Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 260←Archive 265Archive 266Archive 267Archive 268Archive 269Archive 270

Call-out culture

These are all op-eds, can they be used for a statement of fact, or anything other than the authors own words?

Article: Call-out culture Bacondrum (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

None of those are op-eds, so I'm assuming you mean opinion pieces. It is increasingly difficult to tell whether something should be considered an opinion piece or actual journalism, partly because they're not always labelled and partly because lots of publishers blend the two together. This is a problem because opinion articles usually only receive a cursory fact check, while actual journalism reflects the publisher's reputation for accuracy. Of the sources you listed, only the NY Times piece by David Brooks is labelled "opinion"; that's definitely opinion and can only be used as a source for David Brooks' opinion. For the others, I think you have to consider the author, the context, and the style.
The other NY Times piece is not labelled opinion, and Jonah Engel Bromwich appears to be a regular contributor to the paper [1]. Judging by this article's style and the other articles he's written, I'd say this should be considered journalism and not opinion. More than anything else, it reads like a primer on the topic for those unfamiliar with the term.
The CBC piece is labelled a "blog" and thus falls under WP:NEWSBLOG: we have to look at the particular situation to determine whether it should be treated as opinion or journalism. The author, Jesse Kinos-Goodin, is a permanent staff member of CBC [2] (or at least he runs this blog for them). The q blog seems to includes a mix of listicles and other entertainment news. So this one's unclear.
The New Statesman article is not labelled opinion, but they don't appear to label anything opinion, so that's not good evidence either way. The author wrote a series of articles for them over the course of two weeks in November last year. She's also written a number of articles for other publications. This is a little unclear, but I'd lean towards saying it can be used as a source.
As for Vice... I really don't know whether to call what they do there journalism. Maybe they have some worthwhile material. Just from reading this article it's obviously opinion, and thus should not be used for anything. Unless there's some major secondary sources who consider Connor Garel's opinion on the matter somehow authoritative. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  1. II will just answer the basic question, not analyse any of the sources. No, op-edds or opinion pieces should not be used for statements of fact (by their nature even the publisher think they are only opinions).Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Total Environment Centre

Total Environment Centre claims to have been operating for 40 years but I'm 59 and never heard of them. The site gives the distinct impression that it's an activist site. http://www.wastenot.org.au, a wordpress website, is linked to TEC. A WHOIS shows that both domains are registered to Jeff Angel, the "Executive Director" of TEC, which itself is registered as a not for profit organisation. Can either of these websites be regarded as reliable? My gut says no but I would appreciate some opinions, especially in relation to Waste management in Australia where wastenot.org.au is used significantly as a source. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems Total Environment Centre have definitely been around for ages. Looks like Mitchell Library holds papers dating back to 1975 per this. At NSW Govt handsard site there's this from 1991, this from 2008 calls them "a lead environmental agency" and Jeff Angel is mentioned here. Some more TEC publications are listed at NLA here. Many results for Angel's books and articles, including peer reviewed, at Mitchell. JennyOz (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: IMDb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
checkY Consensus in favor. ∯WBGconverse 16:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Should IMDb (Internet Movie Database) be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which tells User:XLinkBot to automatically revert edits containing citations of IMDb in <ref> tags by unregistered users and accounts under 7 days old? This behavior is subject to additional limitations described at User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. Most of IMDb is user-generated and unusable for Wikipedia articles, as established by 12 previous discussions on this noticeboard. Despite this, many less experienced editors continue to cite IMDb inappropriately, which introduces violations of the verifiability and living persons policies into articles on a regular basis. Adding IMDb to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList would slow the addition of these inappropriate citations.

    New editors and unregistered users who add a reference to IMDb would be reverted by User:XLinkBot, as seen in Special:Diff/897360391 for Discogs. XLinkBot would then send the user a talk page warning that looks like Special:Diff/897360410. The warning tells the user to undo the bot's revert if they believe the edit was appropriate.

    The RevertReferencesList is currently used to reduce inappropriate citations to Discogs (RSP entry) and Crunchbase (RSP entry). External links to IMDb, which are encouraged in WP:ELP § IMDb, are not affected by this proposed measure. This RfC is the continuation of a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § IMDB. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes I did not know such a thing existed, given this is a user generated content site Yes, yes we should.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - It has been well established that IMDB is not a reliable source and, like Wikipedia, virtually anyone can edit it. DarkKnight2149 18:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic f yeah it's not even that "virtually" anyone can edit it - anyone can edit it and to remove false content (lord knows I've tried, repeatedly) is next to impossible. And also maybe an AWB bot run would be nice to remove it from any existing articles as a reference and replace it with CN.Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: I've had similar experiences. For some reason, the site allows to people to post information without proof, but it's policy you have to prove that it's not true in order for it to be removed. What kind of an information base is that? In one particular instance, someone posted their non-factual subjective opinion of a movie in the "Trivia" section but put an obligatory "It's considered..." in front of it. I tried to have it removed on those grounds, but the change was denied because of their backwards "proof" policy :/ DarkKnight2149 07:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can do better than that! I once contacted IMDb, with proof, that one series in their listing contained a fictitious episode that did not exist, and it was still rejected because "EpGuides (another site that doesn't have perfect trackrecord) agrees with IMDb's current info". So even if you give them proof, IMDb still won't fix wrong stuff! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If anything I would support reverting anything by non-extended confirmed and/or notification about why this is a bad reference for anyone. It is a great external link so I wouldn't support blacklist but anything we can do to discourage/prevent its use as a serious reference should be done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 18:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Surely there are other sources for this information?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I've checked several featured articles of recent films, and it looks like the MPAA rating is usually not included in a film's article unless it was mentioned by reliable sources. The credits can reference official listings published by film companies, TV companies, or other distributors. It's also acceptable omit a citation for the credits, which implies that the credits were sourced from the film itself as a primary source, much like the track listing in album articles. — Newslinger talk 18:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
So we lose nothing by the above suggestion, and avoid any wiklaywering about "butitsreliableforthisism".Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be best to avoid citing IMDb completely. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One should note that the New York Times no longer "fact checks" its own articles, as the era of old-time newspapers has faded. That it used sources Wikipedia declines to use does not suddenly make such sources reliable. What it does do is make the "guaranteed reliable sources" no longer able to be guaranteed. They even abolished the Public Editor position with its head saying our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog. Anyone care to defend that statement? Collect (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The New York Times has different goals and a different purpose than Wikipedia. In this context, it's what we would consider a WP:SECONDARY source - it has its own fact-checking mechanisms and reputation, and the journalists it employs are notionally experts, capable of providing interpretation on their own. None of that applies to Wikipedia - we rely on secondary sources like the NYT to provide interpretation and fact-checking for us. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Because we are not discussing it. Moreover I can write for IMDB, I cannot write for the NYT.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hollywood Life

I have to ask question, is Hollywood Life is a reliable source for celebrities? [4] --TheGreen921 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Best to provide a specific source, article, and content.
Probably not per the need for high-quality references in WP:BLP articles. I wouldn't use it for notability nor anything remotely controversial. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hollywood Life is a reliable source. However, most of the stories it covers go well beyond what articles should cover. While I had no doubt that Rihanna went on a short tourist cruise in Capri (big story on the front page), it is too insignificant to include in her article. Otherwise, care is need in reading celebrity gossip magazines. Always distinguish between what the magazine reports in its own voice and when it quotes sources that may or may not be correct. TFD (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:SNOW closure. Most commenters object to the wording of the RfC statement. Interested editors are advised to participate in the discussion above ("Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change"). — Newslinger talk 02:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Is Fox News a generally reliable source for reporting related to climate change? - MrX 🖋 18:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a malformed question, and a an outgrowth over the rather tempestuous discussion above. Is anyone actually claiming that it is? --Jayron32 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Fox News is used extensively as a source on Wikipedia, so the presumption is that its new reporting is reliable. The discussion above calls that into question, at least on the topic of climate change. As we can see above, yes, some people are actually claiming that it is.- MrX 🖋 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. I don't think we should be using RfCs to decide whether a media outlet is "generally" reliable for certain subject matter. Context matters, and each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. A controversial but relatively mainstream outlet like Fox News is a good example of that. Asking editors to gauge its "general" reliability without a specific test case effectively boils down to a popularity contest. R2 (bleep) 19:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree with this, and we need a moratorium on challenging Fox news as a RS beyond what has been already established unless there is clear evidence that they are making stuff up. --Masem (t) 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, in the above discussion, there is clear evidence that are making stuff up.- MrX 🖋 19:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There's truth-stretching, but not falsification. --Masem (t) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
So our standard for a reliable source is "one that only stretches the truth"..? My standard for a reliable car is "one that doesn't break down", not "one that breaks down but doesn't explode." François Robere (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Its how frequent (or more desirably infrequent) they stretch the truth. ALL RSes do this today, but some more than others and some very little of the time (eg BBC and NYTimes). --Masem (t) 19:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you know of any network that does it this frequently? François Robere (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
We can line-up all the left leaning RS that desparage/criticize right leaning RS and vice versa, put them in a big ole basket, and probably guess what each side will say about the other. They are competitors. If you're expecting the competition to say nice things about their opposition (be it political or whatever) - the ones who are taking food off the tables of the other and threatens their very existence - don't hold your breath. I have yet to read an ad by MacDonald's boasting about how much better a Burger King Whopper is than a Big Mac. They are competing with one another. News sources are not academic sources - there has been a paradigm shift in the way news is reported today - we now have pundits and opinion journalism disguised as news. It's time we catch-up to 21st century reporting on the internet. There are numerous historians and academics who have published papers/books/research about this very topic - start with the Harvard report (see my RS above) and keep going - it sometimes seems like it's neverending. Atsme Talk 📧 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Is CNN more likely to draw crowds from Fox or from MSNBC? In other words: does it have more of a motive (per your argument) to criticize Fox or MSNBC? François Robere (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
To be fair on that Media Matters, ~half of the incidents are the talking heads shows we've already dismissed (Fox & Friends, etc.) The remain half that I have spot checked is the televised news program. And while there are clearly wrong facts, one can argue if that's tied to the rush of reporting or speaking on the spot, whereas the print version of Fox has the time to correct. We don't usually look to televised news, but what ends up in print as the sources for information. And even for RS televised networks I've rarely seen an errata or apology on the station unless the news report was so far off the mark. --Masem (t) 21:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
One could certainly find justifications for some of Fox's mishaps; the only question we should consider is whether, according to RS, other outlets make the same mishaps at similar frequencies. AFAICT that isn't the case, so the "rush of reporting" isn't a satisfactory explanation, and we ought to consider eg. poor editorial standards. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The context is "[news] reporting about climate change". We have had many such RfCs. If you don't want to participate in this RfC, that's your choice.- MrX 🖋 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, Blueboar. Atsme Talk 📧 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Only it's a false equivalence. Popular media is to blame for a lot of things, including over-simplification of science, but it rarely does so intentionally and never zealously in whatever political direction that suits it. Fox News does both, frequently distorting the facts beyond recognition. I'll grant you that not only Fox does that: Michael Mann notes that other News Corp outlets do it as well.[1] François Robere (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
News should never be used for scientific verification.... it should only be used for opinions... and even then very sparingly especially American Media.--Moxy 🍁 21:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Moxy. The claim that it is False equivalency is being used as an excuse whenever there isn't a valid argument (at the expense of serious issues where that actually is the case). The same talking points are mirrored/repeated relentlessly throughout like-minded RS. Has nothing to do with FE and everything to do with advertising dollars, filling unsold time slots, and repeating the news director's POV while trying to maintain credibility...until the lines cross, as what happened here nothing will change. And then there is this. Political science is at issue, not real science. Atsme Talk 📧 21:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC) 14:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hardly. Along with secondary sources that give quantitative analysis of just how much more biased Fox News is compared with the "mainstream" outlets, we have both secondary and tertiary sources explicitly stating that this "everyone are just as bad" sort of argument is a false equivalence. I've provided some two dozen quotes in the "expert opinion" section above, and I have three dozen more which you're invited to scrutinize. François Robere (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I was not trying to draw any “equivalency” (false or not) with my rephrasing of the question. I am honestly questioning whether it is appropriate to use news media as a source for information on science related topics. If we say “no” to that... then any questions about a specific outlet are irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Right. The problem is that this sort of argument, as valid as it may be, is twofold: first, it hides the fact that Fox News does distort the fact here in a way no other network does, and we must account for that in our treatment of Fox even if we don't accept any network's coverage for reasons of general accuracy; second, it ignores that fact that we actually do rely on the networks quite often for all kinds of legitimate uses: for analysis (eg. policy analysis and expert scientific commentary), as a tertiary source (eg. "The UN today published a report...") or for coverage of the public debate ("the EPA responded by..."). All of these uses are hampered by allowing the use of an extremely, and demonstrably biased source like Fox News without prejudice. Case in point: "climategate" a manufactured controversy[5] that Fox News pushed for years, which we were obligated to cover by Policy. François Robere (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar. This RfC needs specify whether we're talking about climate change science, or climate change politics. Any news organisation would be reliable for what what its own editors think about climate change, and it would probably be reliable for what such-and-such a politician said about climate change (but that might be worth considering on a case by case basis, depending on the organisation and politician in question), but I can't see why we'd use any news organisation as a source for any actual scientific content when we should be going to much more reliable academic publications. GirthSummit (blether) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Objection to RfC Support Blueboar who as usual has shown good insight. News media are not good sources for science. An academic hired to write a textbook for science students is not going to base it on articles in Fox News, CNN or other mass media, but will use academic sources. The policy of weight is sufficient in the AOC case. Facts or opinions reported in Fox News that are ignored in the other four major news networks lack weight. Similarly, facts or opinions reported only in MSNBC lack weight. TFD (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mann, Michael E. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231526388. OCLC 785782088.
  • Objection to RfC The question heading up this RfC is myopically focussed. Are we just evaluating the appropriateness of Fox News "for reporting related to climate change"? No, we are not. We are also interested in the qualifications in the area of science of a politician. The appropriateness of the source has to be considered for use in the context of an article that is the biography of a politician. There are sources that are especially appropriate "for reporting related to climate change" but how likely is it that such sources would be passing commentary on the qualifications in the area of science of a politician? Not very likely. Thus my conclusion is that Fox News or any other journalistic outlet is an entirely appropriate source for passing commentary on the qualifications of any politician in areas relating to science such as the study of climate change. If a source other than Fox News reaches different findings on Ocasio-Cortez on her qualifications to provide knowledgeable commentary on climate change then that other source should be included in addition to the Fox News source. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

