers. That's how they have always rolled. That's why Fox News exists. It was created to operate that way by Roger Ailes.

"The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting." is a red herring. The problem exists, not because of the NEWS hosts, but because everything at Fox News, including the NEWS division, is controlled from the top, and the NEWS division is not supposed to function like an honest news service. It must follow the party line, dictated from the top. So good and honest journalists in the NEWS division are often prevented from covering certain topics and are required to lie to viewers. For many of them that is just too much and they leave. What we're left with is a Fox News that is still defective to its core. It fails the bare minimum (fact-checking itself) we require of all other RS. Why make an exception for Fox News when they do not intend to allow fact-checkers to do their job? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the other networks' hosts did not lie about Dominion because they tend to lean Democratic, but they also broadcast misinformation such as when Glenn Beck approvingly interviewed Johnah Goldberg about how modern American liberalism derives from fascism. Beck also continually presented the views of the conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen and wrote an introduction to his book about how the New World Order controls the world. While Beck was there, CNN also had as host the nativist Lou Dobbs whose virtually sole topic was "illegal immigration," claiming that Mexicans were responsible for most of America's problems. False reports of the 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were carried on numerous mainstream news outlets. Similarly, media coverage of the Duke lacrosse players' case was extremely biased against the accused (who were innocent), with CNN talk show host Nancy Grace arguing the prosecution case night after night.

All major U.S. news media of course misled the public in supporting the false claim that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction and for years that America was winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. The even had their reporters "embedded" with the U.S. Army, which is highly controversial to say the least.

Major media also misled the public in claiming the COVID-19 lab leak theory was a "conspiracy theory" although it is now considered a possibility, even if remote, and the FBI now says with low confidence that is what happened. CNN also had on night after night the now disgraced ex-governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, presenting him as being on top of the covid pandemic even while he was covering up nursing home deaths. His brother, who was a talk show host at CNN, was helping Andrew defend himself in the media against sexual misconduct allegations.

The reason journalists can so easily move between Fox and other cable news is that they are similar. They both have relatively reliable news programming telling people what actually happened and relatively unreliable talk show hosts telling them what they want to hear.

I disagree that Fox News should be considered unreliable because its talk show hosts are. As I mentioned, they often go back and forth between networks and are not considered reliable sources anyway. TFD (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

journalists can so easily move between Fox and other cable news Um...what? SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree. Have a good week. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• TFD, you have a point, but I think you're missing the broader picture. You're right that there is a difference between individual journalists and the network as a whole. For example, Judith Miller committed extreme journalistic malpractice, but that doesn't mean the New York Times as a whole is disreputable, same with Dan Rather and CBS News. However, when the network as a whole is staffed with so many of those disreputable figures, particularly at the top, then it can only be expected that what is pumped out through the TV outfit bleeds over into other divisions, which is what is proved both with this lawsuit and the decades of grounded and fundamental criticism. Curbon7 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The smoking gun is the messages talking about how they could not afford to offend their viewers. Rather than following the facts, they told the audience what it demanded to hear, even knowing that it was not just a lie, but a ridiculous lie. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply not true. The lawsuit was against Fox News Channel and Fox Corp, not Carlson or Hannity or Dobbs. If Fox could have argued opinion, they would have had a solid defense under Sullivan. This was Fox News Channel, as a body corporate, placing retention of viewers above factual accuracy, even knowing that this might result in a successful lawsuit against them. They valued the loss of market share to Newsmax, above the knowledge, recorded in the documents released in the case, that what they were promoting as "fact" across both news and commentary shows, was not just false, but ridiculous: unserious claims advanced by unserious people, who were nonetheless highlighted in news shows as if they were "just asking questions". And actually, wee've known since the Seth Rich case that Fox reporters (not talking heads) have fabricated quotes and pushed known lies (e.g. https://www.wbur.org/npr/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story). Fix was created by Roger Ailes, Richard Nixon's media advisor, to ensure that no Republican ever had to resign again. This is Fox working as designed. It's the antidote to Woodward and Bernstein. By design. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(followup) Then there is post-truthism, where a certain number of people can be made to believe and promote falsehoods, exploiting ignorance, using massive propaganda, as well as policy-enforced "reality" (i.e. geocentrism in the 1600s, pseudoscientific Lysenkoism, Intelligent Design's wedge strategy). The latter cannot change facts, only perceptions and reactions and be used to suppress, oppress or exploit. It constantly needs to preach and whine about "truth" because it lacks the reality framework to support the "reality" it wants to dictate. To come back on topic, among other falsehoods Fox News massively promoted the Big Lie (that is not just a baseless description), despite its dangerous consequences, with the defamation lawsuit being another reminder that also presented evidence of it. The "because they lean democratic" above suggests the false equivalence ("they're all equally bad and post-truth") and whataboutism (pointing at a failure elsewhere to forget the real problem at hand). Journalistic integrity is a thing. Better media have reported about the claims and conspiracy theories, who promoted them and why they were dismissed, without needing to constantly push uncertainty propaganda to suggest that it may have some legitimacy. Fox already has a bad RSN record that the RSP entry attempted to summarize, not for nothing. —PaleoNeonate – 06:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Fox News has been spewing misinformation for decades about politics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes for anything relating to American elections and specifically how they are carried out, retain status quo for everything else - the lawsuit highlights that Fox is unreliable for claims relating to US elections, with them basically admitting that they let stories air in regards to the election narrative, even when many knew that the stories are dubious at best. However, I don't see that this is enough to affect talk show hosts (who are already essentially deprecated and who this lawsuit primarily targeted), and the website (which in spite of the claims made by @Oknazevad, there is an unequivocally an undeniable difference in, especially in regards to non-political stories). I especially don't see how we should be deprecating non-political stories, which are fairly mundane and more comparable to the rest of the MSM. The lawsuit further indicates primarily that the talk show hosts are unreliable and as for the website, indicates that anything relating to 2020 US elections is probably fabricated, and that material relating to future elections in the United States at least on the federal level probably shouldn't be trusted either. However, most other political stories more mundane in comparison; just exaggerated and sensationalistic, and probably should just retain a yellow for being analyzed on a case-by-case basis, sort of similar to the WP:DAILYBEAST. I also agree with @Adoring nanny's statement that while yes, nearly a billion dollars is a big deal, using defamation lawsuits (or in this case, attempted lawsuits) to deprecate sources, is opening the floodgates for a massive, unwieldy, and generally bad precedent (for example, the multi-hundred million dollar lawsuits that CNN and the WaPo endured and settled with relating to the Covington kids). If Fox news is to be entirely deprecated for politics, then deprecate until Decemeber 1, 2024, after the month where the US election occurs, for the aforementioned reasons. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. If Fox didn't treat "news" and "opinion" differently, as became clear as a result of the lawsuit, then why should we? Downgrade politics and science coverage to 3/red/unreliable, downgrade all other news coverage to 2/yellow/caution, and downgrade their talk shows to 4/darkred/deprecated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - We are rather quickly nearing WP:SNOW. For better or worse, the RfC topics were narrowed to politics, media, the arts, and architecture -- not including science, for example, or race and LGBTQ. One might argue that they are part of politics, but what isn't these days and that's not how the topics would be selected. Not suggesting they be added now as, perhaps, it makes sense to proceed piecemeal. Just means that we won't bring in folks interested in climate change, anti-vaccination, Gensex, CRT, {are Jewish space lasers included) and such that in normal days wouldn't be considered politics. Not making a suggestion -- just a comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just wanted to briefly chime in to say that I agree with both your general analysis and sense of where we are headed, but when we're talking about such a major source (the most-watched cable news network in the United States by far), I think we really should err on the side of caution by leaving things open for a long time and inviting as much comment as possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the fairest way to resolve this is to let this RFC tick for at least about another week, and then if it's still in WP:SNOW territory close it. Then open a second RFC for Fox News's political coverage prior to 2020 and a separate third one for Fox News's coverage prior to 2020 in general.

  I see there's a fairly large number of people here clearly saying that they want to go further than just a downgrade from 2020 onward, definitely more than people who explicitly oppose such a thing, but there's also enough people being vague about it that I don't think we'd be able to clearly say there's a consensus right now. Loki (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Fox News repeatedly spreads lies and then claims that it's not actually news to get out of liability for that. It's news only in branding. The recent court judgement and settlement show clearly that they are a propaganda network and not reliable for politics. Galobtter (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. And not just since 2020 (they've been unreliable for some time, at least 2016 if not earlier), and not just for politics (also science/medicine, e.g. climate change and covid). We should indicate, at a minimum, that "additional considerations apply" to citing Fox for any contentious topic, in addition to them being unreliable for politics. As others have said above, we don't give any other source anywhere near as much leeway as a few people keep trying to give Fox: if any other source was this intentionally inaccurate, we would consider that source suspect ("additional considerations apply", if not "unreliable"), not go "well, they lie about politics ... and science ... and medicine ... but there's no reason to think they're anything other than reliable for most stuff!" We should acknowledge they're unreliable for politics, and science / medicine, and say caution or "additional considerations" apply to citing them in general, if not simply saying they're generally unreliable. -sche (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) slightly expanded -sche (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes The revelations that emerged in the Dominion lawsuit make it very clear that lying Fox propagandists are in charge there, and that top management sides with lies instead of facts, and defers to the demands of the propagandists instead of siding with the occasional Fox journalist who attempts to tell the truth. A network that says that Maria Bartiromo is somehow a legitimate journalist can be trusted with nothing. If Fox News sometimes tells the truth, then certainly we can easily find a far better source to cite for verification. Their pernicious lies, after all, far exceed any genuine journalistic scoops. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• To the question as asked, yes, obviously: it is a matter of public record. For AMPOL in general, without a terminus ante, also yes: there will always be stronger sources for anything factual they reported. Folly Mox (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes deprecate Fox News since it was founded and not just for politics. Lightoil (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, clearly biased political poll. One major incident makes it suspect, sure, and if it happens again then a better argument could be made. But the settlement was made with the intention of owning up to a rather large mistake.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Ortizesp, this is not about one major incident, but it was this incident that once again confirmed what we have complained about for years. They lie and do not fact-check. As far as this incident, it wasn't a "mistake". It was deliberate and prolonged. It revealed that when fact-checking goes against the party line, the bosses threaten the fact-checkers and block the NEWS division from accurately reporting the matter. The "mistake" (in the eyes of Fox News hosts, management, and viewers) was when they called Arizona for Biden. They did the right thing for a change, and it was shocking to the world. Normal people were amazed that for once Fox News was honest. To Fox News viewers and Trump sycophants, it was a grave "mistake" and they immediately left for OANN and Newsmax, as they weren't interested in facts, but only wanted to hear positive things about Trump. Fox News noticed they were hemorrhaging viewers and immediately went into damage control mode by threatening their own fact-checkers, blocking accurate NEWS coverage, and doubling down on election lies, while continuing to tell all the other lies they have always told viewers and still tell them. Fox News is not a real "news" channel. It's a propaganda channel with a huge agenda, and that's the way Roger Ailes intended it to function. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Of course we should. Duh.—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely - it's a no-brainer. Roger Ailes created FN as a propaganda outlet, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, same logic as WP:THESUN, and the same treatment should apply. Indeed all Murdoch outlets should have a cautionary rubric because economy with the truth is his business strategy. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes (for all information, as they politicize medicine, climate change, Science in general, its hard to think of something they do not politicise), they have admitted lying, they played all kinds of games before finally settling. They no longer have a reputation for fact-checking, they have a reputation for telling lies. Note as well we have been discussing this for years, with a gradual downgrading of Fox, this is not some Knee jerk reaction based upon recent news, rather recent news has confirmed what many of us have argued for years, Fox News tells lies. Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Much of this RFC is focused on Fox’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election and their claims about Dominion. And I agree that Fox’s coverage of that was extremely unreliable. But… does this unreliability translate to their coverage of all political topics? For example, did they show the same bias and engage in the same false reporting when covering the various 2020 House, Senate or Gubernatorial races? I guess what I am asking is this: Are we making a broad generalization based upon one (admittedly egregious) specific case? Are there other instances? Blueboar (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, just to answer your question for myself, I guess I am a bit skeptical of sources in general. For every mistake we know about, I assume there are several we don't know about or at least near misses. This was, as you say, an egregious case about basically their single biggest story over a prolonged period of time. Now, it's entirely possible (perhaps even probable) that their other reporting is sourced better than to a time traveler who speaks to the wind--but how can we know for sure? If they were willing to engage in this conduct over this big a story, what lines can we safely say they would draw? That's why I come down as I do, but as I like to say, reasonable minds may certainly differ and I am happy to go with the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think most definitions of reliability consider some element of consistency. If a source sometimes deliberately misinforms, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is unreliable. CT55555(talk) 23:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. To answer User:Blueboar, this WP:RSNP note lists 23 discussions, not counting the RFCs. A random clickthrough of recent RSN archives shows numerous unlinked threads about something shady Fox News has done, often through opinion makers. In this clear instance, case discovery has demonstrated beyond a doubt that even at the very highest levels of management, even THEY don't believe what they've been broadcasting. I urged deprecation last RFC. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Well… good news for those who hate Fox because of Tucker… he just got fired. So… perhaps they are turning over a new leaf? Whatever is decided in this RFC, we will need to re-assess in a year to see if they have improved. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, re-assessment can always happen later. Right now they are in CYA mode, but will that mean they also will ignore what their viewers want and tell the truth, regardless of those viewers' wishes? I doubt it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

