Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264

Requesting feedback from uninvolved editors please. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You want to be able to source the counter allegations if you can (this is one of the few places where an BLPSPS could be used.) But regardess if you can or not, the allegations made should be put with attribution. Eg "According to the Guardian, former MEK were recruited by the IRI to provide..." With that, we are not factually stating that true, and implicit that it is a controversial statement so one can read into that that former MEK members may contest that, if there are sources lacking that directly include the counter statements --Masem (t) 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an allegation, which is not evidence (I have to say this does not read like an RS issue really, but a NPOV one). So we would attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Per Masem and Slatersteven, except the Guardian isn't the one making the allegations, so the attribution should be to "former MEK members...". If the allegations are exceedingly contentious or inflammatory (which they don't seem to be to an outside observer, but it's your decision), you can add to the preceding statement "published in the Guardian". François Robere (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. Attributing does helps distinguish allegation from fact, just that here it comes across as if we're starting to include disinformation on Wikipedia articles (even if attributed and explained). It's the first time I've come across something like this, so if this is how these circumstances are being presently dwelt with, then I'll go with that. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki has a complex relationship with the truth, the bottom line of which is we have not the tools nor the processes to evaluate the veracity of the claims, so we must rely on reliable sources to do that for us. In this case it's the Guardian (and a few others). François Robere (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to assess this source as reliable for information about a Spanish photojournalist,

It seems to be the product of a cultural collaboration, published by a non-profit and supported by state and local government. I'd give it a "yes" for this particular purpose if no other sources are available. François Robere (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions as to whether or not these individual pages (not the journalists or the hosting website, but the individual pages themselves) are sufficient as a Reliable Source to be used as a statement of fact and not just the opinion of the journalists that wrote them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf https://www.smh.com.au/national/fraser-anning-spent-most-taxpayers-money-on-family-travel-last-year-20190320-p515sm.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/

Relevant Wikipedia article: Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party . Relevant citations are 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Quality of evidence presented seems weak at best, and could easily point to other conclusions, as the current stated conclusions on the relevant Wikipedia article (The proposed statement of Fact that The Conservative National Party is Far-right ideologically) are mostly subjective and contradict relevant pages elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as

Requesting analysis of the aforementioned news articles and determinations as to why they specifically could/couldn't be used to support the claim of Far-right wing ideology, as a whole or majority, as a statement of fact instead of being displayed as an opinion. Thanks. Sundeki (talk) 04:27 25 April 2019 (UTC)

edit: It's become apparent to me that this may be the wrong section to post this, if that is the case, then please remove it. Sundeki (talk) 04:59 25 April 2019 (UTC)

They are RS, as to the issue of eight or POV, that is harder.

Other sources [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. Thus (it seems to me) there is no weight issue here. Lots of RS call them far right.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It is usually better to use an expert source, instead of news articles using journalese shorthand. To many if not most readers the term far right refers to neo-fascists. TFD (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

AlterNet's unreliability has been discussed before[11], but is it worthy of a depreciation? X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Why? And why the question now? --Calton | Talk 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: AlterNet's quality is, according to this thread[12] "Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion" and is also, according to that same thread, the most visited out of all the unreliable left wing sources. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - While partisan sources always need attribution, it is nevertheless valuable for providing progressive viewpoints and reporting or interviews of progressive organizations. A deprecation might do more harm than good.
  🌹🌉
  02:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - on principle. We don't need to nor should we go around creating an official, automatic list of bad sources. Let local consensus or when needed larger community consensus do it's thing. Deprecation is like the mandatory sentencing rules that keep a judge from applying common sense when needed. My comment is not an endorsement of the source, just a principled stand on the issue. Springee (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - while I like rummaging through past discussions just as much as the next fella, I'd rather discuss this based on aggregated evidence. Also, while my approach to deprecating sources is more lenient than some of our colleagues',
  Tsumikiria's concerns should be addressed by demonstrating that deprecating the source would not significantly harm the breadth of our coverage. François Robere (talk
  ) 22:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the title to "deprecated" to match Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. Please note that deprecation and depreciation have different meanings. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes but this would require an RfC. As JzG stated in the
  WP:UNDUE to include anyway. feminist (talk
  ) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So long as the reviews are not written for the sake of kickbacks and the reviewed product is not sold on the review, I don't think it should matter. A reasonable degree of separation is needed to not become a dependent coverage. Even on the Oregonian, it says on the bottom "Note to readers: If you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission." With declining subscription sales, news/magazines are going more and more readership purchase commission driven. This puts more challenge on Wikipedians editorial discretion. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on how much it can be claimed they are being paid for reviews. On the subject of notability I would say this is an issue, the review is there to get money, therefore does not really establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all reviews are the same. See

WP:PRODUCTREV Graywalls (talk

) 15:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Never said they were.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