another question

I’ll toss in yet another question: are politicians generally reliable sources for information on climate change? I would say no. So, perhaps we should stop mentioning every instance when some politician (regardless of party) bloviates and says something stupid on the subject. It gives the stupidity undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, no. And not a reliable source of information on nuclear warfare either, or its consequences. However … cygnis insignis 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
^_^ Blueboar, politicians aren't RS for information about politics (beyond verifiable facts) much less climate change. ;-) It's much better to wait for the experts to weigh-in and then we can present all relevent views. It won't be much longer (in comparison to light years) for historians and academics to publish their perspectives based on knowledgable retrospect. Atsme Talk 📧 21:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, on what pages? (1) On their own pages? (2) On pages where climate change are tied in to politics? (3) On pages of the science of climate change? starship.paint (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In general politicians are not scientists nor are they experts on climate change. So their views do not matter on climate change pages, but they may be relevant in the biographical pages of the politicians. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, in this case, the comment wasn't seen as encyclopedic for information about climate change, which is why it was added to her bio and not to Climate change. As for due weight, that is supposed to be determined by sources per WP:BALASP. The comment made headlines and continues to do so. That is why to ignore the comment in WP constitutes an NPOV violation. At the same time it is obviously true that we aren't here to document every asinine comment from a politician, and most assuredly we should not add them to the Pedia if they receive little coverage in mainstream media or elsewhere. But, after ignoring the many right-leaning sources covering this, we still have:

  • CNN Fact-checking Trump, AOC climate claims
  • USA Today 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says
  • Newsweek Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Warns, ‘World Is Going to End in 12 Years,’ Reiterating Claims of Recent U.N. Climate Change Report
  • WaPo Opinion Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

    • Taking the last one, that's not "WaPo Opinion", it's the opinion of Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist. He's published on climate change denial so maybe his view that AOC "is absolutely right" has some substance. . . dave souza, talk 13:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • USA Today 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says is the headline, but the article shows the quote in context:
      Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation's "World War II." "Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.
      Moral: never trust headlines, which get written by a sub-editor. . . . dave souza, talk 14:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I normally highlight the entire headline when linking to RS, I am not promoting the idea of focusing on them. One editor did try adding the entire quotation, but was immediately overturned for no given reason. So my addition was what I consider a good summary of the RS at the time ([AOC has] stated that the world will end in 12 years unless the problem is addressed). petrarchan47คุก 17:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: TRT World

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
checkY Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough. ∯WBGconverse 10:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the best way to describe the reliability of TRT World? --Jamez42 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It would probably help to use the four-option response format:
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
--Sunrise (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It will not be neutral and will be intrinsically unreliable. Media in Turkey is not classed as Free and TRT is a state-run body fully under the control of the Turkish government. [[6]] 89.242.251.96 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Reliable for what it's reliable for - I think you're going to have to be more specific about this: what are you relying on TRT to show? FOARP (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This RfC has been renewed for another 30 days due to low participation. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources for List of most visited museums

There is a robust discussion happening about what should be considered a reliable source when listing institutions on the List of most visited museums article. A big part of the discussion is whether or not the list should only rely on agreed upon, authoritative lists of museum attendance from reliable sources, or if any reliable source stating annual attendance can be used. Feedback on these matters and others listed in this RfC are welcome. Qono (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Al-Tabari and Tahdhib-ut Tahdhib in context of Muhammad bin Qasim

I wrote a sub-section in Early Life of Muhammad bin Qasim page, under the title of "[Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim]", where I provided modern scholarly sources to refer to the first task this person carried out as an officer in Umayyad army. However, to give the details of the punishment (which is important because a mere mention of punishment could mean a mild fine or anything), I followed the reference cited in the scholarly source to report this event, and then took the details of the punishment (flogging 400 lashes), from that early scholarly sources (al-Tabari and Tahdhib-ut Tahdhib). The editor tagged these sources to be unreliable, while the modern scholarly work heavily relies on the very sources, and they were cited in details of the same event that was referred in modern scholarly source cited before.

Can someone look into this matter and remove the unjust label?

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think at least your use Al-Tabari is OK per WP:PRIMARY (old reputably published primary source with full attribution stating a simple fact). However, the core issue here may be due weight - if only primary source lists some details that aren´t mentioned in more recent scholarship, then these details probably aren´t worth of inclusion in the article. Pavlor (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear Pavlor,thank you for the input. The question of due weight is also being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Could a source from 1825 be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia?

Could a source from 1825 -- for instance, this book about the geneaology of the House of Bourbon: https://books.google.com/books?id=rjsWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA483&dq=jean+seigneur+de+carency+1825&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF7pD-4cniAhWvJzQIHcqBB0wQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=jean%20seigneur%20de%20carency%201825&f=false -- be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards? On the one hand, this book is extremely dated (being almost 200 years old!), but at the same time, this book has value in the sense that it contains some information that modern books might not have. Obviously this book would be unreliable for information on post-1825 members of the House of Bourbon, but the information that it contains about the House of Bourbon for the centuries before 1825 should still be considered reliable even today, no? I mean, historical genealogy for the House of Bourbon for the centuries before 1825 would still be the same whether the source is from 1825 or from today (2019), no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry does not change a heck of a lot, so if the book was from a reputable source at the time, it is unlikely that statements of fact will have become wrong. Collect (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Howcheng has been adding a 1735 book as a reference for genealogy in dozens of articles. Frankly, I find that absurd. What counts as a reliable source, according to WP:V, are "academic and peer-reviewed publications" and "reliable non-academic sources, particularly ... respected mainstream publications". I do not think something older than the guillotine can be considered a reliable source for information about the Bourbons. If no modern, academic and peer-reviewed biography contains a specific piece of information, we should not reach for 300-year-old books to justify its inclusion. We should reflect modern scholarship and leave it out. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

These kinds of old sources are very common on history related pages (as primary sources) such as those on the ancient world, medieval world, etc. These old sources are acceptable to be used in wikipedia, but it usually is better to attribute the claims from the source to the source itself if you think that statement on the wikipedia article will be controversial. For example, "According to Nicolas Louis Achaintre, .....". At least it would not treat the source as factual automatically. See WP:Primary for more on how to handle these kinds of primary sources on Wikipedia. In general, the use of primary sources, should be limited, not extensive on most articles. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Neither of the two sources mentioned here can be understood as a primary source. An 18th century book recounting events from the 14th century is not a primary source. We are discussing secondary sources which, if I interpret the terms "academic", "peer-reviewed" and "respected mainstream publications" correctly, do not exactly meet the reliable source criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see your point. Nonetheless, they are usable as secondary sources because that is what most historigraphical sources are. See WP:Secondary. Attribution should solve any issues since it places weight on the source itself. Keep in mind that peer-review is a modern practice that caught on mainly in the 20th century [7]. Most works did not go through peer review before that century and that includes the works of Darwin, Newton, Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, Julius Caesar, Plato, Galileo, Thucydides (the father of history), Marco Polo, Columbus' letters, Cortez's letters on the Conquest, etc. This is why I would attribute and leave it at that. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
In general you are correct, however RE genealogical sources - some of them have more in common with tertiary sources rather than primary or secondary - being in themselves compendiums made up of mostly primary sources (written records where available) with little analysis or interpretation on the part of the author (that is usually required for a secondary source). But it would be source and context dependant. As Collect says above, a geneological book from 1825 laying out the genealogical history of the Bourbons is unlikely to have much changed since regarding statements of fact "X was born Y and married Z". Unless subsequent scholarship has discovered something to the contrary. A historical book discussing say the political and social effects of the Bourbons would be an entirely different packet of biscuits and would depend on context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As a note, a Bourbon genealogy written during the Bourbon restoration is an overtly political book. The preface of Volume 1 ends with: "Nous nous estimerons très heureux si notre ouvrage contribuer pour sa part à entretenir cet amour si pur si sincère pour le roi et son auguste famille dont nous pénétrés nous mêmes et dont les François ont depuis tant de siècles d éclatants témoignages."[8] (and contains other political asides, such as, "La maison royale de Bourbon! Y at il quelque chose plus grand de plus noble dans l'univers entier?") Achaintre was primarily a translator of Latin books - it is up to you whether you think that training would make him an useful source for the thing you wish to cite. While I know no reason to think he might be wrong about the particular fact you wish to cite, you might consider a more up-to-date source if one is available. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Age matters, it should not be used. And the authors certainly would have a conflict of interest in portraying the family in the best possible light. Any disputes of legitimate births, or ancient rights and titles held would undoubtedly be resolved in their favor. TFD (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Provided the specific fact being cited to it isn't controversial or anything, I think it could be potentially used with an inline citation to describe what people thought at the time. I'd mention the year in the in-line cite to make that clear. The ideal situation would just be to use a more up-to-date source, but finding such sources isn't always possible; and I think it's sufficient for bare-bones uncontroversial genealogy facts. I'd use it with extreme caution, but I don't think it has to be removed on sight or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
On the subject of pages that are based mostly on sources from a century ago, I just now stumbled upon Chizerots (if anyone wants to help look for more modern sources for it—I'm having a hard time). -sche (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

WalesOnline.co.uk

I'd welcome discussion on what editors think about WalesOnline.co.uk as a reliable and reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemonday (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP to the reliable sources noticeboard, which receives more attention from other editors. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a lot of redigested content on WalesOnline, but it's not bad for a local source in my experience. Are there particular issues you have in mind for RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anything that isnt Welsh-specific will usually be covered in more and better depth elsewhere. Its a perfectly good and useful source for Welsh-region articles where you would normally cite a newspaper/news media. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Magazine

I need a question for reliable sources about Hello! magazine, an English version of ¡Hola! magazine. --TheGreen921 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I need a question too. What is your question? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's obvious that we would need some context in order to answer usefully. Almost anything can be used as a source, even if not meeting WP:RS, and there are cases where Hello! would have access to material, especially photographs, which other media wouldn't have.
  • However it's also most unlikely that Hello! would ever meet WP:RS. It is simply not reliable. So it can't be used to support a contentious statement, where such support is needed before the statement can be made. Especially not if that statement is challenged, or is contradicted by some other source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably not something to be used, but the specific source, article, and content would make it easier to comment. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a reliable source, but what it is used for is important. It would be good for an article about interior design at the White House for example, but not for automobile mechanics. TFD (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I would rank Hello below the Daily Mail as an RS in the U.K. Britishfinance (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I tend to 'feel' the way you do...but are feelings enough? Could you walk me through how you came to your conclusion citing Wikipedia Policy? ie
It would be most helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello! mostly publishes celebrity gossip, which is discouraged in WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. For what it's worth, this magazine tends to publish more positive (and less sensational) content than most gossip magazines. Consider whether the content constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    The fabrication incident mentioned by Britishfinance is concerning, but it appears to be an isolated incident and the magazine retracted the interview after explaining that it was purchased from a third party ("Famous"). If there are any other incidents, they would be worth examining and may suggest a pattern. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of (mostly) Russian news sources for an engineering breakthrough in Russia