    Yes. If they make some effort at correcting the record, I would certainly think a reassessment is in order. Unexplained personnel moves are less persuasive to me, but I am just one old guy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't hate Fox. I hate the way they are poisoning political discourse in the US. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. If nothing else WP:RS says that reliable sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Regardless of the exact reliability of Fox News, they don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy at this point. Hut 8.5 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes on what I dare say are obvious grounds. Moreover, the idea of a time limit on the downgrading does not make sense to me. (It would be, I believe, unprecedented.) We revisit and re-discuss these matters when circumstances warrant, not when we guesstimate that they might. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, downgrade. Would support downgrading prior to November 2020, as well. Useight (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, downgrade to generally unreliable for post-2020 coverage. In December 2020, the CEO of Fox News told anchor Eric Shawn that the fact-checking "has to stop now" because it is "bad for business". Very notably, Eric Shawn is part of Fox's "hard news" lineup (and quite a decent guy), not the host of an opinion show. An outlet's reliability depends on its editorial independence and editorial thoroughness, and that comes straight from the top. An outlet where executives interfere with newsroom activities because of political concerns is not reliable on politics. Aquillion provides more excellent sources, and XOR'easter is correct to point out that a time-limit would be unprecedented and pointless. DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. We have bent over backwards to be fair to our conservative editors, but this is not a remotely close call. The facts clearly show that executives put viewer retention above even the most basic journalistic standards. Fact-checkers were shouted down. The man who accurately reported the Arizona call, was sacked. The shark was jumped. And all of this is documented as far back as 2015 by Benkler et. al. in Network Propaganda. We know they lied, we know why they did it, we know that the incentives in conservative media lead to asymmetric polarisation and a departure from the fact-checking dynamic. To assume good faith of Fox in any topic related to partisan politics, is to interpret neutrality as the average between reliable sources and propagandists. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes with great obviousness. Fox News has pushed a false and deceptive narrative since at least 2016, and doubled-down in 2020, it should not be used as a citation in any article. Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Fox News business model has always been, first and foremost, giving a particular part of the population exactly what they want to see and hear. Reinforce existing fears, values, biases, mistrust, and understandings; filter current events through pre-existing ideologies. Secondarily, it is a tool for political influence. These two purposes are explicit, not just inferred, and have an inevitable effect on one another, resulting in a product which takes the genre conventions of news but has never quite tethered itself to traditional journalistic standards. By any analysis or measure of accuracy, bias, editorial oversight, fact-checking, or external influence, it falls short of what we typically expect from a reliable source. It's been that way for years. Since the mid-2010s, it's increasingly also moved from serving a traditional conservative majority to providing a gateway to the extreme right. Disinformation and conspiracy theories begin in more obscure extreme publications/platforms and find their way to a larger audience thanks to shows on Fox News.
  With the Dominion suit, we see an intersection of all of this: fringe conspiracies, external influence, a desire to give people whatever they want even when the hosts know it's untrue, buy-in from those in charge, reprimands for fact-checkers and anyone who challenges profitable misinformation, and a total disregard for journalistic standards. It's not new, but it's been laid bare.
  For absolutely any other source, it would've been considered generally unreliable or deprecated years ago. The only reason it hasn't been is because it's extremely popular, and we're all afraid that the huge number of people who watch Fox News will add Misplaced Pages to the list of "liberal media" -- that catch-all group of publications which include liberal perspectives alongside any outfit that doesn't prioritize catering to or cultivating conservative beliefs. At the end of the day, we don't want to alienate anyone; we want people who hear news about election fraud from Fox, etc. to come to Misplaced Pages and read our articles about election fraud. Maybe even follow the links and read some material they wouldn't otherwise consume. Fox's only value to this project is the extreme loyalty and trust so many people put in it. It is not valuable as a source of information on politics or just about anything, but like a Boob Tube Demagogue, we can bet that it won't hesitate to stoke outrage among its viewers with a bunch of "Wokepedia" stories. That's the main reason I've opposed multiple past efforts to downgrade Fox -- it's just a cost-benefit analysis predicated on the fact that we already don't really permit Fox to be used for politics for all of the reasons above. So we bend over backwards to draw lines: ok it's useful sometimes but not others; ok its newsroom is fine but the talk shows are bad; ok it's fine for some subjects but "no consensus" about science or politics; ok it's lousy for politics recently but "no consensus" before 2020... we don't do this for anything else.
  At this point, come on ... the jig is up. It's time to just accept that we're not being true to WP:RS to continue to entertain the idea that Fox is ever reliable for anything remotely connected to politics. If someone's going to put us with the "liberal media" category, so be it. We can join science and universities in Rush Limbaugh's "corners of deceit". We do reflect the scientific consensus on climate change, we don't say the 2020 US election was stolen, we don't say that vaccines cause autism, we don't treat QAnon as credible, and we shouldn't continue pretending that Fox News has any redeeming value to a project concerned with summarizing the best sources about a subject. Fox News is, fundamentally, never going to be the best source about a subject for a project that upholds values like WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. Support. — Rhododendrites \\ 22:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, and deprecate for all information - "generally unreliable" doesn't go far enough for a source which has been proven to have deliberately published information which they knew to be false, motivated by a political agenda. We normally deprecate propaganda outlets, and I don't see any reason why Fox News should be an exception. It doesn't matter if it was a handful of reporters and commentators nor that those individuals may have been terminated - part of being considered a reliable source is maintaining editorial oversight to prevent the publication of outright falsehoods, but Fox News failed to do so either because they do not have proper editorial control or, worse, because their editorial board supports this agenda. Continuing to consider it reliable in any way would bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute - if Misplaced Pages continues to rely on sources which are widely known to have deliberately published misinformation, how can anyone continue to rely on Misplaced Pages as a source of truthful information? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 22:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, we were long past the point of this being a necessary change. There was already evidence of this unreliability in reporting long before this particular court case put Fox's purposefully inaccurate reporting on the national stage. And with the evidence from the court case, I do feel like it calls into question much of their other reporting as well, such as on scientific topics. Silverseren 22:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, even before that court case it was pretty obvious they were ready to make up news out of thin air. I don't believe firing Tucker will change much to that, especially since he wasn't the only one involved. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. They lied. On purpose. That's called Disinformation. Why is this even a question??? Who thought unclosing was a good idea??? My first thought is that after we're done with this, we should go to a broader discussion about deprecating them for everything per Snowmanonahoe. casualdejekyll 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• NO. It has been asserted, over and over again, that Fox News intentionally lied about the election, and everyone mutters and nods their heads. The evidence offered has been entirety incoherent. What exactly is the claim that they knew to be false information, but promoted anyway? I often see it claimed that it was Tucker Carlson's assertion, in private, that Sydney Powell's claims were false. But he also asserted that they were false publicly, on the Fox News channel. There is no contradiction there. When Carlson said that Heinrich should be fired for saying that "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", this does not contradict his attacks on Powell, which were never private or hidden from the public in any way. The two claims are not equal, and can only be connected tendentiously. If A alleges that B specifically did not steal the election, and C alleges that the election was not stolen at all, and A attacks C for saying so, that does not mean that A has contradicted themselves in any way whatsoever.Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Seriously? They reprimanded a journalist for saying that Biden won. They sacked Chris Stirewalt for accurately calling Arizona for Biden. We have emails from executives promising to stop the fact-checkers from contradicting the Big Lie, because factual information about the election was losing them viewers to NewsMax and OANN. Fox paid out more than three quarters of a billion dollars because it was lying, and it knew it was lying, to appease an audience that wanted to hear lies. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox effectively admitted they broadcast false information about Dominion voting machines. Andre🚐 01:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Harry Sibelius, a court of law already found that Fox lied about the election, in some cases by endorsing, agreeing with, or repeating fatuous arguments from guests. While I will be the first to say that courts do not determine reality, and we are free to disagree with their conclusions, in this case I, personally, find the reasoning persuasive. You can read the decision here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen claims that Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, but for the duration of these omnishambles, why hasn't Tucker Carlson or FOX NEWS corroborated any imputation that would signify W hornswaggled H into absquatulating from A to trick T into some obvious palaver? DN (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Downgrade for politics, but no change for other articles. Fox Business articles, and content focusing on sports and entertainment should be okay. I would recommend only using Fox News to cite American-conservative opinions, given compliance with WP:FRINGE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a single topic of importance in America today that hasn't been made political by the right drawing battle lines in its culture insurgency? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and deprecate for all information. False information is false information, and it's not a question of left vs right: I would've said the same if, say, NPR fabricated stories. LilianaUwU 06:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable for factual statements about politics (but reliable for its own political opinions and assertions if attributed) - This is tabloid level news and pandering to the gullible audience. That said, with removing these sites like Fox and Daily Mail we may run into a problem with bias, as they are the main representatives of right wing views, so in my opinion Fox News (and Daily Mail) should be unequivocally considered attributable. Maybe it doesn't need to be said, as I think we know policy allows attribution of unreliable sources, but it may ever be appropriate to insert a "but Fox News claimed such and such about the topic", if only to guard against completely silencing opposing points of view, wrong, false, or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable for anything - preferably deprecation noting in particular User:Rhododendrites comments on the 25th. However, per SPECIFICO'S argument below is convincing so I would support using allegations and opinions if there are sufficient reliable sources to establish weight.I would exempt attributed statements of opinion or allegations when attributed. I don't want to completely silence per the post above and others. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate Any noteworthy content will have other sources, so there's no benefit trying to craft convoluled exceptions in which we would use Fox News any more than we would devise exceptions for any other self-published unverified narratives -- bloggers, youtube, tik-tokkers, et. al. @Doug Weller: I would not except attributed Fox News opinion. Such content would need secondary RS reporting to establish NPOV weight. Finally let's face the fact that, in American Politics at least, we have editors who are closeted Fox followers. They get their content ideas from Fox News, then google to find (cherrypick) a source for UNDUE or demonstrably false article content. So we need to draw a bright line. Any valid article content will have ample non-Fox publications that discuss it. Fox as a primary source for its own opinions is Pandora's box. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO That's a reasonable point about wanting secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: and @Doug Weller: I definitely see what you mean. From what I have seen on RSN (admittedly limited in scope) I think it would be unusual to completely prohibit attribution of opinion to a source. We allow religious and fringe sources and such that are found unreliable here to be used as sources for their own views, without demanding (to my understanding) that these views have received coverage in reliable sources. Still, you are correct, there does need to be some means to clamp down on editors shoehorning bogus, irrelevant or non-noteworthy views into articles. I don't have a ready answer and I don't have enough experience with contentious topics and reliable sources to say what the answer might be. Here is the relevant passage from WP:DUE:

  Reliability should be judged relative to the statement being sourced. Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion. However, not all sources have relevant opinions. Please do not give the opinions of sources undue weight. Making a statement about a fact other than someone's opinion requires a higher degree of reliability. The more extraordinary the fact, the higher the degree of reliability needed.

  I think given Fox's broad reach, its opinions would tend to have some weight, as attributed opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why would any particular Fox statement be noteworthy, even for the Fox News page, if that statement has not been discussed by some second party? Excluding Fox's attributed statements ABOUTSELF for its own page. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noteworthy because a huge number of people would have been exposed to the opinion? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok I guess I see how this would work. It still does seem like a step further than is usually taken for questionable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent point re opinion - in fact the reason we are here is because we now know that Fox "opinion" is simple propaganda, published regardless of truth. To cover each new outrage in the manner "Fox said outrageous thing, source, Fox saying outrageous thing" is a clear failure of NPOV (to say nothing of being recentism). Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• No/Bad RFC - The issues and lawsuit have been about Fox News's opinion talk show hosts, which are already deprecated and treated separately in WP:RSP from their news operation. There's been a persistent tendency to sloppily ignore that distinction in these discussions, criticize the opinion hosts, then advocate action against the news organization. It's like arguing for the deprecation of the New York Times by using a bunch of stuff about the New York Post (or just having the New York Post on your mind). I don't think any action should be taken against the news operation unless the RFC makes it clear that the opinion talk shows are off-topic for the discussion. Furthermore, Fox paid a big settlement and fired Tucker Carlson, which is a positive sign that they could be addressing the issues that are there. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  This comment is not accurate. This RFC is indeed scoped to news content. 2600:4041:524F:C600:BC9F:9325:534:D344 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  As previously stated several times, the issues absolutely are not limited merely to Fox opinion hosts, and instead include both statements from hosts that Fox themselves categorized as "news", and pressure on hosts that everyone unambiguously categories as "news" to lie outright. Loki (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it "fails to adhere to basic journalistic practices". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Downgrade is warranted due to the well-documented, pervasive integrity and accuracy issues with this source. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• No For all of the other reasons given plus: Would be a massive overgeneralizatoin and this would have a particularly high impact. Reliabiltiy is specific to the situaiotn and measured by objectivity and experetise with respect to the item which cited it. Also removing the largest cable TV news source would ripple through far beyond wp:ver into distortions in coverage under wp:weight. Such an impactful decision would need more visibility and participation than a thread in a noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • more visibility It is listed at WP:CENT presently. I do think this should remain open rather than be snow closed, and in that time anyone is welcome to post neutral pointers to this thread elsewhere.
    distortions in coverage under wp:weight - WP:WEIGHT is predicated on using reliable sources (making sure that the perspectives therein are reflected appropriately and proportionately). If we allow unreliable sources into articles, then yes, it would have a significant impact on how we understand WP:WEIGHT. If your meaning is simply that "there are perspectives on Fox that we should be including", could you provide some examples? I recall several arguments in e.g. the Daily Mail RfC and New York Post RfC about specific types of coverage they could be used for (sports, for example), which we would lose if deprecating them, although in this case the proposal is very narrow (politics). What kind of political stories/perspectives are uniquely provided by Fox and not present in any better source such that we should be relying on Fox directly? — Rhododendrites \\ 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: I tend to not even attempt the goal of non-bias and am more concerned about the lower bar of missing information due to bias. And in the US these is much that is undercovered by the media depending on which "side" of the US political divide they are on. (and nearly all are on 1 side in this respect). Maybe as a quick example, the hate crime related discussions on the Tenessee mass shooting, or what the specific charges were that the Tenessee legislators were expelled for. These are just off the cuff....I did not analyzee because I don't inhabit those types of articles. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

      While I agree there is probably some tendency toward selective reporting, possibly due to editorial bias or a desire to control the narrative, or simply due to monetary motivations on the part of news venues (pandering to the audience), that doesn't change the fact that the NY Post, Daily Mail and Fox News are abysmally low brow shitshows. They appeal to the lowest common denominator at best and deal in sensationalism, blatant falsehoods and conspiracy theories. If no reputable large audience right-leaning sources come forward, for whatever reason, that is not the problem of Misplaced Pages. Or rather, it is a problem for Misplaced Pages, but it is not a problem for Misplaced Pages to solve. We can't use garbage sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