As long as the affiliate links do not influence editorial decisions, I don't see any concerns. News websites have to survive in some way, unlike Wikipedia editors they can't do everything for free. Let's say you are a product reviewer at a tech news website. If you want to maintain visitors to your website, you have to keep producing content. If you have to link to a product anyway, why not use affiliate links? There's no harm in that, and you get kickbacks from Amazon/Newegg/other online retailer (note: not the product manufacturer). feminist (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this web page[13] by John Kiesz[14] a reliable source for the statement " It was in the fall of 1937 when Elder Armstrong's credentials were revoked by the Salem Church of God organization. The reason given by the Board of Twelve Oregon Conference of the Church of God, 7th Day (COG7) for this adverse action against Herbert W. Armstrong, was because he taught and kept the annual Feast days. But the real reason seems to have been because of his bad attitude" in Armstrongism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Doug Weller talk 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I see that a blog, Cogwriter.com[15] by someone named Bob Thiel[16] is being used for an Armstrong related article[17] and for several other articles.[18] This doesn't seem like an RS either. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No idea about the first point, but blogs are RS if they are by experts, who is Bob Thiel?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thiel says he has a doctorate in Naturopathy[19] and is someone who does prophetic analysis.[20] Doug Weller talk 14:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So not an expert then.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Two questions here: a) whether Kiesz's credentials pan out - if so, then usable with attribution; and b) whether the page reflects what he wrote. As the website's owner/s remain anonymous (and there's no suggestion that they're a registered NGO or a similar legal entity that we can follow up on), then no. François Robere (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is used at Kingdom of Judah and LMLK seal and several other articles[21]as is the site owner, G.M. Grena. Grena is a creationist with a Bachelor of science degree[22] working in engineering as a " Engineer/Programmer/Researcher/Writer"[23] He is also used without the website in some articles.[24] Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

See the footnote at [25]: "The non-academic, and lamentably derisive, work of G M Grena, Lmlk—A Mystery Belonging to the King, Vol 1 (Redondo Beach, Cal: 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004), is nevertheless useful for its extensive inclusion of previous scholarship." I'm guessing that "derisive" should read "derivative": so possibly just about OK for facts but certainly not for interpretations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The publisher - Redondo Beach, CA : 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004- - with no other publications per worldcat - seems like a

WP:SPS. It is however cited, somewhat, in an academic context - e.g. Bocher, Efrat, and Oded Lipschits. "The yršlm Stamp Impressions on Jar Handles: Distribution, Chronology, Iconography and Function." Tel Aviv 40.1 (2013): 99-116. credits Grena with "The division between “before Sennacherib” and “after-Sennacherib” lmlk stamp impressions had already been suggested by Grena (2004: 337), based on 13 lmlk jar handles from 7th century “Babylonian Attack” strata in Jerusalem, Arad, Lachish, Timna and Horvat Shilha. See Ussishkin 2011 contra this division, but see Lipschits 2012 in response, and cf. Finkelstein 2012. bringing up what appears to be the pre-cursor of "Lipschits, Sergi and Koch" whom they are citiing. I'd say very borderline for use at all (the possible saving grace here is citations/referrals by reputable sources) - definitely not for anything controversial. Icewhiz (talk

) 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely a fringe source. If we have a reliable alternative, we should definitely be using that instead. If not, it’s worth questioning why, and simply leaving it out, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly academics sometimes don't do thorough checks on their sources. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per the above, if it is only "useful for its extensive inclusion of previous scholarship" then use that scholarship instead. This source is not reliable. --Jayron32 17:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question - the author seems non-reliable of course (not an expert in history nor archaeology). What is currently sourced to him? (images, statements)?GreyShark (dibra) 14:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

LMLK seal uses it 4 times. Not an RSSlatersteven (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @Greyshark09: here[26] are the pages sourced to the website. A self-published book by him is used in these articles.[27]Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Can this source:

I spoke with Julie Ezold, a program manager who worked with Phelps on the tennessine project; Kit Chapman, the journalist who first brought Phelps to Jess Wade’s attention; and Phelps herself to tease out the details behind the scientist’s achievement.

It goes like this: In the fall of 2011, Phelps was part of a small team at ORNL charged with purifying samples of berkelium-249, a radioactive element so hard to obtain that it can only be made in two places in the world. After months of preliminary purifications, ORNL scientists handed Phelps and her coworkers Rose Boll and Shelley Van Cleve a bottle containing 27 milligrams of berkelium-249. Through expert manipulations inside radiation-proof glove boxes, Phelps, Boll, and Van Cleve removed from the sample any specks of impurity that could interfere with the reaction to make tennessine. They lost less than a milligram of material in the process.

The ultrapure berkelium-249 was shipped to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia, where it was bombarded with calcium ions to create the new chemical element. That experiment — a repeat of one conducted two years earlier — gave scientists the data they needed to confirm tennessine’s existence.
— Original article (marked opinion) in Undark Magazine (author's LinkedIn), republished by Slate [28] (not marked opinion, in a technology section), Fast Company [29] (not marked opinion or apparently categorized), and The Wire (India) [30] (not marked opinion, in science section).

...be cited for this passage in

Phelps and fellow Oak Ridge scientists Rose Boll and Shelley van Cleve removed impurities from the berkelium sample using radiation-proof gloveboxes, losing less than a milligram in the process.