I'm reviewing Aluminum internal combustion engine in the new page queue, which has a fair amount of coverage in sources (copyediting issues aside). The problem is that all of the sources are Russian news channels [11], [12], [13]. Additionally, I was able to find coverage in TASS [14], and an English language Sudanese source [15]. I'm normally a proponent of using coverage from state media sources whose reliability is questionable for uncontroversial topics, but an engineering breakthrough (in this case, an all-aluminum combustion engine) is a subject that I could see a state media source wanting to misleadingly promote. My question is thus: are the aforementioned sources sufficiently reliable to count toward notability? Additionally, if anyone is able to find coverage in more clearly reliable sources that would be appreciated, as it would make this discussion moot. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about the notability reliability question, but we should also consider whether building an internal combustion engine mostly out of aluminum is significant enough to merit a separate article. If not, the Aluminum internal combustion engine article should be redirected to Internal combustion engine under WP:OVERLAP. I note that History of the internal combustion engine lists other innovations, some of which don't have their own articles. A short entry in that list for the aluminum engine might be sufficient. It would be great to hear from editors who are more familiar with the subject matter. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Also, note that the Sudan Vision article is a republication of the TASS (RSP entry) article. — Newslinger talk 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Addressing the reliability question, if we follow our handling of RT (RSP entry), then the reliability of the Russian news sources depends partly on whether the topic is controversial. Personally, I consider the "first engine" claim to be controversial, since the sources assert that the engineers are the first to build something that appears to be quite mundane, and this claim is not repeated in original reports from sources based in other countries. What makes this engine sufficiently distinct from other internal combustion engines that use different proportions of materials? If an editor who is more experienced with the subject can counter this, please do. — Newslinger talk 07:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no relation between the reliability of the sources cited, and the degree of noteworthiness of the subject. Both may be questioned, in this case: on the one hand we have a right to expect at least some English-language references in an English-language article, and/or from a more neutral source; on the other hand, as has already been pointed out, there is nothing so very spectacular about using only one metal to create an engine. In fact I even doubt there has never been any all-aluminium piston aircraft engine before. Thus, my idea is to drop the article, for lack of noteworthiness; the worth of its sources/references becoming a moot point. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually Russia normally spells "алюминиевый". In cases where the native language doesn't spell it either way, typically we just use whichever variant the article was originally written in; nothing queer about it. 199.19.250.74 (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would question the notability of the topic. High-aluminium-content engines are nothing new and this one, at 90% aluminium, does not stand out in the way claimed. Probably the chief technical innovation would be the hardened "coating" to some components but that hardly merits an article about its application. While the sources will be reliable enough to establish that a prototype probably has been bench-tested, the success or otherwise of that testing will not be reported reliably. Also, the proposed aircraft mounts and the claims about significance and manufacturing cost are obvious marketing WP:CRYSTAL ball stuff. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. I do not think any of it can be merged into the Internal combustion engine or History of the internal combustion engine articles, as they barely mention the materials used. Having said that, the literal topic of the article title is surely notable and long overdue, but the Russian project would deserve a one-liner in there, no more. I have made a start but I just do not have the time and resources to re-purpose it properly, I hope that somebody else can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • All-aluminium engines have been built since the 1930s, for aircraft engines (see Hiduminium and Y alloy). They were not a success! In particular, aluminium was not viable for either crankshafts or connecting rods, although by today we're seeing aluminium rods on a fairly regular basis.
An all-aluminium engine is technically interesting. Now per GNG, but mostly WP:V / WP:RS we also need independent sources of these, as the self-published, translated content is inadequately reliable.
I doubt if WP can make a competent article in this field, as there's no-one to work on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I think that regardless of which language the sources are in, there is a much more pertinent question of why journalists or faux journalists simply regurgitating a press release would be considered reliable sources for a claim of engineering priority. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that, from what you say, a competent article is unlikely in the near future, the real question is whether a less-competent stub or similar is better than nothing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If the article is left in existence, it should be tagged as a stub. Even then the Russian development totally lacks technical information and specifications. I would rather add a paragraph to an existing article, referring to the particular complexities of creating an engine entirely (or even mostly) from aluminium. Such a paragraph should mostly base upon Andy's excellent comment here, with perhaps a mention of the new Russian initiative. Frankly, my vote would be for marking the current article for deletion; though not primarily for lack of reliable references. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I already tagged it as a stub, and re-purposed it to give a feel for the way it could go if it stays. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with TooSoon - independent technical verification (not a TV news anchor) would be needed for the usefulness and thus notability for inclusion of the viability of the most stressed parts. These are the crankshaft and gears. Aluminum casing and pistons are common. Aluminum crankshaft seems to be a research subject : Elmarakbi 2014, Stojanovic 2016, and blocked by my browser. If the engine load is low enough (1970ies trainer) and engine life is set low enough, an aluminum crankshaft could be made, but usefulness is doubtful. TGCP (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 06:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you to everyone for their contributions. It looks like we're reaching SNOW territory, so I've gone ahead and opened an AfD discussion for the article. In response to people who were confused reliability vs. notability, my question was whether the sources were reliable enough for coverage in those sources should count toward notability. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

LinkSearch: prnewswire.com

If you're bored and looking for bad sourcing to clean up - do a Special:LinkSearch on prnewswire.com. This is a good way to find literally press releases, and there's thousands of usages in article space. It is possible some are relevant (e.g., citing the fact of a press release) - but in almost all cases, they'll be an excellent way to find bad sourcing, advertising and promotional puffery - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Benzinga

Has anyone looked at Benzinga? https://www.benzinga.com/ A newsish site for "fintech", so not just cryptos ... Has a founder listed, none of the usual editorial structures. And the affiliate scheme makes me wonder a bit.

An attempted Wikipedia article on Benzinga from 2011/2012 was deleted repeatedly as promotional content, and a later attempt has been rejected as a draft.

I'm inclined to "probably not a very reliable source" - but does anyone here have experience with Benzinga's content? - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Took a look at the Terms and Conditions. At #10, it states:

Neither Benzinga nor our affiliates warrant that this web site and Content are accurate, reliable or correct;

To make a comparison, the NYT's states that only user comments may be inaccurate. Also, I cannot find Benzinga's editorial policy. So I'm inclined to say that this is not a RS. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hah. Yeah, I'm inclined to concur. Some bits are good, some bits are ... bloggy ... and we have a ton of cites to press releases hosted on Benzinga. (These are a depressingly reliable way to find promotional articles, fwiw.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I've run across them a few times in shoddier tech company articles. That disclaimer in their terms and conditions is a nail in the coffin IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a Reddit version of investment stuff. In the Disclaimer [16] they say "Some of Benzinga's content may include mentions of rumors, chatter, or unconfirmed information. Readers should beware that while unconfirmed information may be correlated with increased volatility in securities, price movements based on unofficial information may change quickly based on increased speculation, clarification, or release of official news." So it is not a RS for wikipedia. Not much peer review is done for its content. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
These are just standard legal disclaimers to avoid someone suing them. Compare with disclaimers from other investment-oriented peers. Dow Jones who owns MarketWatch, Barron's and WSJ says "Dow Jones and its Content licensors do not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of, or otherwise endorse, these views, opinions and recommendations." Are they also unreliable because they do not guarantee the accuracy of their content? All these sites will say the same thing in some many words. -- GreenC 13:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the statement properly backed by the source?

Is this statement supported by the source?:

"According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots,

Source:

"To enhance these capabilities, during the 1980s, Iranian MOIS operatives were trained in psychological warfare and disinformation techniques by instructors from Eastern Bloc countries using methods developed by the Soviet KGB. In Europe, the organization established intelligence networks targeting Iranian refugees, political exiles, and others affiliated with regime opposition groups. According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution.


Additionally, these networks attempt to entice or coerce former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots"

[17]

Thank you for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the claim should be properly attributed.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Awardgoesto

Today I came across awardgoesto in several articles, many of which are BLPs. There are more than 166 links in mainspace on enwiki alone and more than 500 elsewhere. This, per my link earlier, is nothing more than a hobby blog and there is no indication that it is reputable or has meaningful editorial oversight but before I start removing it, I'd like to request a review or I guess, RFC? I was going to provide options but really it's nothing more than "yes it's reliable" or "no" because I personally do not believe this can or should even be used for primary statements as, again, it appears to be a hobby blog. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignore my last statement, though I still feel it to be true, for the sake of following what seems to be an SOP here:
  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep looks like just another blog to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger That's actually part of why I started an RFC, last few times I asked to have clear spam/sources such as this blacklisted they required an RFC first. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
​No problem, I've been advised to do the same before. However, I've removed the "RfC on:" part of the section heading to help with future sorting, since this discussion didn't use the {{rfc}} tag. At this point, I'm sure the site will be blacklisted for external link spamming either way. Thanks for starting this discussion! — Newslinger talk 23:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ruth A. Tucker: Katie Luther, First Lady of the Reformation

Is this an RS do we think? See Gbooks, and @ Worldcat. Zondervan seems to be a mix of SPS and academic publishing, unless I've misunderstood—if anyone can clarify, I'd appreciate the help. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

RS, unless you are supporting extraordinary stuff. Author is an academic and the parent-house is quite renowned. ∯WBGconverse 05:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Cheers Gothric  ;) can never tell with these religious types!  :) 07:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

HerCampus

Looking at the article Her Campus it seems to be a crowdsourced site, which fails WP:USERGENERATED and therefore not considered a reliable source. Specifically the article JT Tran uses the link [18] as a source. Autarch (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds

Hello dear people, I ask you if this source is reliable here. Unfortunately, I have not found other good sources for some massacres of the Yazidis commited by Kurds who stand in this source.[19] Thank you! Nathan Annick (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The document is presumably published by the United Religions Initiative, but is hosted on yezidis-assyrians.org, an anonymous author's site. — Newslinger talk 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New York Post

The article Erik von Markovik uses [20] as a reference. According to New York Post the publication is sensationalist and has frequently been criticised for inaccurate reporting, so it would seem to fail WP:RS. I searched for previous discussions on the New York Post, finding a few mentions, but no consensus that I could find on whether it's a RS. (Example of one with conflicting view is: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52#NYPost_on_Kitchen_Nightmares where one editor claims "The source is a tabloid that has stretched its definition of New York area far beyond what's reasonable" and another claims "The NY Post is most definitely RS, especially with attribution". Is there a previous discussion that reached a consensus that I missed? Autarch (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Reliable. Previously, there was no consensus on the reliability of the New York Post (RSP entry). As this specific article ("Hot Seat") is an interview of a notable person (Erik von Markovik) in a high-profile publication, I consider it reliable, since any discrepancies would have been noticed and publicly disputed by the interviewee. No comment on the New York Post's general reliability. — Newslinger talk 21:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. As Newslinger gets at, we don't need the Post to be broadly reliable for it to be reliable enough in this context. This is really only being used for the birthdate, as far as I can tell, for which it -- an interview, in this case -- is fine. The other use of the citation doesn't actually support the claim (of "lead[ing] to" the VH1 show), so could even be removed there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Youtube - ABCs of attraction channel

The article JT Tran uses a link to a youtube video at [21] which is on the ABCs of attraction channel. Given that it seems to be a pickup artist channel promoting a pickup artist it seems to fail the second item on WP:ELPEREN. Can anyone confirm that the channel fails as a reliable source? Autarch (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A wake-up call

Answer to What people make you ashamed to be a human being? by Sean Kernan

A reminder that context is important, especially when deciding whether to rely on an article in a mainstream publication. feminist (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Quora is very clearly not a Reliable Source. It's all SELFPUBLISHED. Anything posted there may or may not be true, and you need a proper source before making any related edits here. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know it is user generated content with no editorial controls, not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Those commenting on the reliability of what I just linked are missing the point. I have no intention to cite this in any article, this is just a reminder that mainstream news media should not be considered automatically reliable for topics outside their expertise, especially when compared to more specialist news sources. feminist (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There may be edge cases where Quora can provide useful input, although not as a direct source : a reputable scientist may reply on Quora about the quality of a regular scientific source (not made by that scientist). Such a reply would not itself be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia, but it could be quoted on Wikipedia as a way to measure the quality of a good source, as described in (RSP entry). Media reports may well be misleading, and even science reports may have low quality. Identities on Quora are sometimes as recognizable as those on Twitter.
For context; I consider the Noa article to be mostly resolved, but could include the Dutch law clarification about self-determination of fate. The "Sean Kernan" qualification as law, medicine or media expert is not clear. TGCP (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I see that you guys are still missing the point. feminist (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You'll get more relevant feedback if this discussion is moved to WT:RSN. Although the talk page gets fewer pageviews than the noticeboard page, discussions on the talk page stay active for a much longer time before they get archived. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone is still missing it, I'm fairly sure the OP isn't suggesting using that Quora comment as a source, they are just offering it as a form of commentary on the fact that news reports sometimes get stuff wrong as it's what that Quora comment is about. It probably would have helped if the OP has been clearer on this from the get go, we are all volunteers here and shouldn't be expected to spend a great deal of time reading stuff when there is no reason. If someone asks whether Quora is an RS, it's quite reasonable to simply say no it isn't although it's possible RS may be mentioned by someone in Quora we can use; and to not bother to check out the specific Quora comment or question linked. And this is RSN, the most common question by far is whether or not a source is an RS so people are likely to assume that is your question if you don't make it abundantly clear you're trying to do something else. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
While we can avoid some of this with WP:RECENTISM, the reality is that Wikipedia isn't the place to start trying to set the record straight - we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If a source gets something wrong, we can find a better source. If something seems new and shocking and unlikely, we can wait a little while to see if better coverage appears (sometimes; there are events so high-profile that we have no choice but to cover them with what we have.) But ultimately the reality is that sometimes everyone gets things wrong, in a sustained fashion, on something high-profile, and in that situation we're ultimately going to end up following them off the cliff - we can't avoid that. We can be cautious and careful and search as hard as we can for the best sources available, but at the end of the day we're still limited by our sources. (With, of course, the caveat that we can and must update our articles to correct them in response to updating stories; we can also use warning templates to let people know that a story is ongoing and therefore may contain errors.) We don't have some sort of magical line to the unvarnished truth, and WP:OR forbids us from going beyond the limitations of our sources in any case. So I'm skeptical of leaning too heavily on the "sources are sometimes wrong" thing. Yes, it's worth keeping in mind, and yes, we can sometimes wait on something or look for better sources - but ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a direct hotline to the unvarnished mind of God. Our purpose is to summarize what the reputable, reliable mainstream sources say on a topic, which means that beyond a certain point we share their limitations and, yes, their errors. This is not a limitation of Wikipedia specifically but a limitation of encyclopedias in general - we summarize what others say; we're not a research journal or an investigative reporting unit. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is a book on French history by Temple Prime a reliable source?

