| Revision as of 11:10, 29 November 2020 editYurivict (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,689 edits →Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:21, 29 November 2020 edit undoKoncorde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,360 edits →Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?Next edit → | ||
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
| ::This is original research. 1. I've been a data analyst for over a decade and I haven't a clue what Ed Solomon is up to or why he is surprised that if X goes to Biden, and Y goes to Trump, then the remainder must go to Jorgenson among other things. 2. Gibberish at best. 3. Counts do go down as data is checked. You're waaaaay down the conspiracy hole Yurivict. ] (]) 10:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | ::This is original research. 1. I've been a data analyst for over a decade and I haven't a clue what Ed Solomon is up to or why he is surprised that if X goes to Biden, and Y goes to Trump, then the remainder must go to Jorgenson among other things. 2. Gibberish at best. 3. Counts do go down as data is checked. You're waaaaay down the conspiracy hole Yurivict. ] (]) 10:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::: No, it's not gibberish. You are extremely biased. Can you explain how 23,000 votes in a row can go to one candidate? Is 100% also okay? ] (]) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | ::: No, it's not gibberish. You are extremely biased. Can you explain how 23,000 votes in a row can go to one candidate? Is 100% also okay? ] (]) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Yes, 98% of the batch could just be votes for Biden. Occams razor. ] (]) 11:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:21, 29 November 2020
 | Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. |
 | Controversially classified sources The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list. There has never been a request for comment (RfC) for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of this source, please start an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Unreliable sources for notability
WP:GNG requires WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. This is a clearcut policy, esp. if unreliable sources refers to sources based on user-generated content, paid content, press releases, etc. However, the way WP:RSP has gone, it appears that many partisan sources or other major media sources that have in the past pushed particular agendas or even conspiracy theories have been listed as unreliable. My contention is that there needs to be some sort of a differentiation between what's considered a reliable source for factual citation, and what's considered a reliable source for notability-related significant coverage. e.g. while Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion etc have been deemed unreliable for factual coverage, in my view, a profile in any one of these should count towards WP:SIGCOV. On the other hand, any amount of coverage in unreliable sources such as Blogger, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Twitter, Patheos, PR Newswire etc should not. Any thoughts? — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, really! Similarly to the fact that if Saturday Night Live is lampooning you, you've arrived, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree, since one of the objectives of the general notability guideline is to ensure that there are sources of adequate quality and number available for article subjects to be described in a way that meets the core content policies. The Onion can only be used under WP:ABOUTSELF or as a primary source to supplement a reliable secondary source. However, WP:PSTS states that
"Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
— Newslinger talk 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)- Say what? Since when is satire the same as self-published?— Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion is a questionable source, and WP:ABOUTSELF applies to both questionable and self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it has to be noted that while The Onion is self-admitted parody and should not be used as a factual reference for anything, there may be material on The A.V. Club that is useful and reliable enough for Misplaced Pages, especially when discussing critical reactions for entertainment such as movies, television series, and video games. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and The A.V. Club (RSP entry) is currently classified as generally reliable. G/O Media has a diverse set of web properties, and each of them should be evaluated separately. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it has to be noted that while The Onion is self-admitted parody and should not be used as a factual reference for anything, there may be material on The A.V. Club that is useful and reliable enough for Misplaced Pages, especially when discussing critical reactions for entertainment such as movies, television series, and video games. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion is a questionable source, and WP:ABOUTSELF applies to both questionable and self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Say what? Since when is satire the same as self-published?— Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree, since one of the objectives of the general notability guideline is to ensure that there are sources of adequate quality and number available for article subjects to be described in a way that meets the core content policies. The Onion can only be used under WP:ABOUTSELF or as a primary source to supplement a reliable secondary source. However, WP:PSTS states that
- Yes, really! Similarly to the fact that if Saturday Night Live is lampooning you, you've arrived, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The Onion? No. As funny as it's "reports" may be, these "news stories" are satire written to amuse, and are definitely not factual accounts of people and events. It is not a reliable source. The use of such sources would lower the credibility and quality of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Newslinger You might have missed the point of this post. I am well aware that that Misplaced Pages requires the sources to be RS/IS. My contention is that the the notion of RS should be different with respect to notability vs factual citations. Different words could be used to refer to these two types and different lists of sources would fit in. Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion have all been deemed unreliable for factual coverage by the community. They should, in my estimation, be considered reliable for notability purposes. My comment is normative (what should be), not positive (what is). You seem focused on the positive, i.e. the policy as is. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I had meant to say in my first comment is this: if a topic is not able to satisfy the current general notability guideline, then an article on that topic would not have enough reliable source material to cover the topic in detail while satisfying the core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and no original research). The article would rely mostly on passing mentions in reliable sources, which would be more likely to form a skewed representation of the article subject.