...and if so, does it need to be attributed, and if so, to whom? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Leviv ich 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment': Undark by itself is fine as a source for this as a factual claim, especially since the author specifies how she learned it. Two caveats not directly related to source-reliability: (1) saying "losing less than a milligram in the process" without mentioning the starting quantity and providing the reader any context of whether the loss is lower than, higher than or as expected, is useless; (2) the question of whether this is due and/or noteworthy (for wikipedia purposes) is a separate question. Abecedare (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. Re #1: there are other RSes that report the quantity as something other than 27mg (22mg, and another one says something in between 22 and 27 but I forget exactly what), so I was going to suggest "less than 30mg" be worked in, probably in a preceding sentence. Leviv ich 06:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  Remember we are talking of a radioactive substance with a half-life of 330 days. So every two-weeks we would expect to "lose" about 3% of ²⁴⁹Bk in any case. So all these numbers will depend upon at what time and at what stage of processing the quantities are being measured. Experts writing for peers care about specifying all these technical details; that's not the mission for op-eds directed at a mass audience. That's another reason we should not throw around numbers in biographical wikipedia articles where we cannot provide (and in this case, do not have) sufficient context. Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Op-ed - reliable only for the opinions of Claire L. Jarvis - has to be attributed (though probably correct - describing a fairly routine purification procedure). The original piece is clearly marked as an opinion. The opinion has been republished elsewhere - in each instance clearly stating it was originally published on Undark. When subsequent publishers republish a piece, they generally do not vet or fact-check the piece for accuracy (which, besides the copyright/attribution issue, is another reason they state this is a republished piece). Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I second Icewhiz's take that the republication doesn't add any "reliability" to the sourcing (consistent with its mission, Undark has extraordinarily generous republication guidelines). The place I differ is in that IMO the two particular paragraphs quoted by Levivich above are in effect factual reporting by Clair Jarvis, and (as Icewhiz says) the claims in those paragraphs are perfectly routine/believable. Therefore, in my editorial judgement it would be fine with just treating them as factual claims not requiring attribution but if needed they could also be attributed as "writing in Undark Magazine, Claire Jarvis reported that ...". Abecedare (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with Icewhiz, opinions are just that. But I am not sure this is likely to be fake. All in two minds over it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As argued above, the two paragraphs specifically quoted are factual reporting and can be used as such.
  talk
  ) 17:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's amazing that the original version is an op-ed, but somehow the re-publications are not. And no, these are not good sources. They are op-eds. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Fastcompany ref is probably sufficient. I don't agree with the assertion above that they wouldn't bother to fact-check it merely because it was covered elsewhere - Fastcompany is a reputable publication, so if they're publishing an article where the writer says they spoke to a primary source, I feel we can trust that and report it as fact (and, in the absence of any reason to doubt either, I don't think it would require in-line attributions.) As an aside, this is also mentioned in this podcast with Chemical & Engineering News, which also seems usable as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me whether this site: Open Doors is a reliable source for our articles? It is being used in our Religious persecution#Persecution of Christians article with the following text:

"Today, Christians are harshly persecuted in countries like North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan among others."Tamsier (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say no - this is per their about "community of Christians who come together to support persecuted believers". That being said - harsh persecution in North Korea, Iraq (mainly when ISIS controlled parts of Iraq), and Pakistan are relatively easy. China has very complex relationship with some churches and this may be correct. In regards to Iran - see [31][32] - AFAIK the issue in Iran is mostly related to proselytizing (spreading the faith) and converts to Christianity. Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, they seem to take any incident and blow it up out of all proportion, they are RS for their opinions, but that is all they casn be used for, not statements of facts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly an activist organisation with an agenda to push. Handle with care. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tamsier: I am having this discussion on the 'Persecution' talk page right now. It is a partisan source, no doubt. That being said, applying the WP standards on biased sources applies: [33]. These are editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Open Doors has no independence from the topic at all. It is a charity that is run as a Christian ministry. They are an activist organization with an agenda, (but all human rights organizations are) so that's against using it.

WP says, Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Fact checking with other sources indicates Open Doors facts are reliable, so that's in favor of using it. The UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM [34] which describes itself as "an independent, bipartisan U.S. government advisory body, separate from the State Department, that monitors religious freedom abroad and makes policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress" lists "Countries of particular concern"' as well as "SPECIAL WATCH LIST COUNTRIES" that are the same countries as those on Open Doors World Watch list. Open Doors' claims are the same claims made by PEW research: [35]. They too list the same countries at the high end of persecution on their list. And it's the same in the State department reports: [36].

Open Door's facts are demonstrably accurate and supported by these, and other, third party independent sources. I don't think there is any foundation for the accusation that they exaggerate or blow things out of proportion. I don't think that can be shown. You can read the same stories - and more - in the State department reports if you take the time to go through them one country at a time, which is how they are posted. According to PEW, there are 144 countries in the world persecuting Christians, so plan on that taking awhile. I think I've made it through about 50 of them so far.

I would say this mixed bag means Dodger67's advice to 'Handle with care' is good advice: use it sparingly, with third party support, making sure to say it is a Christian organization, but with those caveats, using it is perfectly acceptable.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The author dedicates the book to Maryam Rajavi and other "brothers & sisters" in MEK:

This book is dedicated to Maryam Rajavi and countless other sisters and brothers of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran with whom I have had the privilege to work and campaign. Their self-sacrifice and the self-sacrifice of the PMOI over decades has been an inspiration.

The book is a series of interviews with MEK members. Am I right thinking the book is just a primary source (and not even a reliable one)? Can it serve as a source for the following assertion in

"Other analysts state that MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions" --Kazemita1 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a primary source, he worked with them. As for the ext, no it is not RS for that (assuming it is even an RS). It would need full attribution to the source.Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is the book, and the author is Scottish politician Struan Stevenson. Yes, the book has interviews from MEK members (just like a Guardian piece we recently included in the Wiki article that claims to interview former MEK members), but it also has statements from the author, such as this one:

"The PMOI has never sought to achieve its goals using terror. It has never targeted civilians, nor have civilians ever been injured or killed as a result of PMOI campaigns against the Iranian regime."