      Here's The New Republic and NBC reporting on the hate crime related discussions on the Tenessee mass shooting. Here's CBS and NPR reporting on what the specific charges were that the Tenessee legislators were expelled for—namely, disorderly behavior. CBS also provided direct links to the three motions to expel, in PDF form. These articles, too, were found just off the cuff; I expect I could find more if I took more time. I am not immediately seeing that there is much that is undercovered. Shells-shells (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The Fox News empire is an egregious fabricator of mistruths and pernicious denier of truths. They peddle lies and conspiracy theories, and spread disinformation and doubt that erode foundations of civic trust (America), scientific integrity (Vaccines), and planetary habitability (climate catastrophe). To continue to rely on them as if they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is dangerous and utter nonsense. We are better, and our readers deserve better. Ocaasi 19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. I don't see it in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/All. I don't see an editing dispute re "The Misplaced Pages article(s) in which the source is being used" for what is apparently the issue (an electoral fraud accusation), and if there is such an issue then don't use it in whatever the relevant articles are, rather than propose a ban on "politics", which might be broadly construed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • It looks like the rfc tag was never put back after the closure was undone. I've put it back now. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes – Fox News has been shown to value ratings more than fact-checking, especially in political topics. At this time, I only support deprecating Fox News as a WP:RS for politics (broadly construed) and would like to see this revisited in four years unless they are further deprecated. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Of course Misplaced Pages is a reality-based project and no diversion based on a false equivalence, claiming that all sources are bad, will change the fact that some sources are particularly renown for deception. Misplaced Pages doesn't only care about verification but also about the reliability of the sources used. It makes a distinction between verification and reliability and its neutral point of view policy is about accurately representing the analysis of reliable sources, not "neutral" editor synthesis using any source to present a false balance to "let the reader decide" with confused uncertainty propaganda. Fact checkers evaluate the quality and fairness of the analysis done by sources. Unreliable opinion shows mixed in with news and trying to confuse the two is an indication of an intent to mislead. Further evidence is how some people who were expected to subscribe to journalistic ethics have also been implicated in populist post-truth narratives promotion (in "news" reporting) and how representatives acknowledged that to appeal to certain demographics and compete with some extremist sources designed for radicalization, the factual accuracy and fairness were sacrificed. This has not only occurred in relation to Trumpism but also for climate change denial purposes, the obstruction of public health management and to promote the persecution of minorities. Fox News "analysis" is understood to be unfair. I would also support deprecation if asked. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I would not limit the downgrade, either in time or by subject matter. The summary judgment has only provided documentation for the way that Fox News already was operating, and there is no justification for concluding that something happened after the election that somehow changed the way they do everything. In the past I have argued that downgrading should apply only to politics and science, but I now believe that was the wrong conclusion. Rather, Fox News is willing to be unreliable on any subject where there is a political connection, and it finds a political connection to everything. The mere fact that its reporting happens to be accurate some of the time does not mean it is reliable; rather, that is the opposite of reliability. John M Baker (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Are there any actual Fox News articles which discussed and stated that the Dominion Voting falsehoods which the on air personalities promoted were rooted in truth? If not, why is black listing Fox News now necessary? Thriley (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes As a right-winger myself, I find that I can no longer defend their reporting. I think Fox News has been unreliable for politics since Gamergate or when the current culture war started. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think of it more as a culture insurgency, since it is being waged only by one side, regressives who are unable to understand that acknowledging the existence of a thing they hate is not the same as causing the thing they hate to exist. They seem to believe that nobody grew up gay when surrounded by exclusively heteronormative influences. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Consistency with the Daily Mail decision - I disagreed with the wholescale filtering of particular sources that are ultimately legitimate news organisations and not actual propaganda outlets like Global Times or Russia Today, if ones with low reliability. However, as a source, it is not clear to me why there is any distinction between Fox News and the Daily Mail, as both are essentially tabloid news sources. If anything, the Daily Mail operates within a frame work that holds it to a higher standard than the one that Fox News operates within. There being no consistency between the propaganda outlets of dictatorships (PressTV, RT etc.), which are not mostly not filtered, British tabloid sources (The Sun, The Daily Mail), which are mostly filtered, and US tabloid sources (Fox News), some of which are not filtered, gives the impression of a biased and inconsistent approach. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  somewhat ironic, since the entire point here is that we now know Fox is exactly what you describe: an actual propaganda outlet. They are judging the news they publish by its acceptability to an audience that would rather hear lies than have its biases challenged. Discovery was not a good thing for Fox. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  The kind of discovery that can only happen in a country where a defamation lawsuit is brought against a media outlet, which was my point.
  

  The bad reputation British tabloids have comes in large part from the number of times they have been sued successfully for defamation in UK courts where, for better or worse, it is easier to sue for defamation than in the US. They have also been the subject of proceedings before the regulator, something that doesn’t even really exist in the US. For the longest time editors here used that as evidence that British tabloid outlets were worse than US ones when in fact they were no worse and probably better simply from fear of being sued.
  

  But I do disagree on one point: even the Dominion case has not exposed Fox as a propaganda outlet on a par with Global Times or China Daily (which remain unfiltered last I checked, though that was some time ago). Hu Xi Jin’s paper literally has carried out its own astro-turfing operation at Hu’s instruction (see the Richard Burger controversy) and China Daily was infamous during my time in China for basically inventing stories out of whole cloth (not, as at Fox, getting on guests who they knew were crazy).
  

  I no longer bother to ask that the decision as to what sources be used (where they are at least media outlets) be left ultimately up to editors, just that these sources (UK tabloids, US tabloids, dictatorship propaganda outlets) be treated consistently. FOARP (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Situations can change and consensus can change. What we know now, as a result of the revelations from the suit, is that there has been a longstanding corporate effort to present falsehoods as news, even when known to be false, and that this infected the news content, and not just the commentary. There simply is not going to be any sort of information in recent news that we would need to source to Fox, because it can be sourced to other, reality-based, news sources. There is no longer any possible justification for treating Fox as an encyclopedically reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and we should also blacklist the Fox News website and consider everything from them unreliable Qwv (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, they lied. 1.136.110.231 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC).
• Yes, but for everything. Other than the ample evidence already provided on their inaccuracy and promulgation of fallacies and lies on anything related to science, politics and society; it's now been established beyond doubt that they do not maintain adequeate separation between "facts" and "opinions", that the latter is utterly biased and fallacious, and that the network's management prefers it so for the sake of profit. Depracate the website and TV channels for all subjects, except for content that originates in self-managing local affiliates. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes – absolutely deprecate for scientific claims per its history of defying scientific consensus (at least they purportedly don't deny climate change anymore). I'm OK with just labeling it unreliable for politics and other things. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and deprecate as an explicit propaganda mill, per my arguments to that effect at every previous RFC about this I have attended. I would be happy to see this website finally and completely blacklisted for all topics. They make no effort beyond the superficial to be a reliable source of information and our treatment of them should reflect that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, per all of the "yes" arguments above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: Good grief -- when numerous major figures at the network all the way up to Murdoch himself admitted in legal depositions to tailoring -- or wishing they had -- their news and statements to what they thought their audience wanted to hear? That's not a "news" source. That's an entertainment channel. Nor am I impressed by Fox News being the most watched cable channel as a reason to demur. So frigging what? We've deprecated many large media outlets as unreliable, and their viewership/readership has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether we can trust that the outlet is reporting the truth. There are reams of testimony under oath to tell us that we cannot trust Fox News to do so. Done deal. Ravenswing 10:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Daily Mail is popular and unreliable. CT55555(talk) 23:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Seems to have a history of not fact checking, including sharing misinformation presented as news, on the news channel. I don't overlook this just because it's a chat/opinion now, as it's on the news channel. Settling claims of untruthfulness helps me with this conclusion. CT55555(talk) 22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I am still on the fence about this, but from my limited knowledge, most of the misinformation about politics seems to come from talk shows, which we have repeatedly found by consensus to be generally unreliable. The Dominion suit largely appears to be related to the actions of talk show hosts like Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc., who it now appears intentionally allowed guests to spread falsehoods about the 2020 election to appease their audience despite knowing they were false. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen that Fox has a tendency to spread misinformation via news articles. Therefore, I don't find the unreliability of talk shows (which are opinion shows, not news) to be a convincing argument for why we should downgrade the entire network. I also don't find many of the arguments above convincing; many seem to range from throwing out the baby with the bathwater, to ad hominem attacks, to simple dislike of Fox News, which I have my fair share of. That being, said, I just pulled up the |politics page, an the top three headlines are "President Biden slams 'MAGA Republicans' as the 'real problem' at DNC reception", Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill banning transgender treatments for minors", and "McCarthy takes Congress back to school on AI". Sure enough, all of these stories have been reported by countless other news outlets, many of which are uncontroversial. While there are certainly lots of opinion pieces and what appear to be segments from talk shows (I haven't checked) listed on the front of the politics page, I haven't seen that Fox News has a tendency to inaccurately report on politics in their news coverage (again, I am not referring to talk shows, opinion shows/articles, etc) anymore than any other networks. Sure, they choose what they report on, but all networks do that. Bias is not the same as factual inaccuracy. Therefore, I can't yet say I support deprecating Fox News politics coverage post-2020 or before or declaring it generally unreliable. I think this is something we need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think based on what you've said here, you've clearly missed the several previous comments which mention findings that show that it was not just the opinion hosts at issue, for two reasons:

  a) Maria Bartiromo was internally classified by Fox as news and she openly spread election misinformation. Or in other words, by Fox's own classification they were spreading misinfo on their news side. This either means that Fox's own internal distinction between news and opinion is useless (so isolating the issue to "opinion" doesn't help them) or, even worse, that an actual news anchor was spreading conspiracy theories on air.

  b) Probably more importantly, anchors everyone agrees are news were pressured to lie by higher ups after the Arizona call. Once the misinformation is coming directly from the editors, that itself should be enough to declare a source non-reliable. Part of our definition of a reliable source is that it has an editorial process to separate truth from falsehood. If their editorial process is separating truth from falsehood and publishing the falsehoods, that's the exact opposite of a reliable source. Loki (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  By opinion, I was referring to the all of the cable talk shows, including Bartiromo. All of these shows are "opinion" shows, regardless of what they call themselves. I thought this has been established in multiple past discussions about this network and others. I don't think Fox calls any of their shows "opinion shows". But these are different than news articles published online, regardless of whether or not Fox considers them to be the same. There is a huge difference between publishing news articles about an event, and talking about an event and then giving your opinion about it (or having someone else do it on your show). We don't normally cite recordings of talk shows on Misplaced Pages; instead we usually rely on news articles. With regards to the Arizona call (and I admit I don't know everything), I'm not surprised that management encouraged them to retract their call; it clearly would have appeased their viewers. But there also seems to have been a controversy about whether or not Fox called Arizona too soon (see this article), as a significant share of the vote was not yet in, and all other networks called Arizona much later. Could this have possibly played a role in efforts to retract? In other words, was the view amongst management something like "We better reverse our call, because if we are wrong, our viewers will never forgive us", "Biden probably won Arizona, but our viewers are not giving up hope that Trump may still somehow pull it off when more votes come in", etc.? In other words, Fox may have actually called Arizona too soon, something that other networks have done before, probably most famously in 2000. With regards to news, I still have yet to see that Fox has a long history of publishing false news stories. Sure, the vast majority of the news stories they publish end up being largely useless and lost to history. That is true of most news articles. But I haven't seen a convincing argument for why we should not allow Fox articles about politics that can be easily verified to be cited on Misplaced Pages. Some have mentioned that anything reliable covered by Fox News is likely to be covered by other reliable networks. That is true, and we could just cite other networks, but I don't find that to be a convincing argument for why we shouldn't be allowed to cite them if they are reliable. That being said, I will be changing my !vote to "Support for all talk shows only, oppose for all political coverage", as the current consensus from past discussions seems to have largely focused shows like Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc. I would extend this definition to talk shows that the network classifies as news, including Bartiromo. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for all political coverage, support for all talk shows - see my comments above. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:DAILYMAIL. Fox News has been generally unreliable since well before 2020, and I wouldn't trust them to tell me what day of the week it was. Miniapolis 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but I would go further and depreciate Fox News for science and politics back to its inception. It's wiki page is just a long list of Fox News's lies, misinformation, and racist rhetoric which would make the KKK blush. Fox News should join both the Daily Stormer and Daily Mail and be banned from being used as a source on wikipedia. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and 'generally unreliable' is a significant understatement. Just check out their today's featured news: https://www.foxnews.com/media/middle-school-student-allegedly-sent-home-refusing-change-shirt-said-only-two-genders. What did we learn from this? Absolutely nothing. It's a rinse and repeat right-wing propaganda launder machine that brings nothing of value and nothing new. When it does bring actual news, it's never something that more reliable sources do not already exist for. They do not adhere to any journalistic standards. –Vipz (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, IMO the summary judgement above add to concerns with the previous failed fact-checks and issues in previous RfCs. Therefore, from my perspective the fundamental requirement of WP:RS, which is a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, is obviously questionable for politics starting from November 2020, justifying a downgrade to generally unreliable (for this specific timeframe). VickKiang (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, according to the leader of https://unfoxmycablebox.com/ , Fox is just hate, extremism, and lies. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, Fox has been consistently unreliable for a very long time, and I'd say they were designed that way from the beginning especially with regard to politics. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes It has been indicated that Fox News moved from bias to fabrication around that time. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and back to the beginning, not just from 2020. Valjean puts it well above: "Comparing Fox News with other RS is a fool's errand, as Fox News does what is right as an exception to the rule, whereas other RS commit errors as an exception to the rule." For example: Fox scrambled to recover from calling Arizona for Biden, and courted forgiveness from MAGA by firing the man responsible. Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC).
• Yes: Fox news has been a much ridiculed joke of a news source for the best part of a decade now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

References

1. A NATION AT WAR: THE NEWS MEDIA; Cable's War Coverage Suggests a New 'Fox Effect' on Television Journalism, New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, April 16, 2003. Retrieved April 21, 2023.
2. "Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion's defamation suit". Los Angeles Times. 9 March 2023. Retrieved 2023-04-22.
3. Bauer, A.J.; Nadler, Anthony; Nelson, Jacob L. (2021). "What is Fox News? Partisan Journalism, Misinformation, and the Problem of Classification". Electronic News. 16 (1): 18–29. doi:10.1177/19312431211060426. ISSN 1931-2431.
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.