If you would still like to propose changes to the notability guideline, I recommend starting a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. The talk page we are currently on focuses more on applying current policy than on changing it. — Newslinger talk 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I had meant to say in my first comment is this: if a topic is not able to satisfy the current general notability guideline, then an article on that topic would not have enough reliable source material to cover the topic in detail while satisfying the core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and no original research). The article would rely mostly on passing mentions in reliable sources, which would be more likely to form a skewed representation of the article subject.
- Newslinger You might have missed the point of this post. I am well aware that that Misplaced Pages requires the sources to be RS/IS. My contention is that the the notion of RS should be different with respect to notability vs factual citations. Different words could be used to refer to these two types and different lists of sources would fit in. Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion have all been deemed unreliable for factual coverage by the community. They should, in my estimation, be considered reliable for notability purposes. My comment is normative (what should be), not positive (what is). You seem focused on the positive, i.e. the policy as is. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
How will we deal with Substack?
Hi folks,
I wonder how Misplaced Pages will deal with Substack in the future. On the one hand, it's a lot like blog posts. On the other, quite a few reknowned journalists are leaving their organizations to go there. (Gleen Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi), etc. MonsieurD (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- We will have to wait and see. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Substack is a publishing platform, just like Medium (RSP entry) and YouTube (RSP entry). A publisher doesn't become any more or less reliable by publishing on Substack, than if it published articles on its own website using some other content management system. Greenwald's, Sullivan's, and Taibbi's newsletters on Substack do not appear to have any editorial oversight, so they are self-published sources equivalent to personal websites. There are also some news organizations (such as The Dispatch, which is currently being discussed on the noticeboard) that use Substack as a platform. Likewise, they should be evaluated as if they were publishing on their own sites using in-house technology.
The best comparison is the WordPress platform, which powers self-published blogs on WordPress.com (RSP entry), generally reliable sources such as Variety (RSP entry), and generally unreliable sources such as the New York Post (RSP entry). It all depends on the publisher. — Newslinger talk 07:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Substack always lacks editorial oversight, so by current rules, it can't be used on Misplaced Pages. However, if reknowned journalists continue to move toward Substack, these rules may become a problem for Misplaced Pages in the future. MonsieurD (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Publications that use Substack (e.g. The Dispatch) can have editorial oversight, and if they are considered reliable, then renowned journalists who write for them can still be used on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the use of self-published sources has always been highly restricted on Misplaced Pages. In particular, WP:BLPSPS prevents any self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons, regardless of the platform the content is published on. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Having written most of the Substack article and contributed to those of some Substack contributors, I agree with this assessment. Jlevi (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Publications that use Substack (e.g. The Dispatch) can have editorial oversight, and if they are considered reliable, then renowned journalists who write for them can still be used on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the use of self-published sources has always been highly restricted on Misplaced Pages. In particular, WP:BLPSPS prevents any self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons, regardless of the platform the content is published on. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Substack always lacks editorial oversight, so by current rules, it can't be used on Misplaced Pages. However, if reknowned journalists continue to move toward Substack, these rules may become a problem for Misplaced Pages in the future. MonsieurD (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- yeah, it's a blogging platform, with some actual publications living on it - not a publisher itself - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that, if there ends up being a trend of independent journalists and commentators issuing their own publications -- this was probably only a matter of time since the WWW came into existence -- sourcing guidelines will need to be applied on a per-author basis, rather than to publications at large. I don't see why this would need to be substantially different from existing RS guidelines, but it will definitely involve more work. jp×g 04:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a difference between Bellingcat (as an example) setting themselves up as an independent self published publication and some of the recent Substack self publishing; which is effectively the last refuge of at least one journalist unhappy at being expected to follow the usual journalistic rigour and deciding to publish unqualified rumours, long disproven theories, and repeat conspiracy theories without any sense of irony. Koncorde (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- The answer is simple: treat it as a self published source. It's reliable for their opinion. All opinion must be attributed. It shouldn't be used on BLP. It'll never be reliable outside of those attributions without independent verification and oversight via editorial board or similar. Should be treated like any other publically available essay by a notable person (I mean Dan Rather is still active, but we're not sourcing content to his facebook posts). You do have to question why a journalist goes solo in such a fashion to the extent whereby even as a freelancer they are unable to find a publisher for their material. Koncorde (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is the conventional wisdom, yes. I'm not sure which specific journalist you're disagreeing with in this post, but regardless of how much you dislike them, I think it bears note that the Huffington Post was, at one point, an "unqualified" blog; BuzzFeed was a content aggregator/listicle farm; Bellingcat was a D&D goon's personal website. This is the 21st century. Weird stuff is going to happen. jp×g 07:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't dislike any journalist doing journalism, however I am pointing out any journalist that cannot find a publisher is almost certainly peddling the unsubstantiated crap we should not be using - and the conventional wisdom explains why.
- The difference between HuffPo and Buzzfeed vs Greenwald and Taibbi is that the prior submit to fact checking and editorial oversight and it took years to change public opinion of the institution that they worked for to confer reliability to their staff writers (and most content on HuffPo for me is still questionable, particularly on politics, but also science and medicine due to years of allowing woo to be peddled by guru's). In effect - they changed to become reliable sources.
- In contrast Greenwald in particular has rejected the trappings of reliability and any oversight and wants to publish his feelings. At this point he barely qualifies as an RS even for his own opinion so much of it is regurgitated bunkum refuted by all other RS.
- Bellingcat is marginally better, if only for the source of their information being routinely crowd-sourced / open-sourced, and subject to criticism in the public domain. It should still be attributed where used, and is reliable only for the sites own opinion in limited sitiations - which must be balanced against the RS either agreeing or disagreeing.
- In short, multiple journalists running to a self published medium doesn't mean we change our conventional wisdom. They don't become more reliable for becoming self published. Koncorde (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bellingcat largely still falls into that category
so, that assertion's an RSN discussion really - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)- Should clarify: not suggesting Bellingcat is actually publishing crap (meant to move that lower and forgot to move that line before editing the above paragraph - so have struck from above) - my position on Bellingcat is as per the last paragraph. If we are using, or someone is trying to use Bellingcat unfiltered then it definitely needs an RSN discussion. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Without wishing to support or oppose anything said above (since I know v little of the sources mentioned) but we should acknowledge that a lot of very competent journalists have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, purely because the market for subscriber-funded quality journalism has collapsed in favour bot-generated click-bait. So to say that "any journalist that cannot find a publisher is almost certainly peddling the unsubstantiated crap we should not be using" is, well not to put too fine a point on it, unsubstantiated crap.