Can this statement not be included in the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you have to attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: can you please confirm this is a proper attribution?:

"According to Struan Stevenson, the MEK targets only included the Islamic Republic’s governmental and security institutions"

Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

It looks like you've put a lot of work into this but an obvious problem so far is point 6. Its main argument is asking people to accept a correlation as causation. Connor Behan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Some of the studies controlled for that, for example by letting non-regular Fox viewers watch Fox as part of the study. One of the sources (I can't recall which at the moment) discusses the problem, and suggests that in that particular instance the causation is more likely one way than the other. François Robere (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Great. So are we going to list all the baseless things that CNN, NYT, SPLC, Vox, Buzzfeed News, and all the other RS have said and done. Just look what happened with the Covington kid fiasco, that hardly works in favor of any left-biased news sources. Also, if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories. In that event, is one prepared to do so? If not, we should just PROD

WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News. Personally, I don't care if Fox is depreciated at the end of the voting, I've never cited them anyway. However, I do care that people vote reliable vs unreliable based upon the reliability of their actual reporting, regardless of "public perception". After all, this webiste is called "Wikipedia" not "Whatever-is-perceived-as-popular-pedia". Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again"^[1] according to Neilson data, and "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. ElectroChip123 (talk

) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The difference between Francois Robere's proposal and your rant is that he's worked very hard to back up and present serious evidence in support of his claim, whereas you just strung together a series of barely coherent assertions. Unless you can present specific diffs and links to support these assertions, you need to drop this false equivalence (or as it's called these days Whataboutism).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• if the Muller report verifies Trump's claim of "no collusion" then Mother Jones, Vox, Buzzfeed, SPLC, ect need to be blacklisted for peddling conspiracy theories Three problems here: First, you're making a highly unlikely hypothetical assumption to reject a concrete problem. Second, you're assuming the correct and factual reporting amassed by these outlets (which are generally careful not to make accusations of criminal activity against anyone) can be dismissed if its conclusions are wrong. Put differently, you're assuming a factual report about Trump's Russian ties is false, because those ties don't amount to eg. spying. Third, there's a massive difference between the occasional good faith reporting of falsities, which is usually prevented by a proper editorial process and treated by retraction, correction and possible dismissal; and the repeated peddling of over the top lies with no consequences to those doing the reporting. I cite several cases where Fox has done the latter, as well as multiple RS that explicitly use the term "propaganda" to describe it.

@

WP:FRINGE. Also, there is a reason I said "If" in my statement on the Muller report. Clearly, if the report shows "no collusion" in spite of your firm belief that Trump colluded, then you will refuse to concede that CNN peddled a conspiracy theory. Also, even college students (not the most conservative demographic out there) believe that MSNBC has a liberal (left-wing) bias. ElectroChip123 (talk

) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like." Let's see these "multiple RS". And not in Opinion pieces but in news reporting. Otherwise, stop making baseless claims. "Don't be a WP:POVFIGHTER." - take your own advice bud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

CNN, Buzzfeed News, Vox, The Atlantic, the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC news, CBS. ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen multiple RS use the term "propaganda" to describe anyone they don't like I assume you have a concrete idea on why

WP:BLPTALK

. I suggest clarifying what you meant or striking it out.

I didn't mention names. In fact, I was referring to CNN (and others) as a whole. CNN is not a "living person", and thus most of the "BLP" guidelines don't apply to it. Out of

It supports something that I don't like". ElectroChip123 (talk

) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I assumed you were engaging on the sources (which are named and very much alive - hence

WP:BLPTALK), but if you're just making general comments based on your own observations, then what's the point of this discussion? François Robere (talk

) 19:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The rest of your statements are either irrelevant (asking about an editor's nationality, in particular, is off color) or not backed by sources. As an aside, and to demonstrate why providing sources is so important, note that your claims regarding the Kavanaugh case, for example, are false on their face: the FBI did not exonerate Kavanaugh (nor did they reach any other conclusion),[37] and the police wasn't even involved.[38] François Robere (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS Can you cite sources stating that Maddow's reporting is so often incorrect and politically motivated (not just biased, but targeted to support specific parties or politicians), that it amounts to propaganda? Can you cite sources stating that other MSNBC hosts do the same, and that its "news" side is subsequently affected? For example, several Fox hosts routinely appear in Republican candidates' election events; is this something that, to the best of your knowledge, repeats in MSNBC?

@François Robere:You can't seriously believe that Rachel Maddow's show is not politically biased. I mean. Seriously. She literally cried when Trump won in 2016, and she cried when Muller recommended no new indictments. You can look up the news segments yourself. Also, she was pushing that Muller would "indict Trump jr. any day now, impeachment any day now". How'd that one pan out? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't what anyone here believes, it's about whether you have source to back your claim. You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts, which you admit spread conspiracy theories and other babble. I'm asking for proof that is indeed the case. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], and NYT even refuted one of her points [[42]]. Also, don't make a false comparison. "You claimed Maddow is comparable to Fox's hosts" no, I claimed the talk shows are mentioned separately for every thing that is listed as a RS and has a talk show. Should Rachel Maddow's show be used to revoke the MSNBC's title of RS (if it had that title)? Clearly, no. Hannity, Tucker, Laura, Judge Piero, etc, are right-wing, and do occasionally dabble in conspiracies. That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do. The talk show hosts on Fox are equally as biased as the talk show hosts on other networks, neither of which have anything to do with the realiabilty of the repective news network. ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• That said, they do it just as much as the talk show hosts on other news networks do Can you cite sources supporting this statement?

@François Robere: I can cite sources of this, but it's also common knowledge, I mean, you don't live in that much of an echo chamber, do you? ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can, then please do. That is not common knowledge. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ElectroChip123, cite the damn sources or quit wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• citing the recent example of the Covington debacle Let's do that. I've ran a search in the four media outlets you mentioned earlier (along with the SPLC, but they made no statement on that on their website): in their initial reporting three of the outlets used the terms "taunt" and "mock" sporadically, but were otherwise neutral and thorough, including context and the usual caveats [43][44][45][46]; all but Vox (which does analysis rather than reporting) reported on the teens' responses in a neutral, uneditorializing fashion [47][48][49][50]; all reported on subsequent, contradictory videos [51][52][53][54]; all but Vox reported on the Diocese report [55][56][57]; and all published opinions criticizing previous reporting and trying to draw conclusions to prevent it from happening in the future [58][59][60][61]. Does this sound like Fox News to you?