Discussion of close

This discussion was originally closed as following:

The proposal carries. Fox News is considered "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020. There was some support for downgrading further to "deprecate", as well as for having no time-frame on the deprecation, but not enough to clearly establish consensus for that; we would probably need a second proposal for that. Additionally, some people proposed that we should set the "generally unreliable" rating for a date in the future, such as November or December 2024; that's a pretty unique way to handle any source, and I've never seen any discussion propose some future date for such a situation. It's possible to start a new discussion to establish that, but I can't say that there's a clear consensus here to enact that. The previous status for "science" and "pre-2020 politics" as being "no consensus" (yellow rating) has been retained, as this discussion only really considered post-2020 politics. Again, additional discussions may handle those matters. --Jayron32 18:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Close reverted per request at bottom. --Jayron32 10:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving the closing statement to the "discussion of closure" section for clarity/simplicity. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the nowiki formatting and added a note to clarify, as I think this is much clearer (and doesn't involve reading through the wikitext of an archive box). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32, this has only been open for 3 days, is that really enough time for an RFC on a topic this impactful? nableezy - 02:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly reopened this RfC. Sorry Jayron32 but a project-wide RfC that will have as large an impact as this one should remain open for much longer than 3 days. ElKevbo (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In those three days it got 46 !votes, of which only 4 were opposed. Loki (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

All the same, if you dont want something to be questioned later you let the process play out. And I dare say 50 people is a rather small contingent of the community. nableezy - 04:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: It's particularly problematic for you to have now participated in the close of an RfC in which you participated, especially when the close that you reinstated supports the position you took in the RfC. I strongly urge you to revert your edit and let uninvolved editors close the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, that was not intentional. Loki (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well first things first, the thing to do if ask Jayron32 to reconsider their close, and if that is declined to ask AN to do so. Reverting the close to begin with isnt the first step to disputing it. But Jayron32, would you reconsider closing this, despite the apparent snow? RSN RFCs have a huge impact across the project, this was on WP:CENT, and I think people should be given the normal amount of time (30 days) to come to such a discussion to offer their views. nableezy - 05:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 _signed, Rosguill 05:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As one of the few who argued against the change I'm going to say I think Jayron32's close seemed reasonable. This is SNOW territory. The only thing I think would change it is if editors see the firing of Tucker Carlson as evidence that Fox is taking reform seriously. Springee (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The "normal" amount of time a conversation is to be open is, according to WP:RFC until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct, so, please reinstate Jayron's close Andre🚐 14:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the undoing of the close. It was proper. An early close is standard practice and fully justified when it's a SNOW matter, as this clearly was. It should be reinstated with mention of SNOW. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The result of this discussion will determine sourcing in a huge range of articles. We have seen any number of discussions turn over the course of a week much less a thirty days, RfA being one of the obvious regular examples of that happening, and on this board I myself have seen how an influx of votes at the beginning can result in an early closure that would later prove to be unfounded (eg the WP:COUNTERPUNCH RFCs). For as wide as the impact of a project wide consensus on the use of a source I really think we need to have a minimum duration for a discussion. And whats the rush really? You have editors that go through the entire encyclopedia expunging sources and content due to RFCs here. That should only be allowed to happen when we are sure that there is actually a project wide consensus, and not just that the people most invested in an issue, and the most likely to vote at the start, holding sway over the entire project. nableezy - 18:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rush. Nor should there be any desire to spend editor time after consensus is clear just because a bot is assuming that no consensus has been found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 10:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think it's important to note in your close that this was a SNOW outcome. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I never said that it was a SNOW outcome. That word never was used in my analysis. Other people may have used it. I never have. --Jayron32 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that you mention it, IOW tweak your close by adding SNOW. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My closure statement was an assessment of an actual consensus. WP:SNOW is only invoked if I'm bypassing consensus. Still, I undid my close, per the several good faith requests here to let it run longer. No harm it letting more people express their own viewpoints. --Jayron32 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

??? SNOW closures never bypass consensus. They are always consensus closures, they just state the extent of the consensus (near 100%), as this was. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Bypass was a bad word there. It is used when there is not enough data to assess consensus (maybe even no comments). In this case, we had something like 50 comments, which, in my good-faith assessment, was more than enough to assess consensus; I can't remember a single discussion on this noticeboard that had more comments at the time of closing. So I closed it, not as a "SNOW" vote, which means "everyone expects the consensus to be this, so we're not going to let it play out", I closed it as a "There's more than enough commentary here to establish the consensus clearly exists". So no, it was NOT a SNOW close, SNOW closes are not overwhelming closes, there closes you make when you make assumptions about how the discussion would play out even though you had incomplete data. I had around 50 people commenting, more comments than nearly any other such discussion on this board, which is not a SNOW close, it's a normal, every day, assessment of consensus. --Jayron32 18:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

So then why did you close in the first place?

A WP:SNOW close is when you close a discussion early because there's not a snowball's chance in hell the apparent result will change. If you don't think it was a WP:SNOW close, and the discussion has only run for three days, then why'd you close it?

That would mean it's only run for three days and you still think there's a snowball's chance in hell of a different result. Loki (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I closed it because there had been sufficient commentary to assess the consensus. --Jayron32 15:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, why wouldnt you rather have a more locked down justification for "consensus" than a three-day long discussion? I dont get it, why are you agitating for this to be closed so quickly? Like why not be able to point to a process that cant be criticized or faulted in any way? nableezy - 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The RSP entries for Fox News are going to be a mess after this:

• Fox news (excluding politics and science) – generally reliable
• Fox news (science) – no consensus
• Fox news (politics, –September 2020) – no consensus
• Fox news (politics, September 2020–) – generally unreliable
• Fox news (talk shows) – generally unreliable

To make a bad analogy, if an editor had this many topic bans they’d be site banned by now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the now-reverted RSP changes, I think it looks fine. Andre🚐 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• You're not wrong; I think that it's a bit baffling for people to say that large swaths of Fox could be generally reliable given the degree of deliberate deception on display here and the indicators that it came straight from the top. If Fox is willing to publish outright falsehoods as news in one area to advance their agenda, the logical conclusion is that anything, on any topic, is something they'd be willing to use as misinformation. We can maybe minimize this by construing "politics" broadly, which in my experience is how it generally has been with the existing MREL - eg. a Fox piece playing up crime in NYC is not usable as a WP:RS even if it doesn't directly mention electoral politics, because such a piece has clear political implications. But if we're in the position of having to do that, it means we ultimately have to recognize that no part of the source is reliable. That said, we can always just wait and see if the new breakdown leads to disputes; and, if it does, see if we can obtain a consensus for a more straightforward and standard WP:GUNREL. I think people are unwilling to do that because they feel that Fox looms so large in America; but the same was broadly true for the Daily Mail in the UK, and its deprecation ultimately didn't cause any problems. The simple reality is that what makes a good source for an encyclopedia and what makes a successful cable news network or tabloid have very little to with each other. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Even their weather forecasts are unreliable as their agenda is to downplay, ignore, or deny climate change. All other RS weather forecasts mention climate change's influence on weather and the increasing number of disasters, severity of disasters, sea level rise, climate refugees, etc., but on Fox they won't report it that way. Their agenda in so many areas renders them unreliable in toto. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem, I think, is the sheer size of the company. But the closer you get to any battlefield of the culture insurgency - climate science, sexuality, elections, history, race, ethnicity, drug policy, mass incarceration, police brutality etc. - the less reliable they are. In my view, the rating should be "generally unreliable", which has always allowed for local consensus where something is verifiably accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• OK. One could argue that this is not technically WP:SNOW; it is WP:AVALANCHE, which is the same essay. Apart from that, when I brought up SNOW, I was not arguing for a close. I still thought there is value in continuing the discussion to see the opinions on expanding the width of exclusion. There are many above that have called for far stricter exclusions, without even calling in folks interested in science, medicine, LGBTQ, or race for which FN is an embarrassing anachronism. (Putin just slammed Carlson’s dismissal). So, let this continue for a time and then, possibly, have an RfC result that is stronger, and then begin another RfC while bringing in more areas, with the realization that this source has been invalid from its inception as a source and requires deprecation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Responding to nobody in particular: it's not improper to indicate one is opposing any edit by reverting it, but the prescribed way is to contact the closer on their talk, especially a veteran admin; as such I think the close could have properly been reinstated, but, given that the closer has vacated the close, even though it was tending toward SNOW/AVALANCHE (meaning, the overwhelming support or opposition such that we shortcut the outcome), the closer closed it finding a consensus, which there certainly is and continues to be; I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that we should not rush close a 3 day RFC on an impactful and sensitive political topic, and I don't want to suggest that there is a problem with keeping it open longer. Though, again, the right way to challenge a close is to ask on talk, then raise in the appropriate venue, not to simply revert a well-considered close like a totally unconsidered action. At any rate, since we now are keeping it open longer, we may as well keep it open a bit longer at the risk of inviting a stale discussion to fester. Andre🚐 01:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• It seems obvious to me that such a major decision should run longer than 3 days, so that proper notifications can be made to WikiProjects and interested people have the ability to catch wind of this going on. I agree it does look like this is going to be approved, but we have no idea what biases may be reflected in the people who happen to have already responded to this point.—DIYeditor (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• One thing I'm concerned about is we might run into a TRAINWRECK when it comes to pre-2020 politics coverage, which plenty of people want to see downgraded too but not everyone in the post-2020 coverage RfC has opined upon. If everyone's okay with it, I'll be happy to open a sub-RFC specifically for pre-2020 coverage. Sceptre (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Sceptre: Well, I think we'd need to ping everyone who already !voted. Maybe the closer can look at what people have said and try to draw a consensus view from it all. I don't think we would need a majority of people to have explicitly said extend this to pre-2020, since many people have said this or have not specified the timeframe they support (they've used vague terms). If I were closing it, I'd probably say at this point (without carefully going over it all right now) that there is rough consensus that this be extended back indefinitely. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a limit on the number of pings that one edit can make? I've got a txt file full of everyone who's !voted (up to 2pm UK time), so the pinging isn't a problem. Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  My advice would be not to modify the RFC in flight or try pinging everyone, but wait until this one is closed to start the next one. Andre🚐 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is a limit. I don't know off hand how it works. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sceptre, I agree with Andre. Wait until this one is finished. Creating ANY other Fox News RfCs too soon would sabotage this one and create a clusterfuck of confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that, if the closer does not find a rough consensus for extending the timeline in this RFC, a separate one should be opened for extending the timeline. I also think that RFC should include an option to just declare Fox generally unreliable outside of politics.

  We shouldn't do that until this RFC closes, though. Loki (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Probably we should wait a little bit to see what impact this RFC has (if it passes, as it seems likely to.) Plus, there will probably be more academic sources referencing the Dominion stuff in a few months (I was surprised I could find anything on these lawsuits at all today), which will better contextualize them and give us a better sense of whether they represent a sharp change or merely a continuation of issues that plagued Fox since the beginning - as well as whether the issues are limited to politics or whether it effectively influences everything they publish. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is Tweakers.net a reliable source?

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: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture 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.

Which of the following best describes Tweakers.net articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

AFAIK Tweakers.net has not been discussed here. It has been cited a lot. Concern was expressed here: Draft_talk:Privacy_Guides, but the declared COI editor and I did not agree. Although Tweakers site lists editors and appears to have editorial staff, I found a article like this to be troubling because it was submitted by a person with obvious COI, and that person was extensively quoted; it was cited in Draft:Privacy_Guides. Without extensive review of the website, to me it appears similar to Reddit, or a large group blog. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

News are written by Tweakers staff. Sources like other sites or press releases are cited.

Reviews are written either by editors ("reviews door de redactie") or users ("gebruikersreviews"). They are clearly marked.

The specific article you mention was written by Olaf van Miltenburg, at the time news coordinator ("Nieuwscoördinator") for Tweakers (he is now Planning Editor at Wageningen University).The article is based on information posted by PrivacyGuides team members on Reddit. The "Update" was written by the founder of PrivacyGuides. So it definitely is not independent.

I can't comment on the general quality or reliability of the news or the editor reviews. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This RfC is malformed; it's not proportionate go straight from a 1-on-1 draft notability dispute to an RfC here (especially since Tweakers was only discussed in two posts, in total, in that "dispute"). Talk page disputes can be brought up here, in normal discussions (not RfCs), and discussed by the wider community. Generally, RfCs are only held after several non-RfC discussions have been held, or if the source is very obviously unreliable (as in, written by AI, not this site). DFlhb (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above that this RFC is premature, this looks to be generalizing from a single use in a single dispute. We should probably have some evidence this source is frequently under dispute before considering it in the general. --Jayron32 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Tweakers.net has been discussed almost a couple dozen times over the years. I was mostly going by what Tweakers says about it, although Misplaced Pages is not reliable, and the one questionable link I spot checked. Misplaced Pages does not describe Tweakers as a news publishing organization; it is described as a technology website featuring news, etc. It also gives "Tweakers Awards" where members choose the best products, which is thus user-generated content. Of other Discussions, there is a mix of positive and negative comments by editors, although it is not always clear on reliability opinions. This was the most detailed discussion I saw, and it looks like Option 2 - Additional Considerations or worse because of affiliate links etc. I was hoping someone with more familiarity with Tweakers and reliable sourcing would have more informed opinions to give here. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Your claim "as been discussed almost a couple dozen times" is not borne out by your link. It shows that the text string "tweakers.net" has appeared a couple of dozen times on pages in the Talk: namespace. A quick spotcheck of several shows that the vast majority of the times that text string appeared was as a bare external link, with no "discussion" about reliability, and that most of what is left seems to be naming the site without discussing its reliability. I'm not going to comb every link there to find perhaps an actual discussion, but my quick check says that such discussions have happened rarely and/or superficially if ever. Can you indicate some specific discussions where the site's reliability has been discussed and where it is a point of contention? --Jayron32 16:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

My "your link" is to the wiki-standard "Discussion" search. Please interpret my "has been discussed" as your "has appeared on Discussion pages", then look at the other links I already provided above, particularly the last one, which had more lengthy discussion, or commenting, or whatever semantic representation is preferred. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'll add some of my observations here. More for future reference than for the RfC, which doesn't seem to be taken up.
  • Their editorial statute ("Redactiestatuut") looks good to me.
  • Editor reviews ("reviews door de redactie") and user reviews ("gebruikersreviews") are clearly distinguished.
  • Their news are written by staff and sources are appropriately cited/linked. As is normal for this kind of page a lot of the news is information of the type "company x has announced the coming release of product y" which are basically reports about press releases. Obviously this has to be taken into account to determine the independence of news articles on a case by case basis.