Basically, I used this book by Temple Prime as a source for the article John, Count of Soissons and Enghien:

https://books.google.com/books?id=CW0-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA73&dq=john+soissons+1528+1557+estouville&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHt_-jkeLhAhVEMn0KHdbYAH4Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=john%20soissons%201528%201557%20estouville&f=false

Is this book actually a reliable source? I was told by another Wikipedia user (named Kansas Bear) that it isn't, but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on this. It looks like Prime was primarily interested in conchology but that he also had an interest in genealogy. Futurist110 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no one has replied to this. I think that this source can be used but carefully with attribution. That means that you write something like "According to Tample Prime, blah blah...". That way it puts weight on the sources and not on Wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two issues to consider here ... one is Prime’s amateur status. The other is that he wrote over 100 years ago, and so may be out-dated.
Due to both issues I would suggest that we should consider him “not the best”. This does not mean he is UNreliable... but that we should search for more up-to-date sources that are MORE reliable. And if he is contradicted by more modern, academic sources - defer to those other sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion from WT:RSN to the reliable sources noticeboard, which receives more attention from other editors. — Newslinger talk 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that "Temple Prime, Conchologist" would make for an excellent television series. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The only source now used in the article is also over 100 years old (works by its author Hugh Noel Williams are used also in other articles). I think this reflects an issue of online age: high quality sources about history are behind pay-wall or in library (we all are so lazy to read real books...), old sources are (in many cases) in public domain and converted for convenient online use. That is why we see so often requests like the one from the OP. My approach to such sources: if author was professional historian with good formal education and the work in question was published by reputable publisher, it may be useable for simple statements of fact, with proper attribution for anything else. Sure, best to use recent scholarship, but we should not be afraid to use old sources (reliable by our definitions), especialy for niche articles like this one.
As of the source discussed in this very thread, are there any reviews in history journals of that age (or reviews of other Temple Prime works)? That may be an distinction between borderline scholarly work and garbage writting for the general public. Pavlor (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change

Some editors are eager to include a Fox News story to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article (citing this noticeboard's decision to declare Fox News as a RS).[22][23] The bolded text is the text in dispute:

  • Ocasio-Cortez has called for "more environmental hardliners in Congress",[1] describing climate change as "the single biggest national security threat for the United States and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization" and stating that the world will end in 12 years unless the problem is addressed.[2][3][4] Her comments referred to the recent United Nations report that established that unless carbon emissions are reined in over the next 12 years, the effects of climate change will be irreversible.[5] In May 2019, Ocasio-Cortez contended that her statements were sarcastic and not intended to be taken literally; she added that “you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think” that the comment was literal. However, a May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change.”[6]

References

  1. ^ Aronoff, Kate (June 25, 2018). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Why She Wants to Abolish ICE and Upend the Democratic Party". In These Times. ISSN 0160-5992. Archived from the original on December 27, 2018. Retrieved January 27, 2019.
  2. ^ Zhao, Christina (January 22, 2019). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Warns, 'World Is Going to End in 12 Years,' Reiterating Claims of Recent U.N. Climate Change Report". Newsweek. Archived from the original on February 24, 2019. Retrieved February 23, 2019.
  3. ^ Cummings, William (January 22, 2019). "'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says". USA Today. Archived from the original on February 7, 2019. Retrieved February 23, 2019.
  4. ^ Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria (2018). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Platform: Mobilizing Against Climate Change". Ocasio2018.com (campaign website). Archived from the original on January 16, 2019. Retrieved January 27, 2019.
  5. ^ John, Bowden (January 22, 2019). "Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed". The Hill. Archived from the original on March 5, 2019. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
  6. ^ Mikelionis, Lukas (May 23, 2019). "AOC says only a 'sea sponge' would believe her '12 years' doomsday remark, but most Dems bought it". Fox News.

This text does adhere to the language of the Fox News story, but the problem is that the Fox News is absolute trash. For a very simple reason: the poll did not ask respondents whether the world would literally end in 12 yrs (even though the writer of the Fox News story suggests it did - it's such a rudimentary error that it's hard not to assume it's malicious). In their desperation to trash AOC and portray those seeking to curb climate change as lunatics, they ran a story that is completely and intentionally misleading, and now editors on Wikipedia are saying "Oh, Fox News is RS! It's a RS! Go to the RS noticeboard to have it deemed unreliable if you disagree!" while they edit-war to restore this crap content. So: 1. Can I please get confirmation from this noticeboard that this particular story is not valid for inclusion on Wikipedia?

This gets into a broader problem regarding Fox News' RS status: the stunning fact that Fox News is considered a reliable source in general on Wikipedia, but specifically on the topic of climate change. And I'm not talking about the opinion shows (most of whom are climate change deniers), it's the news division that is unreliable (the story above is a Fox News "news" piece). Academic books on the climate change denial movement have covered how the news division at Fox News has promoted falsehoods and fringe views on the subject of climate change:

  • Bill Sammon, the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructing Fox News journalists to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change: "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s scepti- cal policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.
  • Bret Baier, a straight-news anchor -“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences74 was formally withdrawn75 by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.”76 In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!77” Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.” Columbia University Press.
  • Bill Hemmer, a straight-news anchor: Promotion of Climategate falsehoods: "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.” Columbia University Press.

See more here[24].

So: 2. Can I please get confirmation from this noticeboard that Fox News is not considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change? Surely if the managing editor of the network is instructing Fox News reporters to push fringe views on the subject of climate change, then it's not a RS on the subject. And this matters, given that editors are as we can see above adding deceptive Fox News stories on the subject of climate change to our articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

News spam is one of our biggest problems overall....not just fox news. Daily news coverage should be used exceedingly rarely overall. The propagation of daily news stories that are incomplete, opinionated are simply incompatible with an encyclopedic entry and result in a dead link in a month or so.... leading to debate over if the source even says what we say. This seems to be an extreme problem in political articles on the United States.....so much a concern.... that the academic community has criticized Wikipedia for blow by blow coverage over analytical coverage.--Moxy 🍁 02:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
1. Mainstream news organizations are often terrible at reporting on public opinion polling and on the sciences. They should be used with caution for those topics even if we generally rely on them for other stuff. 2. Fox is kind of an outlier with their AOC coverage, and it's probably WP:UNDUE to cite them if they are the only major news organization running with a story like this. General reliability is neither necessary nor sufficient for inclusion, and this is a case where editorial common sense should give us plenty reason to exclude this. Nblund talk 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In general, we should not be including Twitter-based reactions in ongoing news stories -140 characters is nowhere near enough to derive sufficient context for what the person meant. (This applies both ways). On this, the Wiki text given is missing a key point in both AOC's and the Fox news stories, that she was saying that it was the GOP taking the story seriously or to whom her sarcasm was missed, and that's why the Fox story proceeds to describe how many Dems thought the 12 years were legit. So no, there's no issue on Fox's side outside of the overall media's probably of taking 140 characters to a full length article, and the larger issue is the UNDUE nature of this coverage. --Masem (t) 02:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, the Fox News story is not right at all. The story is falsely suggesting that Democrats believe that the world will literally end in 12 yrs (which the poll does not at all substantiate), and that therefore AOC believes they are idiots. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans what about the USA Today report:

sparked conservative criticism when she said Monday that she and other young Americans fear "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made the remark during an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the MLK Now event in New York City celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.
Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation's "World War II."
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

There is nothing wrong with this USA Today report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
They are reporting what the survey gave. So unless we know the survey's wrong, and Fox is purposely misreporting it, then there's nothing like that in the actual Fox story. The poll results are available (though the breakout by party affiliation is behind a paywell) So no, Fox is not misreporting, they specifically note the context is with respect to the GOP (which you'd think they want to ignore). --Masem (t) 03:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Basically yes, unless user:Snooganssnoogans has a reliable source that proves the survey invalid, I don't see why his personal opinion overrules the reporting.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I never at any point said that the poll was unreliable. What are you talking about? What I said was that Fox News are misreporting the poll results. This is the opening paragraph of the Fox News story: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it."[25] Fox News is lying about what the poll says: the poll does not at all ask respondents whether the world will literally end in 12 yrs (i.e. AOC is not calling Democrats idiots). The Fox News story, which is entitled "AOC says only a 'sea sponge' would believe her '12 years' doomsday remark, but most Dems bought it" is not complicated to read. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
That's "spin", which is common to all MSM. I can read that statement one way and agree that it is completely misrepresenting the survey question, but I can read the same statement in another way to say it is one "colorful" way to phrase it but not actually wrong. They later are more exacting and non-obtusely correct about what the survey question is. This is not unique to Fox. (And yes, headline is extremely clickbait, but this is why we have stated that ALL RS headlines should not be used as a "reliable source" or any type of statement due to the clickbait used nowadays. --Masem (t) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a straight-up falsehood, and in this case it has deceived multiple editors, including Rusf10 (who edit-warred the misrepresentation into the AOC page, yet bizarrely also claimed that your comment was correct) and SunCrow (who tried to have me sanctioned for reverting this rubbish). And no, the problem is not just with the headline, so please do not dismiss my concerns with "Headlines are not RS. Everybody move on." I've explicitly referred to the body of the article, and even copied the deceptive text into our discussion here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
That's what "spin" is, its meant to confuse readers or obfuscate the details. I agree the first paragraph of the Fox article is badly worded to frame the story, but it is not "wrong", because it remains vague on what "end in 12 years" meant, whether it is "earth blows up in 12 years" or "irreversible change" is not clear. I fully agree Fox is cherry-picking its interpretations here between what AOC actually said and what the poll questioned, but that's tactics used in every press room to gain the audience to their side. I point to the later paragraph in the Fox article that is much more direct and accurate "A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change. Out of all total likely voters, 48 percent of respondents believed the apocalyptic claim." So again, this is not a wrong story, but it is the type that needs to be understood and the underlying sources evaluated to know what is meant, and that should be done only after considering if this is even UNDUE to include or not (I'm firmly thinking it is not appropriate to include even if it came from the NYTimes - its blithering on a twitter comment which is useless for an encyclopedia). --Masem (t) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So all RS lie and deceive (citation needed), therefore we should accept Fox News as a RS on the subject of climate change, even though the news division puts out deceptive stories about the subject and the managing editor of Fox News has instructed his reporters to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Nearly all media engage in opinionated reporting nowadays especially on issues they show bias on. Doesn't make them non-RSes, but it means we use those RSes with care to work around the spin. This is why the less we actually cover of ongoing controversies (and wait for more academic or time-separated coverage) is far better for the encyclopedia, so that we're not dealing with the mudslinging and spin of day-to-day reporting, making it easier to use sources that have 20/20 hindsight working for them. So yes, any story on climate change from Fox News that is deemed of appropriate nature to include, and not covered elsewhere, I would make sure to double check if there's any collaborating info (here we can validate the poll questions). I don't know what goes on at Fox but I would actually not be surprised if they are told to create a cloud of doubt around climate change, but I'm also of the same concern that editors at CNN and other media also are instructed to create similar clouds of doubt around, say, Trump and so on. When we see such stories, we're not eliminating them as RSes, but we need to get out of that cloud to know how to actually present it. As to the specific bolded addition, I do think it is wrong, as misses that AOC and Fox's story point out that the GOP were taking the "12 years" claim as a fact; its clear Fox news jumped to that poll to go "Well, yeah, GOP does it, but so does the Dems! Look here!" --Masem (t) 14:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Is However, a May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change.” considered to be a misrepresentation of the poll? If so, how? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the opening paragraph of the Fox News story: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Aye. But that's not the text that's in (or out of) our article. The text that being discussed for our article is as I've quoted it above, and that does appear to be supported by the Fox News source. If it's not demonstrably contradicted by the study itself, then I'd say Fox News is reliable for inclusion. Like Masem, however, I think there are better pegs to hang the leave it out hat on. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The text that's in dispute suggests that AOC is calling democrats brain-dead when she does absolutely no such thing (just like the Fox News story): In May 2019, Ocasio-Cortez contended that her statements were sarcastic and not intended to be taken literally; she added that “you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think” that the comment was literal. However, a May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I pointed this out before but if you go to AOC's original tweet [26], she clearly IDes that quote related to the GOP. The choice of Fox News to leave it out is not making it factually "wrong" - that's what she did say - but it is 100% spin because they didn't give full context. Then they go and use the poll that shows Dems believed the statement (related to irreversible change), which just adds to the spin. Nothing's factually wrong, but it is also not Pulitzer prize-winning, and if that was included in WP in that fashion it would break all NPOV alarms. We just have to look past that. --Masem (t) 14:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
And that's a much better peg! - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a point - this noticeboard did NOT declare Fox News to be RS. It just failed to uniformly ban it as non-RS. It can still be not RS depending on circumstances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Another point - this noticeboard didn't declare Fox News to NOT be a RS, and that's why we adhere to WP:NEWSORG which answers the question quite well: News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). The most watched cable news station makes it well-established. Everything beyond that is possibly either opinion-based, or perception-based, a bit of speculation, or easing into DONTLIKEIT territory. Atsme Talk 📧 14:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Fox News being the most watched cable news station merely confirms that The Masses Are Asses.- MrX 🖋 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Who got the most votes in 2016, MrX? Do the masses approve or disapprove of Trump? Enlighten us. 174.211.4.175 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News kind of disagrees, in that "generally reliable" is about as "high" as we go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
If the motive here is to declare the most-watched cable news network unreliable based on what...????...political bias? It's time to take a closer look at all news sources and maybe add several more networks/publications to the unreliable list if Fox is going to be added because of "media failures". We may need to look closer at some journalists and maybe a few academics for some of the same reasons per the following articles:
  1. Harvard about network propaganda
  2. WaPo writes about made-up Trump quote
  3. The Intercept...
  4. Strathprints
  5. Journal of Gender Studies
  6. Black Agenda Report
  7. Politico
  8. Harvard to NYTimes
  9. Guardian about Abramson
  10. AP & NYTimes bungled fact-checks
There are many more articles that name names and address this very topic. I think the point that needs to be made is the fact that it's not just Fox, there are quite a few others in the same boat. The bigger problems arise when editors fail to closely adhere to our own PAGs, such as NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, RECENTISM, NPOV, V, SYNTH, etc. Atsme Talk 📧 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Lying about science is not "political bias". Spreading of discredited fringe views is not "political bias". It is just caused by political bias. So, bias alone does not make a source unreliable. Unreliability does. As in: something you cannot rely on. That is what the word comes from, you know.
When it comes to climate change, Fox News is clearly an unreliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: What is the source of that list? cygnis insignis 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis - my research sourced it. Atsme Talk 📧 16:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Ratings have nothing to do with it - popular tastes denote notability, not reliability. The "everyone are biased" argument is false; the extent of Fox's biases reach so far beyond that of other news outlets, that many scholars don't even consider it "news". Lauren Feldman, Rutgers: "while MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox." Nicole Hemmer, UV: "it's the closest we’ve come to having state TV". Joe Peyronnin, Hofstra: "it's as if the President had his own press organization". Daniel Kreiss, UNC: "Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity." This isn't just "bias", it's a whole alternative agenda that isn't journalism. François Robere (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am of the opinion RS policy should be blind,else we just get to exclude stuff we do not like. What we should do is attribute. However the source does not support the text anyway, except its headline. Its clear the text says "A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world”". I have no idea to be honest but wwe may need a rule about "No headlines", this has cropped up time and again.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is common sense (I hope), headlines can be really crappy sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not just the headline. This is the opening paragraph: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it."[27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Sadly then I cannot see a way round this, unless we start to use "but I don't like it". I think in this instance we attribute it, and then provide the quote that is actually about the poll in question. We let the reader decide if Fox is telling porkies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, we are not here to repeat obvious falsehoods on behalf of the most watched news station. The way around it is to not use the trashy source. - MrX 🖋 16:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not an RS. Fox News is not only a poor source on climate change,[1][2][3][4][5][6] it's also inexorably linked to the Republican party and the White House,[7][8][9] and has a weird obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.[10] Fox News should not be used as a source for anything on climate science or American politics and policy, including individual politicians like Ocasio-Cortez. François Robere (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Krosnick, Jon A.; MacInnis, Bo (2010). "Frequent viewers of Fox News are less likely to accept scientists' views of global warming" (PDF). Report for The Woods Institute for the Environment. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 1, 2020. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  2. ^ Adams, Guy (2010-12-17). "Leaked memos cast doubt on Fox News' claim of neutrality". The Independent. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  3. ^ Feldman, Lauren; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie; Leiserowitz, Anthony (January 2012). "Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 17 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410. ISSN 1940-1612. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  4. ^ Michael Mann gives several examples of this, as well as noting that News Corp, the parent company of Fox News, is "the parent company of several of the British tabloids, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal that were most active in promoting the climategate charges": Mann, Michael E. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231526388. OCLC 785782088.
  5. ^ Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science (2014) (Report). April 2014.
  6. ^ Ward, Bob (2018-06-07). "The Times, Fox News and Breitbart still promoting fake news about climate change". Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  7. ^ Maza, Carlos (2018-11-27). "Fox News keeps breaking its own rules". Vox. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-04-07. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  8. ^ Guild, Blair (2018-07-02). "The Fox News employees hired by Trump". CBS News. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  9. ^ Inside the unprecedented partnership between Fox News and the Trump White House. PBS News Hour. 2019-03-05. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
  10. ^ Smith, David (2019-04-12). "Fox mentions Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 42 days running – 3,181 times". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  • There's nothing in your comment that I disagree with, but the pro-liberal MSM are at least as bad as Fox. If you can cite Media Matters for America for Fox's "weird obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez", then I can cite NewsBusters for the MSM's obsession with AOC. [28] [29] [30] [31]. You write about Fox's links to the Trump White House, but the MSM's connections to Democrats in and out of power are well-documented [32] [33] [34] [35]. The climate change denial is cherry-picked from the article Fox News controversies, and I could similarly cherry-pick something from CNN controversies, MSNBC controversies or CBS News controversies and criticism. I expect no reasonable editor to cite Fox in a climate science article, considering Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)#Popular press. Deprecating Fox on the basis of climate change denial is WP:CREEP. That said, if it comes up often at WP:RSN, it can be added to WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 12:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Très amusante. Can we take turns at picking sources to deprecate? Because I have a few in mind. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    As Reliable as any other NEWSORG source - none of them are infallible - attribute as Slatersteven mentioned above. I just noticed that a few sources in the reference list include articles about Trump's connection to and hiring of former Fox News employees. If we're going to speculate on the perceived media influences and biases, then see the following sources and connections of major MSM networks to the Obama administration and in general:
    1. Shorenstein Center report
    2. CNN controversies where there are many sources cited
    3. Hunch the news system was rigged
    4. WH Media Connections
    5. Trump TV pipeline a joke in comparison
    6. Meet the Liberal Press
    7. NBC
    8. MSNBC Wallace dating NYTimes reporter
    And there are many other sources which say similar things about MSM & Obama administration that the above sources report about the Trump administration. Repeated attempts to discredit Fox News appear to be politically motivated, inadvertently or otherwise, and really need to stop as it has become a major time sink. Atsme Talk 📧 13:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Atsme: - how is MSNBC Wallace dating NYTimes reporter an example of sources and connections of major MSM networks to the Obama administration? starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    If the SC report is about how the media likes "Cinderella stories", then that's not the sort of repeated, ideologically-slanted coverage we're talking about with regards to Fox, and you won't find a single scholar who'll equate the two; CNN had its share of controversies, but how does it and how does Fox deal with them?[1]; the Snopes ref you cite contradicts your argument; I'm not familiar with ToF; I've addressed the "media pipeline" in a comment below - 24 active journalists from a single outlet is unprecedented by any measure; the Washingotn Times isn't an RS; political contributions are a thing, but they alone do not denote slanted coverage - see below for a couple of examples of what does; an anchor dating a reporter isn't news in any sense, so I'm not sure why you included it. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, I see - the only RS are the ones who support your POV. Excuse me but I can't waste another minute of my time here - there's a backlog at NPP that needs my attention. Atsme Talk 📧 21:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    WP:RSP#The Washington Times. François Robere (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Right. Just to address your sources quickly before getting to the main point:
    • None of the Newsbusters items shows anything even remotely close to an "obsession" the order of magnitude of fox (3100 mentions a month for Fox, vs 24 for WaPo), but more importantly: none of them shows evidence of the sort of rabid demonization that Fox is engaged with with AOC. Does the media like a good "upstart" story? Of course they do. Do they like photogenic candidates? They do. Do they obsessively smear a fresh congress rep. as the enemy of the people because of their eco policies? They don't. Another major difference is that mainstream outlets, unlike Fox, continuously self-criticise (eg. this, on the same phenomenon you just raised); compare with Fox, whose ideological hegemony does not allow most any criticisms[2][3] outside of a handful of token news anchors.
    • Similarly, none of the "cozy relations" items suggest anything as outrageous as reporters coming on stage in rallies to urge voters to vote for specific candidates or moving to and from the White House (!) ruled by their preferred candidate. Slipping a story to a friendly journalist? Yeah, okay. Interestingly, one the items is about coverage bias for Trump - for the same reasons as AOC (ie. not political reasons); and another lists Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald - both of whom have a foot in "mainstream journalism" and severe criticisms against Fox News. If you accept their criticisms towards the "mainstream" media, you ought to accept Rosen's observation that "there's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government". Your final link, about former reporters working for Obama, lists perhaps a dozen media outlets from which these reporters hail - or about 2 past or present journos for each; for Fox it's more than 12 who were drafted to one while still being employed for the other, in one case being paid by both at the same time as part of a severance agreement. It's not even in the same ballpark.
    • There's no cherry picking here. This phenomenon is so severe that there are studies about Fox News ignoring studies. Can you say the same about any of the other networks?
    Which brings us to the bottom line: reputable sources have repeatedly called out Fox for biases at a scale not present in any other outlet (I've added some quotes in a comment below). According to those sources Fox is not "just another network", but an entirely different beast. François Robere (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Raymond, Laurel (2017-06-27). "A tale of two networks: How Fox News and CNN handled recent retractions". Think Progress.
  2. ^ Shapiro, Rebecca (2012-11-26). "WATCH: Fox News Interview Ends Abruptly After Guest Attacks Network". Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-04-02. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  3. ^ ‘You’re a moron’: Tucker Carlson clashes with Dutch historian. Washington Post. 2019-02-21. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
The OP's claim is false, the writer of the Fox News story did not suggest that the poll asked whether the world would end in 12 years. It is true that the writer said respondents believed that, but the description of the actual poll question and results was correct, so readers had a fair opportunity to decide whether the writer's opinion was justified. Now look at the bolded words and you'll realize they don't include that opinion so WP:RS policy about context was followed, thus the OP's claim is irrelevant as well as false. Please do not give confirmation or encouragement to this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Good grief. This is the opening paragraph of the Fox News story: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course Fox News isn't reliable for climate science, but that's not what it's being used for here. So, with regard to the source in question, of course we shouldn't be using such an internally inconsistent, misleading source. That's not [necessarily] a judgment of Fox News as a source, but of this particular article. While there's no consensus that Fox News is, in general, unreliable (and in some cases there has been consensus that it is generally reliable), that still doesn't mean it's reliable for every purpose. With any of this it's contextual. In this specific case it looks like a lousy source. Half the rest of this thread has devolved into standard "all MSM is biased" fare as though that has anything to do with the reliability of this source. If you see an obviously unreliable article on NBC or whatnot, address it. Absolutely no news source is bulletproof, nor should we expect that any source will be right all of the time. Getting into "the liberal media" or the "Fox is evil" stuff doesn't help anything. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    It is clear from AOC's statement that her reference to the end of the world was rhetorical. What she meant was that in 12 years, the effects of climate change would be irreversible, which is what scientists and most Democrats believe. While I am not a fan of blacklisting sources, the fact that it was the only major cable news network to provide this novel interpretation means that it fails weight for inclusion. Ironically, had AOC said that Armageddon was only 12 years away, Fox would give her a regular spot. TFD (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not - What a horrible sham of a report by Fox News, which until now, I've considered reasonably reliable. It starts off "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats" and supports it with "But it appears that more than two-thirds of surveyed Democrats took her literally. A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change." Rasmussen asked: "A prominent politician says the United States has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world. Do you agree or disagree?" I mean, Rasmussen was begging the question, but then Fox took it to a whole new level by shamefully conflating "12 years to avert" with "the world will end in 12 years". This is trash journalism on the level of the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail. No way does this belong in Wikipedia. Jesus!- MrX 🖋 14:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use Whatever the general attitude is towards Fox News, this particular story is shit, and should not be used to reference anything at Wikipedia. Just because Fox News is capable of being a reliable source does not preclude them writing terrible things, and this story is clearly misleading, badly written, and an obvious distortion and should not be used to reference anything at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fox News is Generally an RS, though, like all RS, it can be deemed unreliable in a particular case for one reason or another. What about this case? AOC suggests that you would have to be unintelligent to interpret her claim literally. What the Fox report and the underlying poll show is that a majority of democrats interpret the "12 years" part of her statement literally. Is that a good point? Not up to us to say. Fox News seems to think so, and they're generally RS, so I'd defer to them in this case. However, the wording in the article could be more careful to state the point more clearly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    "What the Fox report and the underlying poll show is that a majority of democrats interpret the "12 years" part of her statement literally." No it doesn't. The pollster did not ask if the world was going to end in 12 years, and they didn't ask anything about AOC's comments. This is not complicated.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    (FWIW they actually did allude to her comments. The poll question was "A prominent politician says the United States has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world. Do you agree or disagree?" [36].) --Masem (t) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    They allude to Bernie Sanders' comments. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, right, my bad. --Masem (t) 15:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, they mentioned Sanders in the first paragraph of their report but not in the poll or how they posed the question - see my bold underline:

    Voters tend to agree with Senator Bernie Sanders that America will be in big trouble very soon if it doesn’t aggressively tackle climate change, even though they question the integrity of politicians who champion the issue.

    The actual poll asked

    (1) A prominent politician says the United States has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world.
    (2) Do most politicians raise climate change issues to address real problems or to get elected?

    AOC and numerous other politicians are using global warming as an integral part of their platform. She said what she said about the world ending and there's no going back. She was serious when she said it per the RS I have already cited and what's happening now is that editors are willing to dismiss her hyperbole but not Trump's? It's politics - pure politics - and WP editors need to steer clear of it by closely adhering to NPOV, RECENTISM, NEWSORG and by actually attributing the author/source (in-text attribution) when including opinions, etc. Why all the fuss about Fox being a RS? Just follow PAGs and stop trying to make everything with a conservative and/or liberal slant a bad thing. This discussion is running rampant with it. The challenged paragraph is an easy fix and does not require condemnation of a RS as unreliable to fix it simply because the editor who included it used SYNTH.
    1. The first sentence needs to be cited to a RS.
    2. I've modified the second sentence to not connect to the first sentence and to stand independently as follows: However, A May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents likely voters and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change; 40% disagreed and 11% were undecided.” Cite the report. The End. Atsme Talk 📧 17:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    The point remains that, if when AOC said that people should not take her literally, she meant that they should not take "12 years" literally as the time-frame we have to act to avert disaster, well, the poll suggests that lots of people do take "12 years" literally. Maybe that's not what she meant. Maybe she meant that the 12 year figure was meant literally, but the "end of the world" part was not. I can't really tell what she meant, and it's not our place to speculate, it seems to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    And why 12 years? Not 11 or 13 years? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Uh, seriously, thats the original report [37]. --Masem (t) 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Masem, in that same published report, directly below the 12 yr predicted climate change disaster, The Guardian headline reads Toxic America: Is modern life poisoning us? and goes on to report "Weedkiller in your breakfast cereal. Contaminated drinking water. Carcinogenic chemicals in your furniture." - have you seen the fiasco over at the glyphosate article? 😳 Oh well, bottomline with the 12 yr. prediction - WP:CRYSTALBALL. When left unchallenged we end up with broadly construed interpretations and questionable perspectives. So where did the urgency originate - the UN since that's the report being cited? I remember in the 70s we had the cooling earth scare. Stopping deforestation of the world's rainforests would go a long way. j/s Atsme Talk 📧 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    The specificity can suggest verisimilitude. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Does it not smack of WP:original research to say "the problem is that the Fox News is absolute trash. For a very simple reason: the poll did not ask respondents whether the world would literally end in 12 yrs"? I thought we relied on sources. You mean now we are experts on polls? Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If the Fox News story is claiming that respondents literally believe the world will end in 12 yrs, then yes, it's a pretty big problem if the poll did not ask about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "You mean now we are experts on polls?" No, but I assumed editors had some basic reading comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It is not original research if we know source A quotes source X, and we have access to source X and X clearly does not make the claims source A says X does, then we can question what source A is doing. (There's more complexities than that to this situation, but on general, we have this ability to check and corroborate information). --Masem (t) 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The bottom line seems to be that Ocasio-Cortez can engage in hyperbole but we can't repeat that hyperbole. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        When Trump does it, it's called lying. Atsme Talk 📧 17:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        That's not what anyone here says. Ironic that a discussion of a source misrepresenting others contains such an obvious misrepresentation of what people are stating. --Jayron32 15:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        I'm not misrepresenting anyone. I'm pointing out that a fundamental idea is supposed to be that we rely on sources. We don't second-guess them, as doing so is akin to original research, the only difference being that it is not taking place in article space. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        We do second guess them. From the policy:
        "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."
        Fox News has shown us that they cannot be relied on for accuracy, or truthfulness.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        We use attribution (as previously stated by Slatersteven) to show the origin of the perspective or the material being represented. We don't throw out material just because a source is deemed to be biased. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        The source isn't being dismissed or thrown out because it is biased. It is being thrown out because it is demonstrably wrong. We don't blindly use sources without regard for whether or not they are correct. Part of reliability is that they are reliably correct. If a particular source can be shown to contain demonstrably untrue things, we don't cite those untrue things, knowing they are untrue. That is part of editorial discretion in choosing which sources to use. If a source is shown to be wrong, we don't use that source. Also, when you said "Ocasio-Cortez can engage in hyperbole but we can't repeat that hyperbole." that misrepresented the current discussion, because not one person made that claim. When you said that, you misrepresented the points being made by people opposed to using this source. When you stated "I'm not misrepresenting anyone.", that was incorrect, because your statement immediately preceding misrepresented the arguments of those who state the source is not reliable. --Jayron32 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        A politician is a representative. Does she know the people she represents? Isn't it self-serving to characterize a portion of her constituency as sea sponges after her own hyperbole is called into question? I think it is ridiculous that she can say "12 years" and at a later time say that number was not to be taken literally. Then why did she say it? Is twelve her favorite number? Fox News is merely reporting on the discrepancy between language taken literally and language taken figuratively. Fox's reporting is of good quality, in my opinion, and should be woven into the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, using attribution, of course. Bus stop (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        That's entirely out of the scope of this discussion. Discussions about content of specific articles in a general sense are best held in the talk page of that article. We aren't here to discuss the content of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article here. We're only here to discuss the reliability of the specific Fox News article being called into question. You're clouding the discussion with mostly unrelated matters. --Jayron32 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • To quell the fear of OR, here are some sources and what they say on FN:
Expert opinions
  • A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”[1]
  • Yochai Benkler, Law Professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University: “Fox’s most important role since the election has been to keep Trump supporters in line,” offering narratives of the "deep state", "immigrant invastion" and "the media as the enemy of the people".[2] On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”[2]
  • Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, [propaganda has] effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News... Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a "Trump bubble" for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times.”[3]
  • Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”[1]
  • Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”[1]
  • Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia: “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV... Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature. It’s a radicalization model. [For both Trump and Fox] fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”[2]
  • Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.”[4]
  • Patrick C. Meirick, director of the Political Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, states in a study of the "death panel" myth that “...rather than polarize perceptions as predicted, Fox News exposure contributed to a mainstreaming of (mistaken) beliefs.”[5]
  • Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".[1]
  • Joe Peyronnin, Associate Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University: “I’ve never seen anything like it before... It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.”[2] “No news channel reported on Obama being from Kenya more than Fox, and not being an American. No news channel more went after Obama’s transcript from Harvard or Occidental College. Part of mobilizing a voting populace is to scare the hell out of them... I heard things on Fox that I would never hear on any other channel.”[6]
  • Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board: “We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government. The two objects have become one. It's true that Fox is a propaganda network. But it's also true that the Trump government is a cable channel. With nukes.”[7]
  • Steven White, Assistant Prof. of Political Science at Syracuse University: “Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans, but in our efforts to come across as relatively unbiased, I actually think we downplay the extent to which it is a force for the absolute worst impulses of racism, illiberalism, and extremism in American society.”[8]
  • Jen Psaki, former White House Communications Director: “The peddling of dangerous conspiracy theories is not just a Chris Farrell or a Lou Dobbs problem. This is a Fox in the age of President Donald Trump problem... And it is one that could not only do lasting damage to the legitimacy of media in the US, but could also spur more anger, division and even violence in the short term.”[9]
  • Blair Levin, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FCC chief of staff: “Fox’s great insight wasn’t necessarily that there was a great desire for a conservative point of view... The genius was seeing that there’s an attraction to fear-based, anger-based politics that has to do with class and race... Fox News’ fundamental business model is driving fear.”[2]
  • Jerry Taylor, President of the Niskanen Center: “In a hypothetical world without Fox News, if President Trump were to be hit hard by the Mueller report, it would be the end of him. But, with Fox News covering his back with the Republican base, he has a fighting chance, because he has something no other President in American history has ever had at his disposal—a servile propaganda operation.”[2]
  • Alisyn Camerota, former Fox News host: “When I worked at Fox, sharia law was one of their favorite bogeymen. Roger Ailes was very exercised about sharia law, and so we did a lot of segments on sharia law. None of them were fact-based or they didn’t – there was no emphasis on them being fact based.”[6]
  • Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard: “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.”[2]
  • Ralph Peters, former Fox News analyst: “In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration...[Fox News anchors] dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller.”[10]
  • Simon Rosenberg, former Fox News commentator: “It was always clear that this wasn’t just another news organization, but when Ailes departed, and Trump was elected, the network changed. They became more combative, and started treating me like an enemy, not an opponent... It’s as if the on-air talent at Fox now have two masters—the White House and the audience. [Because of this] Fox is no longer conservative—it’s anti-democratic.”[2]
  • Jennifer Rubin, political commentator at the Washington Post: “[Fox is] simply a mouthpiece for the President, repeating what the President says, no matter how false or contradictory.”[2]
  • Greg Sargent, political commentator at the Washington Post: “Fox News is fundamentally in the business of spreading disinformation, as opposed to conservative reportage.”[11]
  • Andrew Sullivan, political commentator at The Atlantic: “The point is surely that the only "liberals" allowed on Fox News are the ones designed to buttress the "conservative" worldview... Just as important [and] what's needed on Fox - and what you'll never see - is solid conservative attacks on and critiques of other conservatives, on matters of principle or policy. That's the difference between an opinion channel and a propaganda channel.”[12]
  • Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at the Washington Post: “Everyone ought to see [Fox News] for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law.”[13]
  • Charlie Black, conservative lobbyist: “I know Roger Ailes was reviled, but he did produce debates of both sides. Now Fox is just Trump, Trump, Trump.”[2]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Nelson, Jacob L. (2019-01-23). "What is Fox News? Researchers want to know". Columbia Journalism Review.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Mayer, Jane (2019-03-04). "The Making of the Fox News White House". New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X.
  3. ^ Browning, Christopher R. (2018-10-25). "The Suffocation of Democracy". New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  4. ^ Kreiss, Daniel (2018-03-16). "The Media Are about Identity, Not Information". In Boczkowski, Pablo J.; Papacharissi, Zizi (eds.). Trump and the media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262037969. OCLC 1022982253.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference deathpanels was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Siddiqui, Sabrina (2019-03-19). "Fox News: how an anti-Obama fringe set the stage for Trump". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-04-21.
  7. ^ Jay Rosen [@jayrosen_nyu] (2019-03-04). "We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  8. ^ Steven White [@notstevenwhite] (2018-10-28). "Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans..." (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference psakiconspiracytheory was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Grynbaum, Michael M. (2018-03-20). "Fox News Analyst Quits, Calling Network a 'Propaganda Machine'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  11. ^ Sargent, Greg (2018-03-06). "In stiff-arming Fox News, Democrats get one big thing right". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-04-19.
  12. ^ Sullivan, Andrew (2010-10-26). "Should Liberals Appear On Fox News?". The Atlantic.
  13. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (2019-03-07). "It's time — high time — to take Fox News's destructive role in America seriously". Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. Retrieved 2019-03-08. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
  • François Robere (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use One of the comedians once joked that Fox was starting a 24 hour AOC channel that only ran stories about AOC, because Fox was running near daily anti-AOC stories after she won. Fox is a poor source for AOC or climate change, and this story is an example of why. I don’t see why we would use FOX for a political story that no one else was reporting. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why politicians get off the hook by claiming to have been just joking. (“you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think” that the comment was literal.) Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Use News sources all have their editorial biases and have been taken to task for either a rush to print (oftentimes never retracting what is later proven to be false) or for misrepresenting information from time to time. No reason one cannot say, according to then follow that with, however, according to. FoxNews reported that...blah, blah, blah. However CNN (or whomever) reported that, Blah, blah, blah. One would think this is a case by case issue, not a blanket ban issue.--MONGO (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference remarks (not poll) with attribution The fact that Fox News has been deemed RS at this noticeboard is significant. Quoting them with attribution should solve any issues. Readers know what mainstream sources lean left, and which one(s) lean right, and can judge the reliability of statements accordingly. This seems a straightforward issue: what did OAC say, and what did she later say she meant? When OAC first made the claim, she was clearly serious about it, and partisan source The Hill came to her defense with "Her comments referred to the recent United Nations report...". The Hill makes no attempt to source their claim. At the time, (I am the editor who added this "12 year" claim to her article) I could find no support anywhere for the Hills claim that she was citing the UN. Fox News is also a partisan source, and in this case, their report is backed by AOC's actual words. We could also quote her directly by using her tweet. It's sad that media only reports what will help or hurt their chosen saints or villains, rather than simply reporting facts with a NPOV. I don't particularly find this bias cute regardless of whether I agree with their position. I quite despise this era of partisanship-masquerading-as-news from CNN, MNBC, The Hill and Fox. It's challenging to build a NPOV article from only partisan sources, but it certainly cannot be done using only one side. Partisan sources simply won't report, or will twist, news that makes their side look bad. The "12 years" statement was highly notable, so walking it back, or clarifying the intent, is also notable. If Fox is the only media reporting on it, perhaps they should be commended. However the second half of the contested text should not be added; ...a May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change. would constitute a SYNTH violation (one that Fox committed, but we don't need to follow suit). "Disastrous and irreparable damage" is different from AOC's (according to WaPo) "all-too-accurate warnings. She said recently that if we don’t start to address climate change aggressively right now, the world will end in 12 years." The poll changes the wording and drastically changes meaning, so it does not apply and shouldn't be included. Just mention her words/tweet (regardless of how it makes her look), per NPOV. I could be mistaken, but if we are simply quoting her, the Tweet itself can serve as RS and replace Fox. OP should open a new thread focusing on whether there should be restrictions placed on content from Fox, such as climate change. petrarchan47คุก 17:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note: "according to WaPo" isn't a WaPo news item or editorial statement, it's an opinion piece by Tom Toles, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for The Post who also blogs and, with Michael E. Mann, co-authored "The Madhouse Effect" about climate and climate change denial. His informed comment is that AOC's warning are "all-too-accurate", but he's clearly not the WaPo. . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I'm the one that followed your addition with the Hill reference that explained her statement. I felt it was irresponsible to include her few short words that gave the impression that she is some sort of climate change imbecile that literally believes the world will end in 12 years and leave it at that. If you were to include something so unusual as the 12 years statement you should rather rely on a detailed discussion that fully explained her position, not some off the cuff remark. And then to complain that using the Hill was not warranted is totally unreasonable IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not complaining that the story of her remark was fleshed out. My statement was on the partisanship and unreliability of both "right" and "left" leaning sources, and to challenge the notion that sources on the left are automatically more reliable than Fox. At the time, no sources reporting on her statement (that warranted inclusion, IMO, because of the coverage it received) added any reason or back story. I noticed that the Hill threw in reference to the UN report, but it struck me as odd since no other RS was doing that, and there was no indication how The Hill got the information, no mention of an interview with AOC or a direct quote, etc. However I'm not saying it wasn't warranted; The Hill is now considered RS, so I didn't challenge the addition. petrarchan47คุก 06:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviuosly not RS. That Fox piece is an obvious piece of devious, manipulative misinformation, as is the summary of it written for Wikipedia as cited above. No matter how reliable Fox might otherwise be, it's a piece of propagandistic junk journalism, and we don't use those. WP:RS is not a suicide pact; even if we had reasons to believe that Fox otherwise has a reliable reputation, we're not obliged to cite junk journalism when it's so self-evidently out of touch with reality as this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Use , Fox is reporting what AOC said. If she didn't like it, maybe she'll think twice before Tweeting or saying something for her Twitter army. Fox's job is to report, same as CNN's or MSNBC's. AOC did say that the world will end in 12 years, that she is backtracking is not Fox's fault. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Are we judging sources based on our own opinion or that of RS? If we're to judge based on RS, then Fox News is pretty much out (see "expert opinions" above); if we're to judge based on our own opinion, then WP:NOR is out. François Robere (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use. Reporting AOC's "12 years" remark as literal when it obviously wasn't is clearly a malicious action on Fox's part. For us to repeat the lie would be at best terrible judgement and at worst a BLP violation. Zerotalk 19:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    What about Newsweek? [38] or USA Today, or CNN [39]? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Reminds me of a great book title I saw once: "If you can't live without me, why aren't you dead yet?" People use metaphor to dramatise their words all the time. No reason for us to buy into the pretence of not understanding that. Zerotalk 05:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Metaphor for what—1200 years? 12,000 years? 12,000,000 years? Numbers are inherently quantitative. Bus stop (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we care that CNN said the same thing, "During an interview the next day Ocasio-Cortez said "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change." [40] Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Use as RS but slightly modified as follows:
    1. The first sentence needs to be cited.
    2. Second sentence should stand independently as follows: However, A May 2019 Rasmussen poll showed that 48% of respondents likely voters and 67% of Democrats believe that the U.S. “has only 12 years to avert the ‘disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world’ stemming from climate change; 40% disagreed and 11% were undecided.” Cite the report. Atsme Talk 📧 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Lets remind users that issue if the claim about the poll, not what Ocasio-Cortez said.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: other factors such as WP:WEIGHT (how much has this been given in all reliable sources?), besides whether or not Fox is an RS for the claim, also bear on whether or not it should be mentioned. -sche (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Those discussions should happen elsewhere, like the article talk page. Matters of what material to cover are best held there. This forum is really only useful for discussing the reliability of sources. --Jayron32 20:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree :) but I saw that this thread was started following a disagreement over whether the content should be included at all, and I don't want anyone to take this discussion, if it concludes that the source is reliable, to mean that the content automatically gets included. (I have noted the other problems on the article's talk page.) -sche (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously not RS for anything related to the climate - Fox News made that excessively clear with tons of articles full of nonsense. See its article if you need references for that. --mfb (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not use- Fox's coverage of climate science is frequently dishonest, and this story in particular is a load of shit. Reyk YO! 07:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. I think it's reasonably clear that Fox News lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy today; but it certainly doesn't have the reputation WP:RS requires when it comes to climate science or for adding negative material to a WP:BLP that falls squarely in the scope of its biases. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Usable Mostly per Sir Joseph. Run of the mill peice of gotcha journalism that's been brought up in other newsmedia. WP:UNDUE seems more relevant. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Usable No one is a prognosticator of the future. The best scientific sources could be wrong. Fox News is a journalistic source. It is entirely capable of reporting on the facts about something a politician said. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    If it was being used as a source for what she said, yes. Its not its being used to make a statement about how people answered a poll (by misrepresentation of the poll).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    AOC has told us that climate change is "our WW2", that if we don't act immediately on climate change we will have "blood on our hands", and that climate change, if left unaddressed, will bring about the "end of the world in 12 years". It is not surprising that some people believe her. She is saying the same thing in more than one way. The language is very fanciful. No scientist would ever speak that way. She is a politician, trying to influence people. What is so surprising about the fact that she actually succeeds in influencing some people? Fox News conducted a survey (a poll) that shows that some people believe her, or at least chose not to express disagreement with AOC. Wikipedia editors did not conduct the survey. Suddenly we are experts on poll-taking? I don't find the results surprising. AOC has deployed exceptionally passionate language and some, when responding to a poll, choose to express agreement over disagreement, whether that is because they literally agree with AOC or because they agree with the spirit of what she is saying. I don't see how the poll is inaccurate and I don't think we should exclude information from the article based on our uninformed, at best incomplete, understanding of the methodology used in the poll. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    And what the poll said (according to the source "A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change.", which is not the same as saying the believe the world will end in 12 years. Oh and it does not appear to have been conducted done behalf of Fox [[41]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    This can be explained by considering that respondents may choose not to disagree on specifics with a political leader that they generally agree with. But this problem traces right back to the user of fanciful language. AOC is causing this problem. No responsible scientist would speak this way—and in fact no responsible politician would speak this way. AOC is not deploying language with requisite restraint. Her language is over the top. "Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as the key Democratic voice on how to tackle climate change, proposing the Green New Deal resolution that seeks to radically reorganize the economy to ensure climate change is tackled."[42] She apparently does not grasp that in pushing for the adoption of the position she is spearheading she cannot mix up the literal with the figurative without being taken to task for it. Fox News is reporting on her misuse of speech and the skewed results seen in entirely reasonable polls. A respondent is asked (paraphrasing) Do you accept AOC's contention that the world will end in 12 years if climate change is not addressed? Anyone supporting the general positions of AOC is incentivized to agree with her. This understandably might be the case even if the respondent does not agree with AOC on the specifics. Fox News is simply showing the trouble that her misguided words cause. Why don't we hear other politicians speaking this way? Obviously it gets the speaker into trouble—either by a poll taken or by some other means. A savvy politician speaks with restraint. But AOC does not. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    Why don't we hear other politicians speaking this way? We do, all the time. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    MMmm, I am rethinking, they do in fact both quote the Poll correctly and misrepresent it at the same time. However this also does not appear to be a poll about her views, but a general one. No, I do not think this is reliable for the claim this poll is related to her comments. It is clear they have spun this (with the claim that they think the world will end in 12 years demonstrating this dishonesty about the poll).Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    What is so surprising about the fact that she actually succeeds in influencing some people ... Fox News conducted a survey ... that shows that some people believe her - you cannot possibly be looking at the source this thread is about. If you are, and this is what you took away from it, then that's not great. The poll was based on something Bernie Sanders said, not AOC. Fox didn't conduct it. It didn't ask if AOC's 12 years quote should be taken literally. It asked something different. Fox invented those connections/glosses for this source, which is the problem. It says the poll found something about someone that any critical reading at all makes clear it did not. But you are repeating these claims here... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    The first paragraph which I think we all recognize is terrible writing for a supposedly RS, does make that inference. But when they get to the poll later, they don't mention AOC (but nor does address that the survey was spurred by Bernie's comment). They do try to link AOC's comment that is directed towards the GOP misunderstanding her retort to the poll that show dems were also believing the 12 years thing. Which to me all points to this being mudslinging not appropriate for WP, regardless if it came from Fox, CNN, or any other RS or non-RS. --Masem (t) 22:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Given that many of the reliable votes are not even based upon what it is being used for I have to assume that it is knowingly false. We do not repeat lies, even from RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This entire discussion is pointless... whether AOC was speaking literally or was being intentionally hyperbolic, it is UNDUE to highlight her comment. We should be SUMMARIZING her stance on climate change issues, and not mentioning every instance when she addresses the issue. And if we don’t mention it, then there is no need to mention how many people took her comments literally. Note... I have this same issue with bio articles on other politicians (regardless of party)... we need to summarize a LOT more and note specific statements a lot less. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    There are some cases where a statement attracts so much attention, controversy and coverage, that to forgo inclusion in leui of a summarized version constitutes a glaring ommission resulting in obvious POV issues. When readers see obvious POV on WP the result is less trust, and fewer donations. This is happening. We need to cover the controversies to remain seemingly-neutral if we continue to call WP and encyclopedia. As another editor here suggested, politicians sometimes make hyperbolic statements not intending to represent science, but to get attention for their cause and to sway the voters. If a politician does this successfully, the coverage garnered, per our PAGs, often will justify inclusion here. Sure, there is good reason to have a readable summary of her position (a position which may be evolving), but to omit notable highlights within that story isn't justified if they received significant coverage, which this has IMO. petrarchan47คุก 22:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • While I agree that it's WP:UNDUE, the problem is that Fox has covered it as if it were a big deal; we cannot avoid a decision about whether that coverage implies due weight. I would argue that since Fox is well-known as a partisan source, and since it's been extensively demonstrated that they weigh their coverage in a distorted manner in order to present particular narratives, that Fox alone should never satisfy WP:DUE about anything controversial within American politics (ie. it's a usable source, but always requires another high-quality source to demonstrate due weight, at a bare minimum within WP:BLP articles.) A Fox News criticism that has not seen mainstream coverage can be reasonably interpreted as a line of attack by the target's ideological opponents which did not take off and which is therefore WP:UNDUE. When dealing with extremely partisan or heavily WP:BIASED sources like Fox, due weight has to be assessed with respect to the biases of a source and their willingness to try and push marginal or inconsequential stories as part of a broader agenda. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • "it's a usable source, but always requires another high-quality support to demonstrate due weight" The implementation of that idea would be tantamount to censorship. I don't think a reliable source can only be used if other, less "partisan" sources can be found for corroboration. We don't, or at least we should not, omit from the article perspectives based on a lack of support found in non-"partisan" sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • But this isn't about percepctives, it's about facts. If an outlet is partisan to the extent that it affects its ability for factual reporting, then by definition it's not as reliable as outlets that aren't partisan. Also, saying "we should not omit from the article perspectives based on a lack of support found in non-"partisan" sources" is the equivalent of saying "we should introduce partisan bias to our articles." François Robere (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use. It's a clear misrepresentation of information, per MrX, and would come under WP:Synth if it had been written here. Whether or not Fox News is a RS more generally is irrelevant, since we're the ones who decide on that, and a prior, more general judgement doesn't prohibit us from using common sense in a specific case. That said, in theory we could still cite it for the poll figures, though personally I don't think they're particularly notable. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
(Side note: I'm somewhat sympathetic to those saying it's undue and a summary would be better but until someone actually writes one I don't think there's grounds to remove it. That said, insofar as we're treating the specific comments as notable for now we should probably give the full quote for context.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use, and consider deprecating Fox News like the Daily Mail. Media Matters for America has proven that Fox News's "hard news" side spewed misinformation every day on air from January 1, 2019 to April 30, 2019 as seen in https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/05/13/fox-news-lie/223683 and https://www.scribd.com/document/409793749/The-Fox-News-Lie.Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not RS for the statement as originally proposed, not RS regarding the 2/3 survey in general, and therefore a bad source to choose for the OAC quote. There can be little dispute that the source either carelessly or maliciously butchered the part about the 2/3 survey. If it's really necessary for OAC's comment to be part of a historic encyclopedic summary of the subject, we would of course be required to include OAC's explanation of that comment. However I doubt it will genuinely pass the 10 Year Test. Alsee (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The particular article is not an RS. As others have said, regardless of the general reliability of Fox News, it's clear the fact checking and accuracy process that we require of RS has failed for that particular article. It's possible that some of the stuff in that article is accurate but we can't reasonably be picking and choosing which parts of a particular article are reliable and which parts aren't. If we have compelling evidence that there is something wrong, we need to reject the article wholesale. All RS make mistakes at times, the fact that this appears to be somewhat of a high profile article and these mistakes have still not been corrected is concerning. Still I don't think we can through out Fox News point blank from this one article. However it may be worth looking further to make sure they do meet our expectations for fact checking and accuracy. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with a source that is both factual and misleads at different points

Core to this is not necessary Fox News but the specific article at issue: [43]. For the hypothetical, lets assume this was determined to have the right WEIGHT to include and happened to be the only source that covers it. (As it actually issue, I really don't think we should even include anythng about AOC's comment and how it was taken, even if this was a truly RS source, its a minor quibble over Twitter which is far below NOT#NEWS appropriateness).

We have that:

  • It opens with a grossly vague or illogically consistent restatement of the elements at hand: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” could actually believe it."
  • It later has a much more accurate statement of the survey: "A Rasmussen poll, conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change. Out of all total likely voters, 48 percent of respondents believed the apocalyptic claim." This clearly is in alignment with the survey results (outside of what I can't check behind the paywall).

If the article didn't open with that first line, I doubt we'd be here now. The second line is fine and non-controversial within the scope of the survey's findings. But we have this other claim that, while not creating a self-paradox, puts crappy reporting against decent reporting. I would argue that as WPian we can read through the BS and report only on what we know or can judge to be accurate or non-editorial (the second part) and not consider the first part to have tainted the work. We are not that "mindless" to not be able to recognize that problem.

The reason I break this out is that there is the general question of when any source have both good quality journalism and terrible editorizing in the same article, is the entire article now useless? This a question regardless if it FOX or any other nominally RS source --Masem (t) 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"I would argue that as WPian we can read through the BS and report only on what we know or can judge to be accurate or non-editorial (the second part)" This is belied by the discussion above where numerous editors claim that the egregiously deceptive opening paragraph of the piece is perfectly fine. There are apparently plenty of editors who cannot distinguish basic facts from falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Who has claimed the first para is "perfectly fine"? --Masem (t) 19:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say that "happened to be the only source that covers it" is, by definition, a strong indication that WP:WEIGHT requirements have not been met. You've described what is, as far as I can tell, a mutually exclusive set of conditions. If something is to appear in such a Wikipedia article as the AOC article, AND only one source is covering it, it is probably WP:UNDUE in nearly every case I could imagine. Doubly so when the reliability of that specific source has been called into question. You're describing things that don't exist.--Jayron32 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I know I'm talking a huge stretch for inclusion, per WEIGHT, so maybe this is a situation we never will ever really encounter again, but we are here now. It's a fair question if, say, CNN ever did this. --Masem (t) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not useless, but one that requires extra care. Why? For starters, because biased sources - even the accurate ones - tend to involve heavy selection bias (ie. WP:CHERRYPICKING). The facts themselves may or may not be true, but the overall picture is at best partial; and as we all know, a "cherry picked" picture can be just as misleading as a false one. Case in point: reports covering heavy winters that imply that global warming isn't happening.[44] As Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, using a biased source inadvertently introduces selection bias into our articles even if the core facts are true. Another reason is that we don't want to mis-lead the reader: this item is actually used in AOC's article; the reporting itself is correct, but readers following up on the source will quickly find themselves faced with the ridiculous and misleading comment of Brian Kilmeade and Andrew Pudzer that are embedded in the piece (something about "trains to Hawaii" and Soviet socio-economic policies). In other words: using that source means putting Fox & Friends literally two clicks away from the article, and that's a disservice to the reader and to their trust in us and our policies. François Robere (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans has been trying to get rid of Fox News here for years. He needs to drop the stick and stop his tendentious war against non-leftist media companies. I recommend a trout for the continued disruption and a stern warning that any future behavior of this nature will be met with sanctions. 174.211.4.175 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for the discussion of article content, not editor conduct. Your complaints should be directed to User talk:Snooganssnoogans. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
And the argument is fallacious: any non-right or non-GOP media must not necessarily be leftist... —PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If an article misleads at any point then it is not reliable. If the News outlet has a history of misleading then it too is not a reliable source. people and organisations that tell lies cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's not rocket science, just basic ethical standards. Bacondrum (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Three notes on the preceding discussion

  1. Most of this discussion consisted of editors' opinions and explanations, with very few RS to support them. Having brought to the table 26 references which were mostly ignored, I have to ask: are we conducting these discussions based on our own opinions or those of RS? If we're to rely on RS, then Fox News is pretty much out (see "expert opinions" above); if we're to rely only on our own opinion, then WP:NOR is out. Which will it be?
  2. This whole discussion is an example of what Matthew Yglesias of Vox termed the "hack gap" (see here for a quicker, but less thorough explanation), where Fox's focus on a completely meaningless story drives it deep into mainstream discussion (this is well documented by other sources as well). If it weren't for Fox we wouldn't have spent three days discussing an off-hand comment by a fresh congresswoman.
  3. Some editors found a solution to this discussion by stating "we shouldn't trust any news media outlet for news on climate change". I find this argument unsatisfactory, as it (conveniently) ignores two problems: first, it sidesteps the fact that Fox does distort the facts on climate change on a regular basis - "distort", not "oversimplify" or "popularize" like other outlets - and this has to be accounted for with respect to how we treat the network in general. Second, this argument ignores the fact that studies are only a part of the picture, and networks do have legitimate uses here: for analysis (eg. policy analysis and expert scientific commentary), as a tertiary source (eg. "The UN today published a report..."), for surveys and opinion polls, or for coverage of public discourse ("the EPA responded by...") - this very discussion was about the latter, not about a study, so the lack of a determination with respect to the OP's specific question doesn't actually solve the problem. François Robere (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Arguable a LOT of this would be unnecessary if WPians writing on current events avoiding the "talking heads" part of the coverage. We don't need to, within days or weeks of an event like this, to be trying to slot in opinions from politicians or analysts or the like, which is going to have uneven/biased coverage in the RSes (fox or otherwise) and focuses too much on the "now" rather than the long-term importance. This own issue between Bernie, AOC, and the UN climate change report is the type of thing that really has no place yet to be on WP. Ideally we should be approaching these type of stories like the Guardian does with its "live"-type coverage; strict factual timelines with no color commentary from any random talking head for example. As many have said for this specific story, it likely fails UNDUE for inclusion in the first place.
    • Now, months after an event, then we have better hindsight and can write quality summaries using RSes, and this is where Fox is clearly fine as an RS. The comment about about "not trusting any sources for CC" fits into this concept: the UN Report came out (a factual event) and then everyone and their brother tries to broadcast their opinion about it in the short term. We shouldn't at all be talking about those opinions unless they are creating major news stories, or until we have enough hindsight to know if those opinions are part of the longer-term coverage of the story.
    • What I'm trying to get at is that we should be questioning RSes that are going deep into opinion and commentary about reactions to an event in the short-term - Fox may be the worst of these RSes, but CNN and many of those others also throw out spin. The best solution is not to even include these pieces so that we don't have to play the RS-questioning game, and just wait until the story has had sufficient time to percolate and where there's little doubt about the RS coverage of past events. That gives us a better sense of what is not UNDUE to include and removes many of the issues of source bias (Fox and otherwise). --Masem (t) 15:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Agree 100 percent ...what is need is simply time...not clickbait news with blow by blow coverage that all media have. As an encyclopedia we should be waiting for analysis of topics (in depth coverage or academic review of information. Yes mention of a debate is fine...by day by day ocerverage till an incident is over is simply not compatible with encyclopedic writing. --Moxy 🍁 12:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable by any measure. Fox News may occassionally be accurate, but it has a history of making up facts and even entire stories and thus cannot be trusted. Fox news has a comparable reputation to the Daily Mail, regularly presenting highly partisan commentary, employing discreditied specialists, manipulating video footage with the intent to decieve, photoshopping images in a decietful manner etc etc etc. There are claims here that Fox is like any other organisation, but that is demonstrably false, they are one of the least reliable major news outlets globally. Fox News staff have even been known to vandalised Wikipedia.[1] Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Situational: I hear these arguments all the time, where some are rational and others are politically motivated. I absolutely agree that Fox News can occasionally or even frequently produce all sorts of rubbish nonsense and sell it as fact for political gain, and as a right libertarian, even I think that the news station is dramatic at best and bizarre at worst sometimes. However, I think we need to remember that like any other news station or website with a sense of credibility, Fox News does produce legitimate interviews and raw-report on stories. It would not be fair to point fingers only at Fox News when we have numerous other news outlets that can occasionally be bizarre or dramatic. For example, how is a story with this headline newsworthy? I mean, I understand that it is about an interview between Time and President Trump, but I cannot shake off the feeling of sensationalism. No, a right-wing CNN does not make it any more trustworthy, and every good editor knows that.
    I agree that the media has become less trustworthy, and I am less gullible and more suspicious than ever. I only come for raw stories and interviews, and their compulsive sensationalism and stating of opinion as fact have let me down. However, I have not given up on them, since they still produce legitimate interviews and raw stories on actual events. With respect to news outlets like Fox News, CNN, WSJ, New York Times, etc., that may or may not be prone to such sensationalism or whatever rubbish, I would say it is okay to use all of them, but in cases where spin—especially political—is probable and they are known to do so, use extra caution and please consider fact-checking their contents. Gamingforfun365 03:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Guardian, Technology News, Bobbie Johnson (August 15, 2007) "Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia"

Casio F-91W Digital Watch Release Year

Hello! Am hoping to have other more experienced contributors check for reliability on this source regarding the release year of the Casio F-91W Digital Watch being 1989. Every other article mentions 1991, but I believe this to be incorrect and possibly a case of citogenesis. Due to missteps and the independent involvement of a handful of other new users, reaching a consensus regarding the release year has been difficult.

https://news3lv.com/around-the-web/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air Jacepulaski (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

While emails to wikipedia editors can not be cited in the actual article, they can be discussed on the talk page ... to help editors determine which published sources to rely on and how much weight to give them. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The emails on the talk page (File:PacParts Inc Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png, File:Casio Japan Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png, and File:Casio America Confirms F91W-1 Release Date.png) are appropriate for discussion, although editors should exercise caution because it is not very difficult to alter or forge an email screenshot. However, since the screenshots are consistent with the information in the KSNV report, I don't have a reason to doubt their authenticity. — Newslinger talk 20:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Heshmat Alavi

According to The Intercept, it is now alleged that the personality of Heshmat Alavi is not real, and the writings under his name are actually written by a team of people at the political wing of MEK. Should this warrant removal of all Alavi writings from Wikipedia articles? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If confirmed (by another independent high quality source), then yes. If my count is right, his articles are used in Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War (references amount of Iranian help to the Syrian regime) and Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr (BLP; references his current occupation). In both cases, there are probably better sources, so replacing Heshmat Alavi with another source(s) to support the same content should not be a big issue (or even controversial). Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pavlor: I'm not that level of expert in Middle East affairs, so I don't know if I could touch on that more. But I added Alavi allegation in the People's Mujahedin of Iran article, and tagged the questionable sources in other articles you mentioned with appropriate template. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JSH-alive: Tagging these sources is a good interim solution. However, redirecting name of the person in question to the accusations in the MEK article looks like a possible BLP violation (these accusations aren´t confirmed by another independent source, opinion of former MEK members is certainly a weak source for such grave BLP claim). I think without support in sources other than the original The Intercept article, this redirect should be deleted. Pavlor (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pavlor: Didn't think of that. Requested for speedy deletion for now. Also, just noticed that my addition in the People's Mujahedin of Iran article was reverted. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is more to that story and the intercept is not the only source mentioning Heshamat Alavi is a fictional character. As a matter of fact, Forbes.com deleted all articles from that author:

Kazemita1 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in Persian, so I'm not sure about BBC's Persian article. But the WaPo article definitely cites The Intercept. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 18:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For now, I'm no longer editing any article within the scope of Iranian politics, especially in regards to the recent "Heshmat Alavi" controversy. I don't know if I can handle it properly, and I'm not sure I can get into this topic for long time. Anyway, I don't want to be involved in the conflict, dispute and controversy anymore. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 18:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The article on Oberlin College has recently had a large section added concerning some recent events. This section repeatedly uses the website legalinsurrection.com as a reference. Other editors are invited to weigh in on whether this is appropriate on the article's talk page. --JBL (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yokai.com

Is Yokai.com reliable? It seems to be a self-published source. The creator of the site, Matthew Meyer appears to have written several books on Yōkai. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Checking several of the pages, the information contained there is reliable as far as I can tell. The books he's published have been generally well-received. This doesn't appear to be a random blog full of stuff he heard on the internet. It appears he does a lot of research for each of the articles. I would consider it reliable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Level of fact-checking and editorial control on the blog section of the National Interest

Currently there are about 250 articles citing the blog section of the National Interest. Many of them represent those blog articles as statements of fact (e.g. S-400 missile system, Hypersonic flight). Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, such sources are essentially columns and should be used with caution. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, such source are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Based on these, the reliability of those sources hinges on the level of fact-checking and editorial control the National Interest blog is subjected to. I would like to invite the input from editors familiar on the subject. -Mys_721tx (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this book a reliable source?

It would be used in People's Mujahedin of Iran, for this statement: "An investigation by the European Parliament and the US military concluded that the accusations of it being a “cult” were unfounded, finding it 'falsified information traceable to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence'."

Alex-h (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably - who was the author that part of the book? You really ought to give better details before asking here. Cheryl Benard has an article and Angel Rabasa is cited many times. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't use a book published by a partisan D.C. think tank for this controversial topic. TFD (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

wallmine

wallmine Can anyone give me advise on the wallmine . I have been going thru their articles and they seem to be pretty intent in reporting in a responsible nature ~ they republish reuter articles ~ which I'm sure that the pay a fee for that, but it looks like they have a pretty good grasp of information that you can access and you don't have to register with wallmine in order to access that information i.e. if you insert AVY in the ticker search box you will get information on Avery Dennison Corp. ~ but then if you scroll down to the executive section, and say lets choose the first independent director on the list 'Julia Stewart'. You get a lot of current biographical material ~ the question is here ~ Can wallmine be a reliable source to use on Wiki? ~ thanks for your input Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Just an adder ~ (I just tried to do more searches) ~ you get three searches per month then you have to sign~up, but at least you don't have to give your whole mysterious life history to a stranger ~ H ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a stock company website, and I do not see why we cannot just use the sources they use, rather then them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:did you scroll down and look at the biographical material? Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
and so is Bloomberg and we use them all the time ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but Bloomberg are recognized experts in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree but when Bloomberg first started out (I may be wrong) ~ but I think wallmine is starting up like them (Bloomberg) ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And when they reach that level they may well be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

PML Daily article about political bloggers

Is this article in the PML Daily, a Ugandan news outlet, a reliable source? The article makes claims about two Ugandan political bloggers. I came across this article when doing a WP:BEFORE for Seruga Titus, and it is the only example of significant coverage that I was able to find. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems do but deferring to Ugandan editors (the relevant wikiproject, may-be?) is the best choice. ∯WBGconverse 09:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Uganda, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has also added a citation to New Vision to the article. Comments on its reliability would thus be appreciated as well. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    • I'm somewhat familiar with the New Vision. It is a relatively large online national newspaper for Uganda. It is published by a larger corporation, the New Vision Publishing Company (often dubbed the "Vision Group") which operates a wide array of media outlets, such as a TV network. The Vision Group receives some government funding, though at this point it is unclear to me if it is run in the manner of a state media organ or more like the United States' Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It has run opinion pieces by President Museveni before (example). A Google search shows it has been cited by well-published books and scholarly sources for information regarding Ugandan topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

After being invited to join this discussion: the two sources referred to are clearly related in some way; overlapping content. Of the two, PML seems more tabloidy to me. After going to the article from the creator's talk page, where it was stated to have been userfied and returned to main space prematurely, I had intended to AfD it: one source is irretrievably broken, the rest were just the main pages of the cited news sources, and the writing was highly biased with much unsourced. Since I did find news coverage, I decided to improve it instead. I have dealt with news sites from various African countries before and they always seem to look dodgy, so I like to use multiple references and keep what I say simple and brief. He seems notable, so I'm working on it as something of an emergency case. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

ALB Articles

Real Estate Maven1 (talk · contribs) has, in the last few days, been adding citations to multiple different articles. Sometimes they add more than one source, but every single one of their edits, going back as far as March 2018 (their edits before that were revdelled as COPYVIO) adds at least one addition of ref to either ALB Articles or ALB law firm. I suspect that this is a case of WP:REFSPAM, since on the face of it the website looks like a blog - however, others with more knowledge of the topic area may want to look at this, perhaps they are adding something useful? Thought I'd raise it here before blindly reverting. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your suspicion is likely correct - looks like a blog to me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello both, in complete transparency, I was a former law school intern at the firm these pages are run by and find that these articles are actually very informative toward the topic of real estate law. Each one is separately published through reliable sources (I.E. The New York Law Journal, New York's Apartment Law Insider, Law.com, etc.) and then re-posted to ALBarticles or ALBlawfirm. I wanted to use these in good faith to assist in creating reliable information on each wiki article by adding a reference from ALBarticles and then backing it up with another reliable and verifiable source, the intention of spamming didn't even cross my mind. I thought that linking to ALBarticles could be beneficial to readers as well do to the fact that it compiles a wide variety of real estate information that could be helpful to those clicking through. If necessary I could change the sources to the original article rather than the re-posted, canonical article on ALBArticles. Real Estate Maven1 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Real Estate Maven1 - thanks for taking the time to explain. If this material has been published separately in reliable sources, then yes, it would be better to refer to the relevant source, not this company's website. I'd advise you to go through each of the pages you've edited, and replace the ALB link with the independent source. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thank you Girth Summit. I will go through and replace the sources with the original articles. Cheers Real Estate Maven1 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I've now removed all the references linking to this website. If the material has been published elsewhere in reliable sources, please do go ahead and reinsert it, referencing those sources rather than this website. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Homesnacks

Source: Homesnacks

Article: Dunwoody, Georgia

Content: I think this is supporting the statement that this place is "affluent".

Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say not, it looks like two blokes write it and edit it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not a reliable source for anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267&oldid=1142578093"