@François Robere:The fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting. If they had made "neutral assessments" of the video when they first reported on it, why would the have to issue follow up articles denouncing their undue bias and hateful rhetoric towards the kids? If it was reported on neutrally, why did the kids at Covington receive death threats? Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" (your words, not mine). Also, Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong. In the Covington case, they waited before jumping to conclusions, this meant they stuck to reporting just the facts of the incident and thus they had nothing to retract. He didn't "taunt" or "mock" in the original video, he just stood there. Those statements alone were incendiary, and led to death threats. Also, you don't retract or write articles criticizing your own work for bias if your own work was written from a NPOV the entire time. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

he fact that all except Fox had to later issue retractions of their original reporting shows that all of them, except for Fox, were biased/incorrect in their original reporting Yeah, but the two cases aren't even remotely close. There's nothing wrong in making an honest mistake - and that video was convincing. It says nothing of Fox's accuracy either, though the fact the fact that Fox diverges so much and so often from virtually everyone else does raise questions about Fox - questions to which we already have answers.

Nothing in the original video comes close to warranting the response it was given by "everyone except Fox" What exactly was that response? I just showed you that, overall, all four outlets provided balanced, and usually nuanced coverage of the affair; with the only so called "bias" being a sporadic use of 2-3 biasing terms in the initial report. This is hardly comparable to how Fox conspiracies: repeatedly, in multiple shows throughout the day, for anywhere from days to months, and without any critical outlook or balance.

Fox News does issue retractions, when they get the facts wrong As noted in my little essay, there's been cases when they failed to retract for months, and others where when they eventually retracted, they did so partially or replaced one biased phrase with another; and unlike virtually all other networks, they never fire anyone for falsifying information or intentionally introducing bias to reports. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• all of your points apply to every single RS in the list You're welcome to argue that if you have the sources to support it. At the moment you're dismissing legitimate and well-founded concerns (by which I mean they're supported by a plethora of sources arguing or leading to the same) based on opinion alone.
• I'm just pointing out that your "seven deadly sins of..." clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't give an unbiased assessment of Fox News First off,
  WP:FALSEBALANCE
  , and I'm not trying to.

@

neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? ElectroChip123 (talk

) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a severe misunderstanding of policy. First of all, the fact that it's the most watched network doesn't say anything about its truthfulness. The three most widely read newspapers in the UK are Metro, the Sun and the Daily Mail, and all three were deprecated.[62][63] Second, question of majority and minority views isn't measured with respect to readership, but with respect to other sources. Fox is clearly in the minority on a whole slew of subjects with respect to most other sources, both liberal and conservative, meaning we're not actually obligated to represent it for balance.

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs We're not righting wrongs, we're choosing reasonable sources. This is well within our mandate.

Furthermore, how can we ensure our articles are written from a neutral point of view if we only look at one sides POV? Are we? We regularly cite a whole slew of conservative sources, from the Wall Street Journal to the National Review; I doubt Fox has anything to add on top of these in terms of breadth or depth. Also, this argument of yours could be used just as well in favor of de-deprecating AlterNet and Occupy Democrats, which I doubt you'll support. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Lastly, a major counterpoint to everything you wrote is that Fox News is the most watched news network on cable, again" according to Neilson data This isn't a counterpoint, just an ad populum.

@François Robere: Except that it counters your false balance claims. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See explanation above. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• "one study" could say drinking diet coke is great for you, that doesn't mean it actually is. Unfortunately Wikipedia is driven by
  WP:RS, so we're forced to consider that one study whatever the truth may be. In the case of Fox News we have not one study or critique but many, and we ought to consider all of them with respect to using Fox as a source. François Robere (talk
  ) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:DUEWEIGHT. ElectroChip123 (talk

) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No one said anything of the sort. What I said is that Fox's viewers are less informed than viewers of other networks, and that's backed by at least five studies, not one. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• If your goal is to have us depreciate Fox, you have waisted a lot of time and effort. It ain’t going to happen. Every point you have raised has been discussed to death before, and rejected. Each is true about EVERY news outlet. However, if you shift goals and broaden your concern... and focus on drafting a clearer guideline as to what makes ANY news outlet reliable/unreliable, then a lot of what you have noted could be quite useful. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Each is true about EVERY news outlet" This is completely false to an extent that strongly suggests that you didn't even bother reading the points. As an obvious example, take #6. Is it the case that there are studies for "EVERY news outlet" which show the viewers are "less informed than other outlets"? I mean, that'd be kinda impossible since they can't all be less informed then each other. Do "EVERY news outlet" lack editorial control over their website content? Etc. The whole point is that Fox News is 'completely unlike "EVERY news outlet" and FR has provided ample evidence to support that. As such, it should be treated differently from "EVERY [other] news outlet". As not-RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the point was that basically every news outlet has similar issues and singling out Fox News is obviously a politically-loaded decision. Providing half truths and distorting those views that have different political stances is true of every one of them (as a recent example, CNN and Washington Post actually fabricated a story about the MAGA hat kid). So we should just be aware of bias and know that, as far as informing goes, all of them are pretty reliable, and we should handle opinions as such.Aoszkar (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well the issue is not about certain issues being true in principal for each news outlet, but rather question of degree and frequency of those issues. There is possibly an argument to be made that Fox differs from other (mainstream) news outlets in that regard. The question is whether degree/frequency of issues with Fox have passed a threshold, that from a WP perspective we should advice normally not to use it as we do with other news outlets with a high degree/frequency of issues like for istance the Daily Mail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources routinely refer to Fox News as "propaganda", noting its close ties to the Republican party and its frequent push of a political agenda of its own. This isn't something that repeats with any other outlet. And even if we managed to filter all of that out and only use its most pristine reporting (which would be problematic and might run counter to sources), then we'll inadvertently introduce problems stemming from everything else the network does (see §4.1 and §5.1 here). François Robere (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's certainly true that the morons who blindly support Fox News will continue to bleat their support, regardless of the facts. That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept its use as a source in an online reference work that pretends to be an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We always go around and around on Fox News, so here is my current understanding on how consensus for this has worked in the past.