I see no reason to consider Tweakers generally unreliable. Obviously the user generated content, e.g. user reviews and forum posts are unreliable, but they are clearly marked. News has to be checked for independence on a case by case basis by looking at the sources which often are press releases. To evaluate overall quality and reliability we would need people who are more familiar with the site to weigh in. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Telegraph for politics?

What do we think of the reliability of this story? Full text is available here. An editor is arguing that the DT is not reliable for politics. See the discussion hereTalk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Telegraph:_"Covid_pandemic_sparked_by_accidental_leak_from_Wuhan_lab,_US_investigation_concludes". Adoring nanny (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is reliable for what it is saying: a Republican-backed study by the US Senate concluded that COVID likely came from a lab leak. The Telegraph is clearly not trying to say this report is true, just that the news is that this report from the Senate is making this claim. In other words, we have to be careful how to word in within WP, but there's no reason not to consider using the Telegraph as the source for the information about this senate report. Masem (t) 01:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I think the Telegraph is trying to say it's true. It's not as bad as the Brexiter Beobachter, but it's pretty far gone by now. My mother subscribes (for the crossword). There's some serious parallel-universe stuff going on there these days. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable for saying what the Telegraph pieces says, that the US senate report claims that the source was most likely a "research-related incident". I'd also not how couched the language used by the Telegraph is "claimed", "claims", "argued", this is hardly surprising as as they stated in the article However, the report did not offer a "definitive" conclusion on the origin of the pandemic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an OK source for what is being presented. I would assume the backlash on this is that its reporting on opinions ...something that is not peer reviewed by experts in the field. Moxy- 01:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Or "its reliable for the fact it was said, not for that being true". Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that politicians are not scientists. Per https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715 and many other sources, it's difficult if not impossible to rule out a lab leak, but to describe it as anywhere close to wet market origin in terms of probability is to contradict a mountain of genetic and epidemiological evidence.

We should not be in the business of drawing false equivalence. The correct statement is that the virus is viewed by most scientists as zoonotic and having originated at the wet market, which is the epicentre of the initial outbreak. So the question here is not WP:RS but WP:UNDUE: by quoting a right-wing newspaper with an anti-lockdown agenda, are we giving undue weight to a view contradicted by scientific consensus. I think we are. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

An observation on the Telegraph's biases. It "has endorsed the Conservative Party at every UK general election since 1945." It has a reputation of being "a mouthpiece for Boris Johnson" whose columns were allegedly published with "no fact-checking at all". It keeps attacking transgender people with headlines such as "The tyranny of the transgender minority has got to be stopped". It was criticized by the regulator Independent Press Standards Organisation for systematically publishing COVID-19 misinformation. It regularly publishes texts with "pseudoscientific views on climate change", and published a false story about a predicted "mini-ice age" instead of global warming. Does that sound like a reputable publication? Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot of UK media outlets have been going downhill in recent years (eg see the debacle around the Jewish Chronicle). Unfortunate. (t · c) buidhe 06:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think consistent political endorsements are relevant for WP:RS. For example, I believe here in the US, the NYT has endorsed the D candidate in every election since 1960. We still consider them a first tier source. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while the Telegraph employs "journalists" like transphobe and Covid fake news-peddler Allison Pearson, it is always going to be somewhat mistrusted. It does appear to have dialled the climate change denial nonsense back a bit in recent years, however. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT has endorsed Republicans for governor, Senator, NYC mayor, and other positions since the 60s. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It also (and relevantly) has an anti-lockdown agenda, and follows the Tufton Street (read: Great Barrington Press Release) line on COVID. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why was this article brought up on the of COVID-19 lab leak theory talk page? Editors are using it to advocate for a rewrite of the lead, despite the fact that (a) it's a single news article, (b) it's not a MEDRS, (c) it's an old story about the October 2022 partisan Senate report, which is only back in the news because Axios just obtained the full report. The article is a breaking news (primary) source that simply summarizes the full report. If the author provides any analysis or opinions of his own, I can't discern them. It is a reliable source for what the Senate Republicans think, which is all it covers. Bringing up the article on the lab leak talk page is non-productive. DFlhb (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the query is about the papers reliability for politics and then goes on about coronavirus. It isn't quite such a politically divided issue like it has been in America, though conservatives do tend to follow republicans more on things like covid and climate change. It definitely is biased on politics but it's nowhere near the worst in Britain for that. On this matter what it did was basically publicise something that was out of date and with no medical input when the space could have been used for something better. My normal response when seeing something like that in a newspaper is to just curse them and move on to something else. NadVolum (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• It appears concerns here regard due weight rather than reliability. The DT's politics coverage is usually reliable for simple factual information, but editorial choice of content follows a political line, so, like every paper, it is often necessary to attribute. This report is true, a US senate report DID make this claim. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it should appear in the lead, and perhaps not even the article unless peer-reviewed information is also given due prominence. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a distinction between editorial policy and the accuracy of news reporting. Editorials, columns, analyses, etc., are not considered reliable sources wherever they are published. We should not judge a news outlet reliability based on its editorial position. The Wall Street Journal is a good example where the two parts of the publication are totally separate.

The Republicans lab leak conclusion was reported in other publications such as ABC and all media covered that the FBI has concluded that coronavirus originated in a lab.

Should the media refuse to report on what the majority party says because they are (probably) wrong? I don't think so. It's very important for readers to know what the debate in Washington is.

TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the Telegraph's news articles remain a reliable source for politics. It is obviously biased and anything controversial should be attributed and also triangulated with other reliable sources biased differently. (Its opinion pieces are obviously not similarly reliable, although opinion in the Telegraph is more likely to be noteworthy than opinion in more marginal publications.) It is not, of course, reliable for medical matters. On this particular article, I agree with the above comments: the issue is weight not reliability. Politicians' views about medical matters (accurately reported or otherwise) are not particularly noteworthy in most contexts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Facts in its news coverage are probably facts. Its opinion pages do not appear to be fact checked. The opinions may be noteworthy, but they should not be used without attribution (and should probably be avoided) - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

So just like all other papers in the UK, and probably the world, then. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's bad news about those papers, because RSes have no excuse not to fact-check the opinion columns too. And it certainly doesn't apply to the world. (e.g. I write for Foreign Policy occasionally, in the opinions section, and I can assure you their fact-checkers are vicious and have saved my arse more than once.) If a paper runs nonsense in its opinion columns, that counts against that paper - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason they provide little if any fact-checking is cost and time. If you had to write an opinion piece for tomorrow's paper about something that happened today, there wouldn't be a lot of time to fact check it. That's why columns, editorials, anaylses are rarely reliable sources according to rs policy.

All news media btw run nonsense in opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

David Gerard - If I wrote for an outlet that is at least a peripheral commercial rival of the DT, I would hesitate to !vote in matters related to it. Maybe that’s just me. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

do you even know what Foreign Policy is - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• The Daily Telegraph employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, but it's reliable for statements of fact, and its journalists have seriously embarrassed the Conservative party in the past with accurate and devastating revelations about expenses.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• The Daily Telegraph is a reliable and important top-tier newspaper. The DT is correct that the US Senate report contained this info, it is report on what the Senate report contained. Whether the US Senate report is reliable or due for inclusion is separate entirely from the reliability of the DT. StellarNerd (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Reliable - This - moving to ban a top-tier broadsheet as a source - is exactly the kind of slippery slope warned about when the Daily Mail was effectively banned. Every source has some kind of bias, every source has some kind of position, most sources make errors or even fabrications at least occasionally. The Telegraph is no different.
  

And, yes, it can hardly escape anyone’s notice that the most likely western media sources to get this kind of treatment are 1) British and 2) right-leaning. This is particularly grotesque given the more strict standard that British media outlets are held to compared to those in eg the US. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's saying that the Telegraph is unreliable for politics in general. However it has previously published very dubious (and, indeed, false) pieces on climate change, gender issues and Covid conspiracies, and using the DT for an article on the latter subject was the one that sparked this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly so. It's not quite the Brexiter Beobachter, but it has a long line of pushing the 55 Tufton Street line on contentious topics, including giving uncritical voice to climate change denialism, misleading and downright transphobic reporting on trans issues, etc. Classic old-school reflection of proprietor bias, as so notably described in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop.

  So, no, we should not regard the Telegraph as blanket reliable. And we should be especially careful not to mistake its Comment articles for news. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the credibility and usefulness of the sources for the Alan Singh article in tatters?

Do the sources for this article lack credibility? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I came across this article while fixing errors, there's a lot of background detail in the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Will this article be removed from Misplaced Pages? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That will be resolved at AFD, not here. If you believe that your article should not be deleted, you need to make your best argument at its discussion page there. Banks Irk (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: , Are both these sources useful for the Alan Singh article? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No. They are not reliable sources. Banks Irk (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: This article has been reviewed. So will it not be considered important? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: There is a deletion discussion herewhich you are invited to participate in, do not open discussions anywhere else, it is there that you need to contribute. It is not that the article is not considered important, we need "significant coverage" of Alan Singh in a good source. Significant coverage means a couple of paragraphs about Alan Singh at least. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• The referenced Article has been deleted at RFD, so this discussion can be closed and archived. Banks Irk (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News shutting down - what now?

With Buzzfeed News shutting down, should we be thinking about removing it from the list or is it still too early to do so? At the very least, I'm thinking of making a bot request at WP:BOTREQ for the IABot so as to archive all Buzzfeed News citations.

Thoughts? — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be removed from the list (even well after it shuts down) but I do think its a smart idea to archive the citations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Older Buzzfeed articles are still valid sources, so there is no reason to strip it from the list. Masem (t) 18:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Should keep in list and note when the shutdown occurs, and maybe mention that after shutdown BuzzFeed will focus on all news efforts in WP:HUFFPOST instead. WikiVirusC 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The News of the World was added to the list many years after its closure. There's no reason to remove defunct sites from the list, as they can still be cited by archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't affect the reliability of old stories. But let's see what they do now, hopefully they won't ditch the team but "keep the brand", and start pumping out bad stories under the Buzzfeed News property. Doubtful IMO, but something to watch out for.

Would be nice to have a bot that archives all BN links though — DFlhb (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Filed a bot request. Hopefully an admin can look at it soon. — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Following up at WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• It doesn't really change anything. The entry in the list is still important because we continue to have a lot of citations to their archived reporting and because (due to the associations of the Buzzfeed name outside its news division) it's a source that is frequently challenged, something that will probably only get worse now that Buzzfeed News is historical (and therefore people will steadily become less familiar with it and the fact that it was independent from the rest of the company.) A source shutting down doesn't affect the reliability of their past reporting, and "don't cite any future reporting from a source that no longer exists" is not usually a problem we have to worry about. --Aquillion (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Media companies shut down all the time; when a Newspaper stops printing, the back-issues don't really change their status. If something printed in a defunct newspaper was reliable at the time of publication, it doesn't become suddenly unreliable because the newspaper doesn't exist anymore. --Jayron32 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/buzzfeed-news-shutting-down-layoffs-1235589751/

New York Post sports coverage

• https://nypost.com/sports/

We rightly have the New York Post marked as "generally unreliable", especially for politics. I want to make a carve out for their sports coverage, which is pretty good.

Some of their columnists have wiki bios. For instance, Jon Heyman and Joel Sherman (sportswriter) are NY Post baseball columnists who are also on MLB Network. They're both members of the BBWAA and have votes for the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Mike Vaccaro is also a NY Post sports columnist. They have previous work experience at RSP publications.

There is only one error in their coverage that I can recall, and that was Heyman's "Arson Judge to the Giants" tweet this offseason. He deleted the erroneous tweet within minutes. This is of course why we have an essay on handling sports transactions properly. The error was only on Twitter, not nypost.com.

Is there anything else I'd need to demonstrate to show it as reliable for sports? Pinging David Gerard, who has removed some NY Post sports citations, and Yankees10, who I saw restoring some of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this was my thinking with the reversion. NY Post may not be reliable in general but as Muboshgu stated they employ notable baseball columnists/reporters. I believe an exception should be made for these.-- Yankees10 01:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a common claim that unreliable newspapers should get a pass for their sports coverage - mostly on an ILIKEIT basis. This was commonly brought forward for The Sun (also a News Corp publication) and the Daily Mail - and yet, when I checked those two and actually looked at the sports coverage that we were using in Misplaced Pages, I kept finding egregious careless errors, wrong years, and claims that were not verifiable in any other source at all. It turns out bad sources can't be trusted.

(Martin Samuels won awards for his coverage at the Mail and is now at News Corp, so good individuals exist - but the paper's tendency to error and claims that can't be verified anywhere else remain. And a Mail piece being bylined "Martin Samuels" wouldn't give it a pass.)

I don't think ILIKEIT is a reason to make a carveout for a paper like the New York Post that keeps being caught in fabrications and was nearly deprecated; it's already been shown that they tend to lying way too much for Misplaced Pages use.