- --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Journalists losing their jobs is very different to journalists not being able to find a publisher for an expose. Newspapers losing permanent members of staff is very different to engaging with freelancers, usually respected journalists will to engage with their editorial standards, to publish content. The only time I would suggest this is untrue is with local interest stories where the market to publish doesn't exist at all due to old news media becoming defunct. But we're not on about small paper journalists breaking news on a corrupt school board self publishing content in the public domain - which would be entirely unsuitable for wikipedia - we are talking about content rejected by large scale news carriers about allegations of national interest being published because the journalists in question don't want to engage with editorial standards because "censorship". Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know the phenomenon you mean. But OTOH, I also know a lot of journalists who are looking into newslettering as a more reliable source of income, and gathering into new small publications hosting via Substack - with editors, journalists, a professional approach, etc. I would advise caution for Misplaced Pages usage, but this may be a new model emerging. If it turns out to be viable - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Which is when it crosses the line from being self published same as HuffPo (although there are plenty of vehicles created just to push personal POV), but would have no inherent reliability beyond any other public newsletter.
- Currently this model already functionally exists for games journalism (i.e. Jim Sterling) and in a few other limited spaces, people paying for content they want to consume. If Sterling was to form a conglomerate it would be interesting to see if he suddenly became a reliable source outside of his own attributed opinion. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know the phenomenon you mean. But OTOH, I also know a lot of journalists who are looking into newslettering as a more reliable source of income, and gathering into new small publications hosting via Substack - with editors, journalists, a professional approach, etc. I would advise caution for Misplaced Pages usage, but this may be a new model emerging. If it turns out to be viable - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Journalists losing their jobs is very different to journalists not being able to find a publisher for an expose. Newspapers losing permanent members of staff is very different to engaging with freelancers, usually respected journalists will to engage with their editorial standards, to publish content. The only time I would suggest this is untrue is with local interest stories where the market to publish doesn't exist at all due to old news media becoming defunct. But we're not on about small paper journalists breaking news on a corrupt school board self publishing content in the public domain - which would be entirely unsuitable for wikipedia - we are talking about content rejected by large scale news carriers about allegations of national interest being published because the journalists in question don't want to engage with editorial standards because "censorship". Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should clarify: not suggesting Bellingcat is actually publishing crap (meant to move that lower and forgot to move that line before editing the above paragraph - so have struck from above) - my position on Bellingcat is as per the last paragraph. If we are using, or someone is trying to use Bellingcat unfiltered then it definitely needs an RSN discussion. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Is Oc-Media.org reliable?
Some of our wiki writers refer to OC-Media to justify their controversial information. I am raising the question about OC-media reliability as one of the major funders of this media is Open Society Foundations which is direct tool of George Soros to conduct revolutions in Eastern European countries, that is no secret anymore. Supporting opposition is already meaning to take a side and journalism in OC-Media mainly support opposition people in Eastern Europe an other countries that can't not be considered as proper journalism. There are too many conspiracy and controversial information about George Soros who is the main owner of Open Society Foundations. In order to avoid misleading information and any potential biased articles my suggestion to include OC-Media into unreliable sources. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bias does not automatically rule out reliability. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 10:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding the 'Washington Free Beacon'
Recently I encountered someone claiming The Washington Free Beacon was usable as a source for potentially-defamatory claims about a BLP; they cited the fact that it wasn't listed here as evidence (here and prior discussions). While I explained to them that that's not how it works, I also noticed that there was in fact a previous RFC on RSN that looks like it reached a conclusion to depreciate; it was never formally closed and had somewhat lower participation than some, but the results seemed clear enough. Is that sufficient to include it here? --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should formally deprecate Washington Free Beacon. I'm surprised it hasn't been listed at all in the table. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, by my reading, we already did, it just wasn't added to the table. I'm just making sure other people agree that that discussion is sufficient for the reasons I mentioned. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- We did not. Free Beacon is a reliable source, with a history of fact-checking and accuracy. As of May 2020 or so, deprecation requires an RFC. I don't think there ever was one, but maybe Doug Weller could confirm? Politrukki (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, by my reading, we already did, it just wasn't added to the table. I'm just making sure other people agree that that discussion is sufficient for the reasons I mentioned. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: this discussion also came up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Free Beacon, wherein some posts occurred. jp×g 07:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Newsmax
With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source, their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc. I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints. BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- for everything you just said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- this has been posted in multiple places that it’s has surpassed fox business and CNBC in daytime ratings https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/newsmax-tv-surpasses-fox-business-cnbc-key-ratings-newsreal-blog/
- Viewership is up, because conservatives think Fox News is too liberal. This does not make Newsmax at all reliable though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
- "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda.
- "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
- "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.
- Given the sheer unreliability of Newsmax, it should probably be in the same Deprecated category as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, and The Epoch Times. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I’m here for an real discussion. Using terms like propaganda, disinformation and extreme right-wing tells me that can’t happen with you on this topic. You seem to be intolerant to a viewpoint that differs from your own BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Terms like "propaganda, disinformation, and extreme right-wing" views are a pretty apt description. My favorite part is the constant reminding to their viewers that Newsmax hasn't called the election for Biden...even though they don't even have a decision desk. Grandpallama (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I’m here for an real discussion. Using terms like propaganda, disinformation and extreme right-wing tells me that can’t happen with you on this topic. You seem to be intolerant to a viewpoint that differs from your own BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- This seems like a discussion that should be had at WP:RSN. signed, Rosguill 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct, I’ll move it there BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Republic TV
Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- An active discussion is taking place at WP:RSN § Republic TV. — Newslinger talk 14:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Ad Fontes Media
@Hemiauchenia: I have no objection to your addition in this edit, but why did you remove and have questioned its methodology
? The source's poor and statistically unsound methodology is one of the primary reasons it was found to be generally unreliable, and IMO that qualification should stay in the description. Armadillopteryx 10:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was trying to reflect recent discussions of the source, which regard Ad Fontes Media's rating of articles as at least somewhat objective. "and have questioned its methodology" is vague, and the criticism in the entry should be more specific. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I should note that I was the one who wrote the entry to begin with, I am only editing my own words. There's sort of a tension because there is the two separate dimensions of its use in article space without a 3rd party source discussing it (which the overwhelming concensus is no) and its use as a metric to discuss source reliability in noticeboard discussions (which seems more mixed). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
FNC
Fox news channel's news pieces on politics have become more "reliable." Although that trend has been highly visible in its news reporting of 2020 presidential race, probably it has been felt earlier by folks who regularly surf FNC website. FNC and MSNBC, (On their websites) generally do not spread false information about politics. But they are worded smartly to appeal to conservatives and liberals, respectively. If you consider MSNBC to be a reliable source even when it reports on political issues, I will urge you to endow FNC with the same epithet. The Conservative "lying" syndrome (CLS) in FNC, is generally less "intense", compared to OANN, Newsmax, Breitbart and others. So I think we should look at whether FNC still suffers from CLS or it has recovered. Before answering the question, have you kept an eye over how they reported 2020 election on their website. Please don't judge FNC's news content via looking at Ingraham or Hannity talk shows. Pro-Abortion on demand, Pro-recognition of gay marriage individuals like Jimmy Kimmel and Daily show host Trevor Noah are talkshow hosts on mainstream media. So we would love to have a constructive debate on the subject. And please don't judge me by my words. I have adopted pragmatic centrism long ago (AKA New Mexico politics). So what to do about FNC's status? Ppt2003 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- We just had this RFC - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I looked in the comment for some kind of actual point but all I found was a lot of false equivalence and whataboutism. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IHateAccounts: Was that response necessary? jp×g 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I looked in the comment for some kind of actual point but all I found was a lot of false equivalence and whataboutism. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in the RFC prevents us from using Fox as a source for politics (or science for that matter). -- Calidum 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
OP, I think you would be well-served to consult the numerous RfCs on this subject. This specific issue has been discussed ad nauseam in multiple places before; simply reigniting the issue without citing specific conclusions of past discussions seems unlikely to cover any new ground. jp×g 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion
This page reflects what happens on WP:RSN. A source can be left off off this page because it is so bad that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is a reliable source -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of this page because it is so good that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable source -- https://www.nejm.org/ --08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is already covered by WP:RSPMISSING. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?