• Fox News political opinion content is not a source of information, except as a direct quote or paraphrase directly attributed to the speaker, and not on the factual content of the speaker's statement. That is, we can cite Fox News's opinion and commentary to say "John Doe said 'Yada yada yada'" only, and NOT for anything else, such as to verify the veracity of John Doe's statement. That is, we shouldn't use political commentary to speak in Wikipedia's voice.
• Fox News actual news is reliable in the sense that they have editorial control and a desire to report true statements. Now, like many news sources (one could argue all sources), Fox News has a particular voice that it presents that news in, and that voice manifests itself in which things it chooses to report on and not report on, and on what tone to take while reporting, but insofar as Wikipedia has it's own voice (being
  WP:NPOV
  ) and own tone, so long as we restrict ourselves to merely using the content (rather than miming the tone) of Fox News's legitimate news operation, it is not forbidden to use it as a source, as it meets the hallmarks of a reliable source.

That's my understanding of the current state of affairs. --Jayron32 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. There are several problems with this, though: a) Fox's news operation is not that distinct from it's "talk" operation - hosts casually move between shows and host other hosts with no critical checks, some express controversial political opinions etc. b) They're not actually that good. In terms of quality of reporting alone, except for a handful of reporters I wouldn't place them above tabloid level at the best of times. There's no "60 Minutes" there, there are no Watergate-style revelations etc. In theory they have the capacity to match CNN in terms of "breaking news" and straightforward reporting (Shep Smith leads their "break news" division, and he's frequently hailed as one of that handful of good reporters), but that's surrounded by so much cruft I don't think they should enjoy the benefit of the doubt as a network. c) There's no problem with having a "voice" per se; the problem is when that voice overrides general journalistic concerns, pushing unsubstantiated fallacies (the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, everything Clinton, manufactured controversies on climate change. etc.) or ignoring newsworthy items. For example, on one occasion Fox chose to completely ignore headline-making Muller revelations, and spent most of their airtime featuring a murder story involving immigrants (which is tragic and worthy of reporting, but the question of why they chose to focus on that one out of about fifty murders that take place in the US every day). If the bottom line of a network is that the viewers are less informed on current affairs than they should be - and there are studies on that - yet while their biases are aligned with the network's, then that "voice" is overwhelming and casts doubt on the very nature of the network as a news network (which is exactly what most sources do, BTW). This isn't the case with other networks' "voices", and anyone claiming otherwise has a burden of proof to satisfy. d) There is something to be said about the quality of information we present if allows sources this bad. To me this looks like a purely Wikipedian phenomenon: Fox News isn't used in academy, would never have been cited on Britannica, isn't referenced by governments - hell, it won't even pass the Sister Test™^[2] - yet here people jump through hoops to allow it to pass as halfway decent. And heavens forbid if someone actually follows a source like that - Fox News mixes stuff all the time, and giving them the credence of a serious news organization is misleading for our readers in a very basic sense (see §4.1 here). François Robere (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I wouldn't let my sister in a room with MSNBC for half an hour. That said, it's not my decision what my older sibling spends her time on. Again you conflate its talk shows with its actual news reports in the name of tendentious editing. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, I submit that the burden of proof is on you to provide sources showing they are not of the same nature, if I've provided sources that refuse to make that distinction. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Related to this, do we have a list of news organizations that didn't push the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia or was a Russian agent for two years straight with no evidence, and didn't bother to apologize after Mueller confirmed that it was a conspiracy theory? So far I can only come up with one: Fox News. Galathadael (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Indef banned

WP:SPA user illustrating why reasonable, common sense proposals like this have so much trouble getting affirmed. We need to cut this Gordian Knot and get serious about our RS policy.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm...I'm seeing alot of negative claims about Fox News that are not supported by RS - excluding their competitors. Let's see some sources otherwise we're looking at OR based on opposition research. Hmmm, why does that sound familiar? It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor, especially one that overshadows them in the ratings, and is capturing the bulk of available advertising $$. I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that doesn't have or hasn't had their share of blunders, conspiracy theories, or that don't use propaganda and sensationalism to increase ratings. Are we on the road to going nowhere fast? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. As of the most recent count, I have some 75 references there, from "tweets" to peer-reviewed papers.