Note also that this is a pitch for a carveout on WP:BLPs in particular - I've been hitting specifically NYP on BLPs (and PageSix anywhere, 'cos it's a lying gossip rag and shouldn't really be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages) - and GU sources are really just not appropriate at all on BLPs except in remarkable circumstances, "sports" or not - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Carve-outs like this should ONLY be done on a necessity basis. What necessary information is only available in the New York Post that would not be available in other sports journalism sources? Can you provide some examples of information you think needs to be added to Misplaced Pages, but which can only be found in the Post, and not elsewhere? --Jayron32 12:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

and - note - is so important to NPOV that it can only be achieved by adding a GU source to a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, allow, generally it's WP:NEWSORG. Specifically for sports: after the New York Times pretentiously declared they'd authenticated the Hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Post editorial ended: "Readers of The Post have known this since October 2020. We also have a much better sports section. We’ve authenticated it." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The NY Post is not generally WP:NEWSORG, it was specifically found GUNREL in an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support the carve-out for sports only, unless there's concrete evidence of issues in their sports area. I think sports is generally low stakes and I also think the Post's sports section is indeed better than somere of their other sections. While I respect and agree with David Gerard and Jayron32, on many things, I can see why sports editors might want more sources to support content and I can see the Post's sports content by default doing no harm absent evidence otherwise. If there is indeed evidence that the Post's sports content is as bad as their political or general news reporting as far as being accurate and factual, I would change my view. Andre🚐 20:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Gender-related sports coverage should not be cited. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and edits like this are so incredibly stupid that the person who makes them should be treated as though he were a normal disruptive editor. Erasing something as trivially easy to source as one of the world's most famous entertainers performing at one of the world's most famous events under the guise of removing an unreliable source (hey, I wonder if there is video of her singing the anthem, like would it be possible such a thing would have been recorded). The NYPost is an absolutely reliable source on sports on sports-related topics. And there has never been evidence that it is not. nableezy - 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing is "absolutely reliable", and we should be very wary of citing the NYP for anything other than scores, because of the heavy (and heavily politicised) editorial overlay. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Conjecture based on absolutely zero evidence (and yes, *absolutely* zero evidence). Where there is evidence to the contrary, from reliable sources. nableezy - 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• The sports section of The New York Post is a well-established WP:NEWSORG that has had a long reputation for having some of the best sports reporting in New York. Even as far back as 1985, when the NY Post was unambiguously still a tabloid, New York magazine note that or years, The New York Post has excelled at this demanding pasttime, and has had no serious challengers to its reputation for the best sports section in town (it faced competition for this role from the New York Daily News for a bit in the 80s and 90s, but it still holds that crown; see this book from Fordham University Press for more info). There's also some evidence of explicitly higher ethical standards being applied specifically to the sports section of the paper than other sections (for example, a time where ran on the gossip pages when the sports section killed a story due to journalistic ethics), so I don't think describing a carveout for the sports section as merely being ILIKEIT has any firm basis in reality. The headlines can be quite sensational, but WP:HEADLINE covers that well enough. I also would urge caution with respect to how this is construed: the Sports editorial vertical is the operation that's got a good reputation; stories published in other sections of the newspaper that are merely tangential to sporting should not be confused with content coming from that vertical. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support a carve-out for sports, which is sufficiently well respected to use in general. Two exceptions: (1) nothing from the prurient/scandalous side of the Post (e.g. objectifying female athletes), and (2) nothing with any overlap with politics (transgender and/or gender issues and sports, national anthem protests, athletes with opinions, city policies affecting stadiums or transportation to games, crimes committed in connection to a game, etc.). — Rhododendrites \\ 19:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Given the quality of this source - given to fabrication and gossip, per the RFC on it - that strongly suggests that any carveout for the New York Post should explicitly exclude BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

    How would one cover sports without covering the living persons who take part in them? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

    Please provide evidence of the NY Post Sports section engaging in fabrication and gossip. nableezy - 19:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the sports section itself is pretty clean. We just need to differentiate front-of-the paper sports-related news coverage that has all the problems associated with their other content. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• I do not think we should be too quick to allow a carve-out for sports coverage. While sports may seem like a low-stakes area, it is actually a major source of BLP information. Is the sports section really free of the pervasive sexism and bigotry that otherwise is found everywhere in the Post? At a minimum, I would not support a rating any higher than that additional considerations may apply to sports coverage. John M Baker (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• You really should be providing evidence of such pervasive sexism and bigotry, not asking others to provide evidence of its absence. nableezy - 17:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Is their sports coverage any less gossipy than the rest? Just today on nypost.com/sports:

Lukas Van Ness’ dad slaps son’s girlfriend on backside during strange NFL Draft celebration with tabloid-style screenshots.

Tales from Wandy Peralta’s popular Yankees clubhouse antics: ‘He’s a freaking clown’, which alternates endearing and patronizing.

Jackson Mahomes quietly returns to social media after being accused of forcible kissing, a republished Fox News piece.

Golfers get chippy over foursome’s slow pace of play, throwing wild kicks and punches on Florida course, another republished Fox News piece.

Do we need a carveout when it would still allow this kind of trash? Even if we (rightfully) exclude the Fox articles, there's still an awful lot of junk. Woodroar (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are any of these supposed to show in terms of NY Post's sports section's reliability? None of that is even sports coverage, except the story about Peralta, and why do you doubt its reliability? nableezy - 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course they're sports section articles. They're linked from nypost.com/sports and they have NFL, Sports+, and Golf headers, all of which appear under the "Sports ⌄" drop-down menu. As for reliability, they're just as trashy as everything else on the site—gossipy, sexist, etc. Woodroar (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Please dont misquote me. I said it isnt sports coverage. Not that it isnt in the sports section. I dont see how gossipy relates to reliability. nableezy - 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's in the sports section it's sports coverage. That's kinda definitional. And the whole point of shunning gossip is that it's unsubstantiated. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Any reason CBS News is not listed in the RS/P?

I was surprised to see that CBS News is not listed in WP:RS/P. Any reason for this, or just never happened? Searching through the archives here, I didn't see any focused discussions on it. There are a number of passing mentions whose implication is that CBS News is generally reliable. There are also some mentions that group it together with its closest analogues, ABC News and NBC News, both of which are listed in RS/P as generally reliable. There are also a couple of mentions that point to well-known CBS News screw-ups, such as Dan Rather and the Killian memos. All news organizations have a few such disasters, and in the end CBS News owned up to that one. So in my view, CBS News should be listed in WP:RS/P as generally reliable. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd have said "obvious GENREL", but it looks like they merged their TV and online news divisions in 2021 (with the usual "opportunity that positions CBS for the future" corporate crap to downplay cost-cutting). That concerns me because most TV news is heavily biased towards superficial coverage (notably on science topics), and against the kinds of deeper analysis that makes a source truly secondary. Will need to keep an eye out. DFlhb (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

CBS News is generally reliable IMHO. Andre🚐 22:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• WP:RSP isn’t a list of every media source… only the ones we frequently have discussed. The reason CBS is not listed is because we have not discussed it all that often. It hasn’t been a perennial issue (That’s the “P” part of RSP).

You don’t need a source to be listed at RSP to determine whether it is reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The irony of WP:RS/P is that to get on the list a source has to be discussed here a lot. So to get listed as generally reliable a lot of people have to have questioned and/or challenged their reliability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that CBS News is generally reliable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Not every source gets listed. If you think it is reliable, you can just use it and don't need permission. RSP is mainly for sources which have been controversial enough to attract significant debate as to its reliability. Lots of scrupulously reliable sources have never been so discussed, and don't need to be listed here. --Jayron32 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I get what you all are saying about the mechanics of how WS/P works. Still it's a bit odd that this one is missing. If you look at the top 25 U.S. news websites for March 2023, the only other two that are missing from WS/P are CNBC and Yahoo! Finance, both business-focused. Anyway, thanks for the responses. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WS/P is a bit odd and it is counter intuitive that some of the most reliable sources are not listed. A lot of people seem to be very reluctant to extend the list and only want to add to it when it is really necessary. I think the fear is that people look at the list, see that a source is labelled as generally reliable and they take that as meaning that everything the source publishes is automatically reliable and no longer do their due diligence when evaluating individual articles from the source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

And (on the other side) people see a source listed here as “generally unreliable” and take that to mean it is always unreliable… neglecting the due diligence to examine whether it could be reliable in a specific context. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason is very simple: nobody has ever thought to challenge it, so no RfC was ever held. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It says, "This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources." It's useful because it summarizes previous discussions. It's useful to know for example that articles in Jacobin are rs, while articles in CounterPunch have to be assessed on their individual merits. Incidentally, you could add CBS news citing this discussion and any others you can find. There's no need for an RfC. TFD (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fascist-era censuses

Hello. Data from the 1942 and 1943 censuses in Fascist-occupied Albania has been added to many settlement articles recently by @Alltan:. Links:

• 1
• 2
• 3

The sites are apparently owned by a "Tim Bespyatov" and I'm not sure where the source documents are to confirm the charts this individual has created. There are also many notes in the margins such as "disputed value" - it may be impossible to know what the dispute is exactly; Alltan also doesn't know what is disputed.

There's also a note at the bottom of each page: "the data contain errors in almost every geographical name, but these names are presented in forms in which they appear in the original document and are sufficient to identify corresponding settlements."

At quick glances, many of the stats don't seem too farfetched. However, at least one major problem I've noticed is that there is no category for Turks (among other groups), which are and were a significant population in rural western Macedonia. A good example is Kodžadžik where, as a result of Turkification during the Ottoman-era, there has been a solidly Turkish population for a long time - this is confirmed in late 19th/early 20th studies by Kanchov and in Ethnographie des Vilayets d'Andrinople, de Monastir et de Salonique. Yugoslav and Macedonian census (1953-present) also show an exclusively Turkish population (Selishchev shows a mixed Bulgarian-Turkish population). Yet, now we have a Fascist-era census from 1942 showing a pure Albanian population, where "Turk" apparently wasn't even an option.

Per Pandelejmoni (2001), these WWII censuses' "results were only approximate and a complete and a modern population census could not be carried out."

How do we best proceed with this? Thanks. --Local hero 03:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This source appears to be self-published and therefore not reliable. The exception might be if Tim Bespyatov is a subject expert who has been published on subjects relating to WWII in the Balkans or the demographics of Macedonia or similar. Even if this were the case, raw census data from this period would have to be attributed, and I would be very uncomfortable using it unless quoted in a secondary source by a subject expert able to analyse its reliability. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW, when setting up section here, you should include the name of the page which the source is being used for, and also some details of the claim it is being used to source. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, first time posting here. The source has been added to dozens of articles within the past week. For example: Kodžadžik, Jelovjane, Tetovo, Struga, Padalište, Čajle, etc. --Local hero 13:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be someone's personal server on which they publish things they're interested in, see for example saktransporti on the same server where Tim Bespyatov has galleries of trams, buses, and metro lines. I can't find anything definitive on Tim Bespyatov to show they would pass the requirements of WP:SPS. So the links should be considered unreliable. If the site is reposting census data a better source should be found. As to raw census data from fascist sources in general they should be used with extreme skepticism, given the racial ideologies they believed in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Local hero's objection seems to be related to the inclusion of the census itself. Tim Bespyatov's pop-stat-mashke was used as an easy way for readers who want to examine the census. The same website is widely used in articles about the Balkans as an easy way to cite censuses because it functions as a repository of census data. Offline sources can be used and I can search for other online sources which may be paywalled.

The inclusion of a census regardless of the era it was produced, may be useful to readers. The manipulation of censuses for political goals didn't begin or end in World War II. Kanchov is considered to have been writing under a Bulgarian nationalist bias, while Afanasy Selishchev explicitly changed his theories depending on what Soviet foreign policy dictated. They're not removed from the article despite their flaws. The bias which is embedded in every publication is itself useful in understanding the politics behind identity categorizing. Inclusion becomes a problem only when the source of a publication is being hidden from readers. This is not such a case because readers are being informed that it is a census which was conducted during WWII when the area became part of the Italian protectorate over Albania. Alltan (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for debating the inclusion of census data, but my position is that I can see no justification for including raw data from fascist era censuses in the pages of present day towns/villages. If this data is mentioned in a reliable secondary source discussing the town's demographic history, it should be fine to include as long as it reflects the overall perspective of the source in question. Otherwise, we would have to put the primary source in context by outlining the defects in the census data in every single article. Leading to the question, if the data is misleading, why use it? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, we don't even need to discuss the above, as at the moment we do not have a reliable source for the census data. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a disagreement of how census data should be used. The best solution would be not to use it unless it's included in secondary sources that have already analysed it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Content disputes need to focus on specific issues. Census figures are usually cited as raw data in sections about demographics. The question is whether this 1942 census is used in reliable sources in any form. The answer is yes.

Kolstø, Pål (2016). Strategies of Symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe. Taylor & Francis.There have been few systematic studies of the country's socioreligious landscape, and the last reliable and recognized figures are some 70 years old. In the Italian census in 1942, 68.9 per cent of Albania's population were Muslims (among them 21.5 per cent Bektashis), 20.7 per cent were Orthodox, and 10.3 per cent Catholic (...) Later estimates have been guesswork or heavily politicized. The census needs to be attributed openly but it's not fundamentally more politicized than any other census and it is not excluded in relevant bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer the question bof whether this site is reliable for republishing the data. It is, after all, not hosting original documents but publishing tables based on them. If the data is going to be used it should be referenced to a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Further to this, Fascist era census data should only be used in cases where a secondary source explicitly discusses it with reference to the topic of the specific article. Otherwise synthesis is a very real danger. But as stated above, the raw data is not yet available from a reliable non-self-published source, so as of now the whole question is moot. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the input @Boynamedsue: and @ActivelyDisinterested:. --Local hero 04:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Heritage Times (India)

Is this site: https://www.heritagetimes.in/about-us/ reliable specifically some of the biographical content at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQjXELpSrlU for use in the article Imdad Sabri. The content would be neutrally selected and worded ie. real name, education, etc... -- GreenC 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say: reliable enough for those basic facts, yes. I would say overall this is kind of an option 2 situation, since the outlet's stated mission is to "dispel the false and semi-true stories being fed to the people in the name of History". On the one hand, it has editorial staff and procedures for corrections (contact us). On the other hand, it has a stated POV bias and thus should probably not be used for matters of analysis, opinion, commentary, etc. Anything slightly controversial (even controversial facts) probably needs to be covered by other additional RSes. Overall, given the editorial policy and correction mechanism, it is reliable enough for matters of fact that you describe. I think it would be better if at all possible to not link to youtube, but it is an okay last resort given that it is connected to the outlet. — Shibbolethink 15:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks.-- GreenC 01:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• @GreenC: The www.heritagetimes.in is not a reliable source IMO because, despite its imitation of the organizational structure and appearance of a news organization, it is more or less a group blog with no reputation (positive or negative) for fact-checking or accuracy. But that shouldn't affect the Imdad Sabri article because the material being used from the caption accompanying the 2022 youtube video, is just an unacknowledged cut-n-paste of this article published on a Government of India website and credited to Dr Divya Sethi/National Archives of India. It is possible that the Sabri bio traces back to an even earlier (possibly, offline) write-up but we can safely cite the copy on amritmahotsav.nic.in. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Abecedare:, thank you for finding the original source! -- GreenC 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter and WP:ABOUTSELF, again

• Twitter descends into chaos as news outlets and brands lose verification
• How Elon Musk transformed Twitter’s blue check from status symbol into a badge of shame
• How to get the blue checkmark on Twitter