One specific recent lie is that they report that 2020 election fraud allegations have no evidence. In reality there are hundreds of affidavits, and affidavits by definition are considered acceptable evidence in court. Mass media (CNN/MSNBC/CBS/New York Times) lie (deny the verifiable facts) and are still considered RS. I suggest they are removed from RS sources because lying is not compatible with being a "reliable source". Yurivict (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- To provide context for this diatribe, they edited the Sidney Powell with the summary
and were reverted. The reasoning is obviously nonsense even if the title of this section didn't make that clear already. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)The theory that Dominion voting system was designed to rig elections is supported by several affidavits, which are a legal evidence, so it can't be dismissed as "false" based on some government officials interviews
- They appear to have Misplaced Pages:Competence is required issues when it comes to source evaluation, per discussions on their talk page where they say things like "The One America News TV channel does honest, excellent reporting; NewsMax accurately reports current US news; The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/) has very reliable information; same can be said about American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/) and Big League Politics (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/)." . IHateAccounts (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- IHateAccounts, if one checks their recent (the last couple weeks) contribution history, one could easily build a case for NOTHERE and lacking COMP, enough for an AP2 TBan. -- Valjean (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- We seem to have someone that believes affadavits are "evidence" of fraud (as opposed to people that believe fraud was committed or they were witness to fraud), but affadavits legally must have other evidence underpinning them to bring them out of hearsay. I.e. to say a crime was witnessed, but to have no evidence of said crime is generally speaking a bit of a boo-boo. Rarely are affadavits viewed as evidence alone other than as corroboration of other material evidence, and are subject to the same scrutiny one would expect any unsupported claim. Koncorde (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Koncorde pretty much summed up my point, so I concur. An affidavit can claim the Dominion software changed votes, but there needs to be actual hard evidence to support the claim, which there is none at this point. Basically they're saying "The votes were being changed, I can't tell you how I possibly can know or give you proof that votes were changed, I just somehow know it was fraud." So when a RS says "without evidence," it's not a lie. But the cake is. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Basically we consider court documents outside of final decisions to be primary sources and should not be treated as reliable for anything related to the case. The final decision should be a juducial summary of the case and thus the facts as seen through the eyes of the law, so if there were anything factual in the affidavit, as determined by the court, they will include it in their decision and only then could we consider it factual here. --Masem (t) 03:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is now a recurring tactic among the conspiracy theory set to present an "affidavit" as an indisputable statement of truth. Merely waving "affidavits" on television is often effective in persuading millions. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Affidavit is evidence: "An affidavit is admissible evidence " . It isn't a definitive evidence, or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is evidence. When mass media talks about "evidence" this has to be understood as "any evidence" unless specified otherwise. When they are saying that "their is no evidence of fraud" - this is clearly an intentionally false statement. Yurivict (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- We know what they are. However you are ignoring the limitations of affidavit in order to present them as incontrovertible facts or material to the case in question. In other words, you want everyone to take the affidavits as evidence of fraud, rather than evidence of a persons opinion which hasn't yet been ruled as admissable or even submitted as evidence in a case.
- As has been seen in each case so far, the affidavits when submitted (in most cases they are culled down to one or two at best) make no claim as to fraud, and the Lawyers have been at pains to make sure that their case before the judges do not argue fraud (including Giuliani last week). Each has so far alleged either a failure of process, or requested action from the judge to rule on matters such as which ballots are valid based on State election law, but not fraud. There is a simple reason for this: accusing someone of fraud is extremely serious and can leave you open to being counter sued. The Trump campaign have steered clear of such things because they don't want to be also liable for such allegations. That includes for the media reporting such allegations as fact, or treating affidavits as evidence of fraud. They aren't about to put themselves on the hook either.