@François Robere: We're citing tweets now? I didn't think twitter was a RS. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to check the actual citations and tell me yourself. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's easy for other networks/media sources to spew hatred and spread disinformation about a top competitor Just as it's easy for the top competitor to spread all sorts of disinformation to solidify its market share. Indeed, for Fox News it is part of the business model these days, having been born as a venture for more accessible - some would say lighter, or popular - right-leaning news, quickly turning to sensationalism and partisanship to grow its share. BTW, Fox's main revenue stream comes from subscribers,[64] and its the NBC group that carries the advertising market.[65]

I am also not aware of any media outlets with a pundit line-up that... I'm not aware of any network where those problems go beyond the occasional pundit to form the basis of the network's business model, as sources suggest is the case with Fox. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: What are you saying here? Also, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, rely on talk shows for viewership. Again, just look at the Nielson data. ElectroChip123 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying hypotheticals are not a substitute for sources. What's your point regarding talk shows? François Robere (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a list of news outlets that did (

WP:BURDEN)? AFAIK there is and was plenty of evidence of such, and news outlets reported on it as is; and in case of opinion articles, gave proper analysis and the usual caveats. François Robere (talk

) 13:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that deprecating Fox News is probably never going to happen. It's been discussed many times before, so while

consensus can change, it probably won't. SemiHypercube

16:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that previous discussions went in circles and lacked clear consensus, I don't think that previously anyone has taken the trouble to document so extensively why Fox News isn't reliable as Francois Robere has. This may be too optimistic but one would hope that the evidence compiled does change some reasonable minds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My mind hasn’t changed. I continue to feel that Fox’s news division is reliable for basic facts, and that their opinion/analysis programs are reliable for attributed statements of opinion/analysis. The same is true for ALL of the major news outlets. Instead of depreciating news sources, we should focus on teaching editors how to use them... how to recognize and separate news reporting from opinion/analysis, and how to place each in proper context. We need to recognize bias, and account for it (ie phrasing what we write appropriately)... but we also need to accept that ALL news outlets are biased, and (per WP:NPOV) we can not depreciate sources that have a bias we don’t like. We have to include opinions we don’t personally agree with. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a much appreciated common sense reply. We should be able to move beyond the unproductive attitude of "this news source is unreliable since it has a different point of view from mine".Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If someone provided similar arguments related to CNN or Vox, would you handle them the same way? Could we expect "reasonable minds" to be changed based on facts? Because I've seen them misinform and even fabricate news to smear those on another side of the political spectrum. Aoszkar (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree with Blueboar that "ALL news outlets are biased" [to some degree], but that does not make them equal in terms of WP:RS. No, absolutely not. Some of them are known for rigorous fact checking, others are known for cooking disinformation. What
  WP:RS tells is this: always use the best quality sources available on the subject. So, one should generally recommend sources other than FOX on US politics. It does not mean FOX can not be used. Yes, it can, just like Russia RT, but only if the contributor is familiar with the subject and what other sources tell about it. This is not always the case. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 18:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity... which news outlets do you think have rigorous fact checking? Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• That depends on subject area. For example, I think CNN would be OK on US politics. I do not usually check Fox News, but when I look there are frequently outright distortions. For example, just today, they claim that a presidential candidate admitted something ("Zelenskiy's image has been shadowed by his admission that he had..."), when he in fact denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The ones that use Wikipedia as their substitute for a fact checking department of course! On a wider note, all of the above discussion could have been avoided if only someone several years ago had stamped on that editor with his obsessive ideological bugbear about the Daily Mail. Having one pov-led blanket ban on one mainstream source lead to calls for more and more pov-led blanket bans on other mainstream sources is not an unintended consequence, it is an entirely predictable consequence. 89.242.251.96 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• The fact that a Wikipedia editor thinks Fox has a news division makes me question their judgment, if not their sanity. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I would actually argue at this point that WP should find every way it can possible to keep Fox News's news-reporting side as a reliable source (not its talk shows etc.) if we want to avoid creating even more external critical that WP runs liberal - it is basically the last mainstream RS source that is on the right side of the political spectrum (per the chart from Pew Research in this [66]). In that we can keep it and allow editors to use the news reporting side, but that no one is forced to use it. We want to show WP supports the use of a wide range of RSes that have political bias. Yes, media is inheriently liberal and there are very few conservative outlets to start, but the push to remove Fox , after we've gotten rid of Daily Mail and Breitbart, would be enough for those that are already critical of WP's bias to firm up their arguments. Unless we can really show beyond a doubt that Fox News' news reporting completely lacks journalistic integrity, then we should be looking for every reason to keep the news side as "tolerably" reliable. --Masem (t) 15:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I wish folks would stop stating that the Pew Research paper says anything about where news sources are on the political spectrum. It only looks at the viewers, not at what they are viewing. Indeed, it's conclusion is that news sources tend to focus on negative aspects of current politicians, whether right or left. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been shown that liberals are much more varied in their news consumption than conservatives, and its more common for them to watch Fox as well. This suggests Fox would naturally be drawn towards the middle in this kind of surveying vs. where it itself stands ideologically. Mind this is from early 2014, meaning it's dated given the changes Fox went through starting 2016. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to raise the PR issue, but there's a flip side to what you're suggesting: what do we signal by including Fox News to everyone else? That we're willing to accept sources that virtually no serious academic or journalistic source accepts? Another question is whether allowing Fox's news side would actually achieve the desired effect: avid Fox viewers generally consider Hannity et al. just as reliable as Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith (the latter of which many of them supposedly despise due to his contrarian efforts); if we only allow half, or a third of their favored anchors, will it be enough to gain their trust? I do think we should allow a subset of their news department, but not all of it, and not the website. François Robere (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi's online book Hate, Inc.

Washington Times

among others on the other side.

One of the book's chapters illustrates how those credibility issues became evident in reporting on the "Russian Collusion" controversy after the release of Robert Mueller's special counsel report on those allegations. Taibbi showed the degree to which the national beat press was unreliable and biased in their reporting on "Russian Collusion", with wide use of unreliable sources such as the Steele memo and unsupported reporting of other developments.

If we're rating news outlets like

WP:PUS

for slanted reporting, we should do that to every other news agency reported in secondary sources as having done the same thing.