We'll see what happens, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that happened: Twitter Blue verification controversy. Misplaced Pages, you gotta love it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Twitter can still be used for ABOUTSELF comments, what's changed is how to check that the account is legitimate. Before it was possible to rely of twitter verification to ensure the account was the actual individual, now it seems suggestable to verify that from a secondary source. With mistakes likely due to a much reduced team doing the verification, and the system changing on Musk's daily whims, it seems best not to rely on twitter alone to ensure the account is actually the subject in question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No checkmark: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• ABOUTSELF requires that there be no reasonable doubt as to the comment's authenticity; part of the reason Twitter was frequently used for ABOUTSELF stuff while eg. Reddit was not was because of its verification process. So it should probably be used less. (Even if an editor is like "oh, I personally know this is their real account based on previous coverage", it's easy to miss a slight difference in the name.) And generally speaking, situations where there's no reasonable doubt as to a particular tweet's authenticity are also going to be ones where there is secondary coverage anyway, making citing them via ABOUTSELF unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• As we have a number of fake accounts (it seems), no Twitter is no longer usable for about self. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well idk, if a subject has publicly stated hey this is my Twitter then its still ABOUTSELF. Dont forget that this applies to blogs, and we didnt require the blogging platform to say we have verified the person claiming to be whoever. What has changed is we relied on Twitter saying this is actually such and such's Twitter feed. Now we have to rely on some other reliable outlet, like a news source reporting its such and such's Twitter or the subject publicly stating it elsewhere. nableezy - 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

But we should use caution with outstanding claims even when reported by a normally reliable source, as there have been problems with them confusing parody accounts for the real thing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• If an account is confirmed to be run by a particular person it should still be usable as WP:ABOUTSELF, but twitter's own verification systems seem increasingly unreliable for such confirmation. It may be worth updating WP:RSPTWITTER to reflect this? Perhaps simply: Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Should we update it given the apparent consensus, or wait for more people to comment? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  As per my comment I'd support that change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Now that Twitter Blue is only indicative of subscribing to a service, rather than actual verification (in fact, numerous trolls and fake accounts have gotten Twitter Blue), it isn't worthy as a way to establish identity anymore. It is a completely different functionality that happens to share the same icon. With or without Twitter Blue, anyone can claim being someone else on Twitter, making using it for ABOUTSELF risky. I also support the proposed change to WP:RSPTWITTER, and the use of other sources to confirm the identity of a Twitter account. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Anyone can claim being someone else on Twitter"

  I'm not sure that there's evidence, supporting that, though I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can provide some. But even so, long before Elon Musk, checkmarks were often taken away from confirmed users for ideological reasons. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  When you buy a checkmark, with the new Twitter Blue system, there's no verification involved except for giving your phone number for the payment. As seen just below in the conversation, even a gold tick (for which the process is slightly more involved) got given to the fake "Disney Junior UK". Your other sentence is pretty much a red herring, as we're not talking about verification pre-Musk, but Twitter Blue post-Musk, two entirely different processes (and even if Twitter did really take away some checkmarks, it didn't make other checkmarked users less verifiable). Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• note by the way that the other new tick colours, gold and grey, aren't trustworthy either. Twitter gave "Disney Junior UK" - a spoof name - a verified gold tick. We just need to note that the ticks can't be relied on any more and you'll need some off-Twitter way to verify who it's run by - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't we do better than "verified in some way" on the twitter entry in WP:RSTWITTER. How about "verified by a reliable source (such as a responsible news article)" or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Twitter's own verification instantly lost all merit the second Twitter Blue rolled out. casualdejekyll 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, yeah. At an absolute bare minimum, we ought to remove ...if they are verified accounts or... immediately, since Twitter no longer provides account verification as such. Does anyone object to that removal? It seems uncontroversial to me, since it refers to a service Twitter no longer provides. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I support that change as a bare minimum. Twitter Blue is not account verification, despite a similar icon, and they were even distinguished on Twitter itself (in the period when both were still present) by clicking on the icon on the profile. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the clause about verified accounts; we can revise the wording further if necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe "verified by a reliable source or by the person themselves (e.g. on their official homepage)? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea - I was thinking about a way to word the fact that Twitter Blue isn't sufficient for verification anymore, as people might still mistake it for the old "verified" icon. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

eurogamer.net - potential issues

from 'the history of Ninja Gaiden' article (2008):

> In revamping the series, Itagaki first of all cemented Ryu's place in his established Dead or Alive universe, drawing from the back-story developed through the fighting series to come up with a new take on a character that had always been rather vaguely defined. Ayane, the pink-haired jailbait from Dead or Alive, also crossed over to the new Ninja Gaiden, providing a tangible bridge between the series and also offering a way to at least feature some of Itagaki's beloved jiggling boobs without turning Ryu into a she-male. Some-ASCII (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear what your point is here. Is this article referenced anywhere? Searching suggests no. Eurogamer is generally considered reliable for video game content (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General gaming; searching the RSN archives doesn't bring up many results but wherever it has been mentioned it seems to have been accepted as reliable for video game reporting). Presumably your objection is to the transphobic and misogynistic language – if so, I would agree with you, but Misplaced Pages doesn't judge reliability of sources on the basis of how objectionable we find their contributors. I would make the editorial decision to avoid citing articles like that wherever possible, but in this case we don't appear to be citing it anywhere. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind the article is from 2008. Such humor may have been considered acceptable back then. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless there isn’t much to do here. Since the particular article isn’t being used in any of our articles that isn’t up for discussion and we are going to need much more than questionable content in an almost 15 year old article to seriously question the reliability of the publication.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Northern BC Backroad Mapbook

I've been gathering sources to rewrite an article and I came across this Northern BC Backroad Mapbook. I'm uncertain if it would be considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. Any thoughts? Volcanoguy 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, maybe? On the one hand, the author, Russell Mussio, is the same name as the publisher, Mussio Ventures Ltd., which makes this likely a self-published source, which means we need to look and see if others consider it a reliable source. Is Russell Mussio a well respected cartographer or geographer or expert in a field related to the material in the atlas? Is the specific source in question frequently cited by other reliable sources? That's how you'll want to go about analyzing it. Not all self-published sources are unreliable, but it does mean that other hallmarks of reliability need to be quite a bit extra to make up for that. --Jayron32 18:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I poked around the corporate website and this doesn't feel like a self-publishing venture: . What were you planning to use it for? Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I plan on using it for describing routes that can be used to gain access to Mount Edziza in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. Three routes are shown in this map book on page 88: Yukon Telegraph Trail, Buckley Lake Trail and the Buckley Lake to Mowdade Lake Route. Volcanoguy 07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the information is likely to be non-controversial, and that the maps you've cited should be sufficient absent any controversy. --Jayron32 12:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Shout Out UK

Is Shout Out UK a reliable source? I want to use this article from them for a draft about commentary YouTube, but looking at their wiki article, they seem to be some sort of advocacy organization? — VORTEX (Talk!) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That article you cited not a work of scholarship or journalism, but one of opinion, as can be seen from the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, as such WP:RSOPINION applies here; basically it should be used only to report attributed opinions of the writer only, and should not be used in Misplaced Pages's voice. Furthermore, even when citing it and giving proper in text attribution, we need to also assess if this person's opinion is worth even citing in an attributed manner: Are they widely recognized as an expert in the field for which you are citing their opinion? Do their opinions carry such weight that other reliable sources cite them or give them credence? That sort of thing. --Jayron32 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes reliabilty

This may have probably been discussed in the past, but should this be used as a source to confirm an actor's DOB if there's no other sources anywhere? Because I just deleted a DOB from an article because it didn't seem reliable enough. However another editor reverted claiming it's been used for film/TV pages without any issues.

I'm asking because I'm looking at other celebrities that have age disputes on Misplaced Pages and what RT has listed are most certainly incorrect because other info for those actors such as what year they graduated high school or college are on their pages(with legit cited sources) and those years don't match up to what the DOB that are listed on RT.

To give a couple more examples, the singer Ric Ocasek's birth year listed as 1949. However when he passed in 2019, it was confirmed that he was five years older.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/ric_ocasek

And over a year ago John Leguizamo's birth year was confirmed to be 1960. It still has 1964 listed.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/john_leguizamo Kcj5062 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The previous discussion here was not well attended but all two (!) of the editors that commented claimed RT to be reliable. However, if there are clear examples of their information being wrong, perhaps this is a discussion that needs to be had again. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

2022 discussion: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_386#Rotten_Tomatoes_celebrities_section. Perhaps it's time for a WP:RFC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment So far as I know, Rotten Tomatoes merely aggregates information from elsewhere, and I am unaware of any fact-checking processes in place (honestly, I would be surprised--it's just a different kind of site). I would definitely be in favor of revisiting. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment Yeah, that's what makes this dubious to me. Especially if there aren't any stronger sources out there. It seems Rotten Tomatoes gets info for celebrity birth dates on other sites and don't really do any fact checking. As a matter of fact, a lot of sites just web scrape info nowadays. On the reliable sources list it says can be used for stuff like movies and TV, but nothing about DOB. And looking at past discussions, someone brought up a good point. Their main business is film criticism, not actor biographies. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't seem anymore of a WP:RS for WP:BLP than IMDB is.

  Kcj5062 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would be leary in using Rotten Tomatoes for anything except opinions, reviews, or ratings. It really isn't a scholarly or journalism site, it doesn't do research or reporting in the real sense, and any factual information reported there is likely scraped from elsewhere. --Jayron32 12:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think Rotten Tomatoes should be used for anything other its core purpose: review aggregation. Just because we stick their aggregation statistics into every film article doesn't mean that they have any reliability when it comes to talking about biographical details. That should be left to sources that engage in clear fact checking, editorial control, and error correction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• I favor not using Rotten Tomatoes to support dates of birth (or any other biographical information). Other posts above have pointed out good reasons for questioning that aspect of the site. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Who uses Rotten Tomatoes as a source for anything? It is a useful aggregator of critical responses to movies, but that's about it. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• The user SNUGGUMS claims it's a " quite trustworthy" source(his words). For movies/TV yes, but it shouldn't be used as a source for actor biographies for aforementioned reasons. Kcj5062 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Per the above comments. Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical claims about people. Its principal purpose is aggregating reviews. I wouldn't be surprised if they just got dates and stuff like that from IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Arabia GIS and UNDP (Repost)

This is a repost as my previous one got no responses

I am thinking of create a bot request to automate some coordinate addition to lebanese towns articles. See this TH discussion for more info. The source for the coordinates is listed as UNDP/Arabia GIS. I was wondering if this is a reliable source for the coords of all LB towns. I'd say the UNDP is reliable but not sure about Arabia GIS. Their website went offline in 2011. Here's the last archive before that.

Edit:Seems they actually recreated their website but it has since gone offline again. See this PalauanReich 01:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After checking the link I figured out that "TH" means Teahouse but I still don't know what LB means here. I remember (from WP:History of Misplaced Pages bots) that this topic of using bots to create articles for every single town they can come up with has arisen before early in Misplaced Pages's history, and I'm not sure what the conclusion to that was as far as whether it would be allowed again. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not really the same thing. We had the last discussion about using bots to create articles for each town a few days ago, and turns out there's a big risk of mislabelling random features as towns and creating useless articles that way. But here it appears that the goal isn't to create the articles, but to fill already-existing town articles with coordinates, which seems more reasonable. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Had a bit of trouble understanding the way it was worded.

I have seen coordinates listed in such databases be far too specific as to the location of municipalities (false precision issues), or not actually correspond to the center or administrative building (false accuracy issues). Without some human oversight it does seem possible that entirely erroneous locations will be added. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the bot could reduce the precision, the main thing I want is a consensus on the reliability. That's what they want over at BOTREQ. PalauanReich 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to see them manually verified if from either of these sources, again not just due to false precision but due to possible inaccuracies. Would it be an insurmountable task to have it be semi-automated and have a human (you) compare the coordinates to a satellite image and map (overlayed or not) for each town? This really may be more of a discussion for Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval than can be given a firm answer here. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditorSounds good, so if manually verified, would you support their reliability. PalauanReich 23:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

LB means Lebanon here, by the way Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WeChat/Weixin

Forgive me for my lack of knowledge of Chinese WP:RS but I feel the need to post here as there is an active AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zhu Yijun (badminton) (2nd nomination) where the reliability or lack thereof of WeChat/Weixin is pivotal. I always thought that it was just a social media site where anyone can post a 'news article', a bit like Medium. However, User:Timothytyy argues that Most news reports in China occur in WeChat, that's why you can't search for them on the web. WeChat is a big platform, it is not only a social media, so you have to determine whether a source is reliable or not. Removing all WeChat sources is equivalent to removing all Chinese local sources. Therefore can WeChat be considered acceptable as a basis for notability for a BLP? Secondly, can we trust it to provide reliable and accurate information for a BLP or should it only be used for completely uncontroversial things only? Spiderone 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, pretty sure that is just a social media/messaging app, not a reliable publisher by a long stretch. AFAIK it should be treated like Twitter or such at most (if the given source can be verified). Lack of reliable sources isn't an excuse to use unreliable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that it is only a social media app? Do you know all the functions of it? It has a news platform where official accounts post news articles. Evidence: Tencent pushes into news feed and search in challenge to Baidu (italics part is just Misplaced Pages-like, not reliable). WeChat is just like Google (and Baidu) in China now, why can't the articles searched in WeChat be considered as reliable? Timothytyy (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What are these "official accounts" posting news articles (I can't access the FT article)? Pavlor (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"The news feed and search tools pull content only from within WeChat’s walls rather than from the open web, including updates posted by individual users called moments, corporate accounts and an immense collection of WeChat accounts which are used by newspapers and independent bloggers. ... Even though articles published on WeChat have their own web pages, Baidu is blocked from indexing them. This means they do not appear in the company’s search results." -- from the FT article. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Timothytyy: As I said, if the identity of the poster can be verified, it would be like Twitter. Each individual source would have to be reliable on its own and its identity known without any reasonable doubt. What source are you using from WeChat? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See nom's AFD. I agree that we have to assess each source individually. Timothytyy (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WeChat is a place where things are posted, so by itself it is not reliable. However as others have said, the account posting could be reliable. Each post would need to be checked separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability is a separate issue, and would need to be judged individually again. But looking at the article posts from the Shanghai Sports Bureau or Shanghai Competitive Sports Training Management Center are press releases and wouldn't contribute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Depends on the source, of course, as others have said above. WeChat is more like an aggregator or social media site, and it includes works from both reliable sources and unreliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Not reliable - no editorial oversight.Onel5969 13:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you prove that all publishers don't have editorial oversight? In fact some accounts belong to professional journalists or big companies. The "news feed" function should be differentiated from "moments". "Moments" is a place where users post their own articles, but "news feed" contains articles written by certain news publishers or secretaries from companies. Normal users cannot post articles there. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Timothytyy You're not listening. If anyone publishing on this service is reliable, it is on their own merits, and not because of WeChat. WeChat is not a publisher from anything you have shown, and has no editorial oversight of its own. This is equivalent to Twitter, or Google News, or at most Facebook News. Please drop the WP:STICK and don't WP:BLUDGEON the process here. Can you prove that all publishers don't have editorial oversight? The onus is on you to "prove" that there is editorial oversight at WeChat. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say anything about WeChat is reliable, I just said that you cannot conclude that all publishers don't have editorial oversight, in response to a user's stance. I don't agree that WeChat itself should be considered as unreliable; whether a source has editorial oversight or not should be assessed separately. Timothytyy (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Infobae