- Sidney Powells case in contrast is the first case brought and submitted that uses the words fraud that appear attested to by affidavits. Their status as evidence of criminality has yet to be tested in court. Her accusations for whatever reason have actually avoided accusing Dominion (which is interesting, presumably to avoid being shut down with a few seconds by someone that is technically proficient) and instead allege that entire swathes of election officials were party to and collaborated in fraud... but the affidavits she has collected don't say that. They say they show only vulnerabilities and allegations that the software was used in the past in some fashion for fraud. In effect, the evidence that actual fraud took place again isn't in the affidavit. Koncorde (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- When media says "there is no evidence" it isn't meant "of incontrovertible evidence", but rather "of any evidence", and it doesn't mean "admitted" or "submitted", just "any". "Affidavits make no claim as to fraud" - false. Election mail backdating is fraud, there are affidavits of witnesses. Scanning ballots multiple times is fraud, there are affidavits of witnesses of that too. Yurivict (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Well, Your Honor. We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." But that's not how it can possibly work at Misplaced Pages - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Scanning ballots multiple times may have been due to numerous reasons. Backdating may have been due to reasons. Which is why they are not evidence of fraud, they are evidence of a persons opinion about what they saw. They might think they saw fraud, and even attest to it - but that is hearsay.
- Show us where these evidences of someones opinion have been taken into court and the judge has taken them as evidence OF fraud, and then you will have an argument (plus RS would cover such instances).
- At present the RS will treat affidavits that are not presented at all, or are presented but rejected wholesale, as the absence of evidence - and as we reflect the RS so will we. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Show us where these evidences of someones opinion have been taken into court and the judge has taken them as evidence" - this is *not* the standard that media used during Brett Kavanaugh approval procedure. It was clear hearsay, not even an affidavit, without any physical evidence, yet media extensively reported it and also sided with it. In case of 2020 elections media takes the approach that only the evidence that has been accepted in court is something that they even report on. This shows clear, unambiguous bias. Yurivict (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Second, you're grossly misrepresenting virtually everything regarding the Kavanaugh hearings. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- And everything related anything else for that matter. The MSM are covering and reporting on the allegations, and are characterising them as either already debunked, groundless, fantasies, conspiracy theories etc because they looked at the affidavits (usually with expect legal commentary) and thought they were a joke. Unsurprisingly 30 of 31 have been tossed for being utterly without foundation despite Yurivicts claims of "evidence" to the contrary somewhat confirming the accuracy of their analysis over Yurivicts. Koncorde (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- The FEC chairman mentions "hundreds of affidavits" (link below), so who thinks those 31 tell the whole story? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- And everything related anything else for that matter. The MSM are covering and reporting on the allegations, and are characterising them as either already debunked, groundless, fantasies, conspiracy theories etc because they looked at the affidavits (usually with expect legal commentary) and thought they were a joke. Unsurprisingly 30 of 31 have been tossed for being utterly without foundation despite Yurivicts claims of "evidence" to the contrary somewhat confirming the accuracy of their analysis over Yurivicts. Koncorde (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Second, you're grossly misrepresenting virtually everything regarding the Kavanaugh hearings. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Show us where these evidences of someones opinion have been taken into court and the judge has taken them as evidence" - this is *not* the standard that media used during Brett Kavanaugh approval procedure. It was clear hearsay, not even an affidavit, without any physical evidence, yet media extensively reported it and also sided with it. In case of 2020 elections media takes the approach that only the evidence that has been accepted in court is something that they even report on. This shows clear, unambiguous bias. Yurivict (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Well, Your Honor. We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." But that's not how it can possibly work at Misplaced Pages - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- When media says "there is no evidence" it isn't meant "of incontrovertible evidence", but rather "of any evidence", and it doesn't mean "admitted" or "submitted", just "any". "Affidavits make no claim as to fraud" - false. Election mail backdating is fraud, there are affidavits of witnesses. Scanning ballots multiple times is fraud, there are affidavits of witnesses of that too. Yurivict (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Koncorde pretty much summed up my point, so I concur. An affidavit can claim the Dominion software changed votes, but there needs to be actual hard evidence to support the claim, which there is none at this point. Basically they're saying "The votes were being changed, I can't tell you how I possibly can know or give you proof that votes were changed, I just somehow know it was fraud." So when a RS says "without evidence," it's not a lie. But the cake is. Persistent Corvid (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- We seem to have someone that believes affadavits are "evidence" of fraud (as opposed to people that believe fraud was committed or they were witness to fraud), but affadavits legally must have other evidence underpinning them to bring them out of hearsay. I.e. to say a crime was witnessed, but to have no evidence of said crime is generally speaking a bit of a boo-boo. Rarely are affadavits viewed as evidence alone other than as corroboration of other material evidence, and are subject to the same scrutiny one would expect any unsupported claim. Koncorde (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- IHateAccounts, if one checks their recent (the last couple weeks) contribution history, one could easily build a case for NOTHERE and lacking COMP, enough for an AP2 TBan. -- Valjean (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- They appear to have Misplaced Pages:Competence is required issues when it comes to source evaluation, per discussions on their talk page where they say things like "The One America News TV channel does honest, excellent reporting; NewsMax accurately reports current US news; The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/) has very reliable information; same can be said about American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/) and Big League Politics (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/)." . IHateAccounts (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not 31 singular affidavits; in a series of cases sometimes dozens have been submitted at once - only to be withdrawn, struck out, or dismissed by the Judge as hearsay. Also a Gish gallop of affidavits does not speak to the veracity of the content. While Trainors opinion per reliable sources is about as accurate as Yurivicts. In short there's few cases in front of a judge that allege fraud, the affidavits that do allege fraud are not being submitted as the majority of cases are not arguing fraud. In effect we have a group of people screaming fire in a crowded room, but then when asked to point it out they claim only that the fire extinguishers don't have the correct pull tabs. Koncorde (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm currently having a strangely similar discussion with PersistantCorvid at Talk:2020 United States presidential election#Suggested change to the third paragraph, but checking Valjean's edit history to see where another discussion about purported interference went, if anybody present wants further context or if Corvid wants to chime in here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- The source in question there doesn't have a fancy name, it's just the news (interviewing some federal election chairman). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence besides affidavits:
- (1) Votes counted in Pennsylvania after 9PM on Nov 3 until Nov 12 have correlations that are impossible to occur in any natural voting process: (data is based on the New York Times datasets). Most of these unnatural votes went for Biden.
- (2) Based on the New York Times dataset, one batch of 23,000+ votes in Georgia went 98+% for Biden , which is absolutely impossible in any real voting process.
- (3) Vote counts went down on live TV in Pennsylvania , Virginia , Wisconsin . Every time votes went away from Trump to Biden. Vote counts can never ever go down, ever.
- Anybody can see this for themselves. You can download the same information from the New York Times website and make sure for yourself.
- Media outlets should be first to investigate and report these issues, instead of just saying "there is no evidence of fraud". Saying this constitutes intentional lying, and they can't be considered RS. Yurivict (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is original research. 1. I've been a data analyst for over a decade and I haven't a clue what Ed Solomon is up to or why he is surprised that if X goes to Biden, and Y goes to Trump, then the remainder must go to Jorgenson among other things. 2. Gibberish at best. 3. Counts do go down as data is checked. You're waaaaay down the conspiracy hole Yurivict. Koncorde (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not gibberish. You are extremely biased. Can you explain how 23,000 votes in a row can go to one candidate? Is 100% also okay? Yurivict (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, 98% of the batch could just be votes for Biden. Occams razor. Koncorde (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not gibberish. You are extremely biased. Can you explain how 23,000 votes in a row can go to one candidate? Is 100% also okay? Yurivict (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is original research. 1. I've been a data analyst for over a decade and I haven't a clue what Ed Solomon is up to or why he is surprised that if X goes to Biden, and Y goes to Trump, then the remainder must go to Jorgenson among other things. 2. Gibberish at best. 3. Counts do go down as data is checked. You're waaaaay down the conspiracy hole Yurivict. Koncorde (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)