I have a simpler suggestion - accept the fact of reportorial slant among many news sources on juicy stories with a political angle, and use

WP:PUS

.

Picking and choosing which news sources are too biased for us can be viewed can be seen as getting around our

WP:BIASED allows wikipedia editors to use their own judgment on possibly contentious sources, especially on issues such as "Russian Collusion". loupgarous (talk

) 01:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So it's an

WP:SPS column published before the full report even became public, following the USAG's controversial - and, as we now know, partial - statements?[67][68][69]

Unconvincing, and wrong (among other things on the Steele dossier, but that's for another discussion).

Please examine the excerpts above. Do you have reliable secondary sources that suggest the same degree of bias and lack of editorial standards as Fox has in any other outlet? François Robere (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

One whole part of tghe problem is the current broken nature of the rush to include talking head opinions on breaking news articles, particularly about Trump and figures on the right, given that without that type of opinion it would not be allowed per BLP; but we shouldnt' be rushing to inclde these opinions in the first place per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. We create the external problem of apparent bias on WP because we appear to be eliminating voices from the right, when in fact that problem is is that we're rushing to include voices from the left without consdiering the long-term approach an encyclopedia should be. If we eliminate Fox News simply because they have a bias and their journalistic integrity is not as spotless as NYTimes but they do have them, we're going to get slammed with more complaints.

But stepping back away from anything controvserial -- Fox News is known to cover topics that are generally conservative and not so much liberal. Just as more of the rest of the mass media, given their druthers, would focus on liberal topics over conservative. As long as we're talking purely factual, non-contentious material, we want to include topics from both areas. We need Fox News more than ever so we are not simply cutting off topics that would be reasonably covered in whole with Fox News present but would be fail notability or other factors if it was only covered by the media on the left. (And I stress again, you have to consired the non-polticial stuff that Fox is covering here).

I have no qualm about putting anything from the talking heads from FOX at a far far distance from anything as a factual source because we know those exaggerate and propagation bad stories. But the proposed reason to cut off the legit news reporting from Fox is thinking too much in the near-term and not the long. --Masem (t) 05:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is or isn't a problem, but I agree commentary on ongoing events should be carefully curated.

I'm sure Fox has a different agenda in its "legitimate" coverage, but I'm not sure it's as important as you (and others) suggest in reflecting the conservative "world". It's certainly not important in reflecting conservative thought (where economic newspapers, weekly magazines and think tanks are dominant), so it's only for day-to-day affairs that it's relevant. I'm not sure removing Fox would put such a big dent in the scope of our coverage, but if you've examples of where you think their POV would be useful I'm open to that.

It must be recognized, however, that most of the time Fox is no better than a tabloid. If we were comparing it to the Daily Mirror (et al.) the comparison would be just slightly favorable to Fox. It's a bad outlet. If there's no "innocent" source for the day-to-day, non-political (and possibly non-a-few-other-things) affairs Fox covers, then such a limitation could also be acceptable. But again, need concrete examples. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Your conclusions are infinitely debatable, especially considering they come at a time when ratings for FOX News are soaring because of the general public's belief that the network's offerings are fair and balanced. Their coverage of the Russian collusion delusion (as some refer to it) proved to be accurate in that there was no collusion per the Mueller report. For 2+ years, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes and WaPo have been inundating audiences with false claims and conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion and to date, none have retracted anything they've written, so they fail on fact-checking and retractions. I'm also a bit concerned over some of the decisions/results of past discussions that have condemned nearly all conservative sources as unreliable except for a few. It's feasible to think some may need revisiting, especially in light of paid editing involvement and concerns over the whitewashing of certain WP articles about left-leaning networks like NBC. Jill Abramson, former executive of NYTimes, exposed their anti-Trump bias in her book and expressed concern over them losing all credibility. I could go on and on with each RS the same way FOX News has been criticized but I'm not here to write an article. My concern is attempts to silence conservative views when we should be looking at sources and material in those sources from a NPOV. An interesting study about cable news watchers sheds light on some of the things we also need to consider. We don't want to fall into the same traps we've seen at some universities where certain groups don't agree with a particular POV and attempt to silence rather than listen to opposing views. Sadly, some attempts have even resorted to violence. Censorship and POV pushing in any form is harmful to the project, as would be a declaration that a RS is unreliable based on the criticisms of biased competitors or because they don't validate our own beliefs. We need to adhere more closely to

WP:BALANCE when we're dealing with news sources, pundits, analysis, and various other forms of journalistic opinion VS easily recognizable statements of fact. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

12:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

soaring That's already been pointed out as an ad populum. All the rest of the arguments have similarly been repeated ad nauseam. They are false equivalencies. This is the type of thinking that Fox promotes, and why it's such a problem. --

talk

) 16:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And the false equivalency argument has been pointed out ad nauseum - in summary, it's all part of the debate process. Your reference to "the type of thinking that Fox promotes" is what I find disconcerting. What exactly is the "type of thinking" you're referring to? It obviously doesn't align with your particular type of thinking (or POV), whatever that may be - I couldn't care less. Our job is to include all relevant views rather than a single POV. I could understand concern if FOX dropped in the ratings as drastically as CNN and MSNBC, or if credible journalists started jumping ship and writing books about how politically biased their reporting is - you would probably garner more attention but until then, we use what we have...Vox, WaPo, Politico, and on and on. We write what RS say. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And the false equivalency argument As long as such arguments are being made, expect them to be called out as such.

it's all part of the debate process It's not a debate any more than Fox is news. That's the problem.

What exactly... Propaganda.

It obviously doesn't align with your... Ad hominem.

Our job is No, it's to create a respectable encyclopedia. --

talk

) 00:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)