As a source it is widely used in articles that imply something from the Spanish-speaking world. However, I wanted to clear up the doubt. Is it reliable in most cases? Note: In the Spanish Misplaced Pages it is also used a lot Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Struck as a sock of Armando AZ. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little worried as they have a section offering advertorial/branded content, but I can't find any policies on how (or if) they maintain a separation of that from other reporting. Is there any specific usage you are interested in using in a particular article? It might be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A video from 24 Horas

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zVmTQN1ZfcY

It is the official account of a Peruvian news medium. It is part of the Panamericana Televisión network. I am citing it as a reference in the article about the recent protests in Peru. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What specific Misplaced Pages text is going to be sourced to this news report? --Jayron32 15:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In the section on "Government Response", it is on a specific issue. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 If you want a broader answer, it is about the trafficking of weapons (bullets) between the borders of Peru and Bolivia. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked over the Spanish Language Misplaced Pages article you gave, and checked out their website. They have all of the hallmarks of a legitimate news organization, and I see nothing to give me pause. According to their website, they are a member of this organization, which seems to be committed to independent broadcasting in Peru. If someone else knows more about 24 horas as a news organization personally, they may have more to add, but my quick 5-minute glance indicates to me they are likely reliable. I would say, so long as you stick to what the source actually says, it's a reliable source in this context. --Jayron32 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock – dudhhr _contribs (he/they) 22:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Primary and unreliable sources on Singaporean crime articles

Via Tangaraju Suppiah, I've come to realise that there is an issue with articles worked on by @NelsonLee20042020 relying excessively on primary (mainly court documents), self-published and otherwise dubious sources in articles related to crime in Singapore. Random examples below:

Additionally the use of these sources creates some WP:BLPPRIMARY issues.

I believe this editor is acting in good faith which is why I have brought this here (please move the discussion if there is a better place for it). I tried to address this locally at the Suppiah page but after getting my maintenance template reverted three times, I did a bit of digging and realised this was a larger issue than just that article. I have no interest in this topic so am probably not the right editor to sort it out. (I'm useless at this noticeboard stuff so throw me the Wiki acronyms to show me if/where I've gone wrong.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to just post this on the user's talk page. This page is more for content issues rather than conduct. If the user in question does not fix the articles under reasonable amount of time, you should post at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Carpimaps (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Egypt as a belligerent in the 2023 Sudan conflict

Article:2023 Sudan conflict

Sources:

References

1. Faucon, Benoit; Said, Summer; Malsin, Jared (19 April 2023). "Libyan Militia and Egypt's Military Back Opposite Sides in Sudan Conflict". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 April 2023. Egyptian military have sent military support to rival generals...Egypt, which has officially called for an end to the fighting, sent jet fighters just before the fighting started and additional pilots soon after to support Gen. Burhan
2. Rickett, Oscar (18 April 2023). "Sudan and a decade-long path to turmoil". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on 18 April 2023. Retrieved 18 April 2023. The Egyptians are already heavily involved," Cameron Hudson, a former CIA analyst, told MEE. "They are actively in the fight. There are Egyptian fighter jets that are part of these bombing campaigns. Egyptian special forces units have been deployed and the Egyptians are providing intelligence and tactical support to the SAF.

Claim: These two sources are being used in the infobox of this article to claim that Egypt is an active belligerent in the 2023 Sudan conflict. They certainly endorse that Egypt supports one faction and sent aircraft before the conflict, but neither IMO is adequate to claim Egypt is an active party in the fighting.

Prior discussion: here and here Pincrete (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Both Middle East Eye and the Wall Street Journal are reliable sources. The statement in MEE is attributed by direct quote to Cameron Hudson, and thus the Misplaced Pages article should do the same. Otherwise, not much else to add. --Jayron32 12:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is whether they say that Egypt is actively engaged (ie a belligerent) - rather than that they in general terms support one or other side. I agree both sources are RS. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The Middle East Eye source contains a quote from Cameron Hudson that says "The Egyptians are already heavily involved," which is a reliable source for that quote from that person. If the Misplaced Pages article says "Former CIA Analyst Cameron Hudson stated "The Egyptians are already heavily involved," and then cited MEE, that may be okay. Neither source is sufficient for making the statement in Misplaced Pages's own voice, but the second one is a sufficient source for an attributed quote. Whether the attributed quote is WP:DUE is a matter that is outside the scope of this board, and needs to be discussed on the article talk page. --Jayron32 13:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the attributed claims from Hudson/MEE can be (and are) used in text, but the unqualified inclusion in the infobox, is effectively a WP:VOICEd assertion of undisputed fact. Thanks for the response. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Statista - April 2023

Statista, a business website collecting statistics, self-described as a "statistics portal for market data", is not a reliable source. The original sources of the statistics collected by the website are often not clear, and some of the statistics are clearly invented by the website itself. Yet, I am beginning to see it uncritically used as a source here and there throughout Misplaced Pages. For instance, these data on the ethnic makeup of France are currently used in the article "France", in the country's main infobox.

Foregoing discussions about Statista already found it to be unreliable: 2019, 2020, 2022a, 2022b. I think it is time for a tougher action, and to consider a deprecation. Æo (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Support deprecation Unreliable source that has been disproven many times. Sometimes they get data from Misplaced Pages itself, sites like VGChartz etc Timur9008 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I misunderstood this initially. This isn't a for-profit research firm, it's a database or aggregator of statistical information. Universities subscribe to it like they do other databases, and to that extent it could be a useful tool for those who have access. But the end result shouldn't be a citation to Statista; it should be a citation to whatever the actual source of the information is. We don't deprecate JSTOR just because some people might credit JSTOR for a paper that JSTOR is simply hosting, so why would we deprecate this? It may be useful to have an RSP entry which clarifies this, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just an example but Statista copied this word for word (August 2021 revision) and their source Timur9008 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecation is not necessary at this point. I think a case could be made for adding it to the RSP list as Generally Unreliable, but I don't think the drastic step of deprecation is yet justified. That being said, it doesn't actually need to be on the list to be removed. You're allowed to go through Misplaced Pages and remove it from articles all on your own, without seeking prior approval. It's doubtful anyone adding it to the Misplaced Pages articles even knows RSP exists. --Jayron32 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Following on what I wrote above, I've boldly added a line to RSP based on the four conversations which have taken place thus far. Anyone who disagree can feel free to revert. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well done. In the future I will file a request for adding also these sources, which have similar (yet maybe worse) problems, to RSP. Æo (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

They are not just a database or aggregator. That's a big part of what they do and probably the biggest part of the free content, e.g. their many info graphics. But they also do a lot of analyses and report writing and they do research for clients, too. I think calling them generally unreliable or even deprecating them is unwarranted. To me this is a case of "additional considerations apply", information has to be evaluated on a case by case basis and where they just report data from other sources, the original source should be cited if possible. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

theodora.com

• theodora.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I've requested blacklisting for this, because it's WP:REFSPAM, but I thought people here might also want to look into it - the site scrapes content from public domain sources, wraps it around with adverts, and asserts its own copyright. I have not had time to dig in and find out who added any of the links. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Good-enough sources on food storage

Say I wanted to update the article on lettuce to include information about the shelf life of lettuce in the refrigerator. Is a page such as this one from The Spruce Eats or this one from Epicurious be a good-enough source? I've looked at more conventional sciences sources such as the USDA but the information I can find from them is much less detailed. For context, I'm planning an editathon in which participants may be updating articles on various food ingredients, to say how they should be stored. Pinging Zefr - if you have thoughts on this question I would appreciate your views. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I know it's a little off-topic, but if you're covering lettuce will you include an aside on the Liz Truss lettuce? That was all about shelf-life. Philh-591 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

More royalcruft

• heraldica.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

We have over 600 uses of this site as a source or external link, but I don't think it is authoritative - does anyone know better? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Per the now removed about page, the maintainer is François R. Velde, a published economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. This isn't his field, it's his hobby, and so far I haven't found evidence that would establish him as an expert sufficient for WP:SPS purposes. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I replace it with CN tags whenever I come across it during my semi-regular bad nobility ref purges, although it's not listed on the linked page due to being slightly beyond the scope of my project. There are a lot of these types of SPS used on nobility pages, and they are especially common in "titles and honors" sections (which are also rife with citations to bare images and pinterest...). JoelleJay (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware - see the "royalcruft" section on my userpage :-) I removed all the references to royalark, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Just another hobby site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Heraldry is a hobby of mine, and I maintain and improve this site in my spare time." "Originally, the material available at this site came from discussions on the newsgroup ". Clearly unreliable -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Rich Swier aka Dr Rich a reliable source at all?

As you can see on his website, he works with the "Geller Report Staff" run by Pamela Geller. We use him in several articles, eg Alberto M. Carvalho where we cite his website, The 500 Most Influential Muslims where we cite Watchdog Wire which he used to edit, Adam Fletcher (speaker) where an article by him in something called Red County is used as a source and Jim Murphy which uses his website as a source. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading through those articles, no he should be removed on sight. What isn't conspiracy theories are just outright lies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The guy once claimed that food companies use aborted fetus cells for flavour... -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No, obviously not. You can remove the citations you found already (and any others) on sight. --Jayron32 14:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

John 1:1

I think that extremely poor sources are advanced at Talk:John 1:1#Edit war. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

E.g. Commentary of the Roman Catholic Bible Translation to Hungarian by György Káldi, revised in 1937. Or Oxford, 1209; Encyclopedia of Religion, 54—I have no idea who wrote those and when. Or Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation with no mention of its language, publisher and year of printing. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Commentary of the Roman Catholic Bible Translation to Hungarian by György Káldi, revised in 1937."

publisher: Szent István Társulat, this is the official publisher (printing house) of the Hungarian Catholic Church.

The other encyclopedias can be found on the Internet.

The Orthodox Bible translation is in English, there is also a Misplaced Pages page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Eastern-Greek_Orthodox_Bible

At the bottom of the page is the text in PDF, you can find the quotations and footnotes there as well. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what Oxford, 1209; Encyclopedia of Religion, 54 even mean. The terms "Encyclopedia of Religion" do not seem to appear in that PDF, regardless of how you spell the word "encyclopedia".

I feel like a KGB interrogator who needs to extract information by the use of repeated questions. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind for "Oxford, 1209" is the lynching of some university scholars by townspeople and ensuing riots that lead to an exodus of scholars and the founding of Cambridge University. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, my points were: the sources are biased (religious apologetics) and reflect the state of WP:SCHOLARSHIP from the 1920s, not the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

And the Eastern Orthodox Bible was published at CreateSpace, which by our book isn't a publisher of WP:RS. If they copy/pasted correctly from the Patriarchal text of 1904, then PT should be WP:CITEd instead. And if they didn't, then the source is not reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is an English translation of the Patriarchal text which is in Greek. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Militaryland.net

militaryland.net is a website that gives a day by day update of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as developments of military formations in the Ukrainian army. Most of the articles for the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces are wholly reliant on their information and I would like to know if they are a reliable source or not. they describe themselves as "an independent project" and is largely curated by one Jerome who founded the website in 2017 and doesn't give their last name. There is another contributor, and two prior contributors, but they all use usernames as opposed to their real name. My gut instinct tells me this is little more than a glorified Blog that fails WP:BLPSPS, but also the information shared on the website has yet to be disproved or factually incorrect. However, of the information articles use from the website is largely trivial such as where units are headquartered out of and when they where founded. I would like to know if anyone else has an opinion on this. Scu ba (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's come up twice before, in archive 378 and archive 401. It's a self published website, which is not reliable as the author isn't recognised as an expert in other published sources. If it quotes any reliable sources then use those instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, ill see if I can't remove their citations wherever I see them. Scu ba (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

CSQ

csq.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I've never heard of the site, so just curious if anyone else thinks it would be reliable for referencing a birthplace for David Agus (the exact source for that is here)? A insource search shows we use them around 40 times in various other articles. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this article an rs for a BLP?

The article is Bill Warner (writer) - an anti-Islam writer, and the source I'm asking about is ]. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think probably not. The article doesn't have a byline, as far as I can see, so we don't know who wrote it, we just know that the website is operated by the Islamic Foundation in Slovakia, which doesn't strike me as a go-to source for an American polemicist. I can't find anything about their editorial policy. We should be using better sources than this for BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I was afraid of that. I wanted to use the same source to quote two experts:

The Czech branch distributed one of Warner's books to the Slovak National Council in 2016. Luboš Kropáček, a Czech Islamologist at Charles University stated that "As far as I know, no Orientalist, Arabist or Islamologist pays attention to this man, he has no business in our field of science."

Bronislav Ostřanský, a researcher at the Oriental Institute, ASCR, said that his apparently scientific approach impresses many people "including otherwise educated and politically influential personalities" but that he should be quoted "in a professional work in only one context, namely as relevant source material for the study of contemporary Islamophobia."

References

1. "Does Bill Warner understand Islam? We asked Islamologists in the Czech Republic and Slovakia". ISLAMONLINE.sk (in Slovak). 23 November 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2023.

Doug Weller talk 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Doug Weller:Ah - I see the connection with Slovakia now. Well, I wouldn't use anything the sources says itself to support biographical content, but if it's just being used to support attributed quotes from notable scholars in a relevant discipline critiquing his work, it's probably OK. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought so only used it for that. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment