Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 17 March 2022

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

I belabor this point because this discussion may initially seem like a "no consensus" result, but applying the global consensus described above, it is upon those wishing to include the source to achieve consensus for its reliability in order for it to be deemed reliable for the specific purpose of supporting the edit in question. This has not been achieved, and so the source is not reliable for the specific purpose.

The global consensus of WP:RS lays out some criteria for demonstrating that a source is reliable. These criteria have not been met in this discussion. No one has shown that the work itself has been widely cited. It has been shown that it's been cited by Globalsecurity.org, and even assuming without deciding, for the purpose of this discussion only, that Globalsecurity.org is itself a reliable source, the citation of India: A Country Study by one putatively-reliable source (Globalsecurity.org) does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work). ("Fact-checking" means verification of facts performed by someone other than the authors.)

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.

Source: Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert, eds. (1995), India: A Country Study (PDF), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, p. 571

Statement in source: "There was some opposition to this move within the cabinet by those who did not agree with referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN. The UN mediation process brought the war to a close on January 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war."

Discussion: Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#6000 casualties figure

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit

Summary: This is a highly partisan topic and is subject to DS. The talk page discussion started by questioning Pakistani casualties quoted as 6,000 killed, citing Globalsecurity.org and a figure of 1,500 killed. There is no consensus as to the reliability of that source but it actually cites India: A Country Study (the subject of this post). The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was initially fought by proxy until the ultimate engagement of both national militaries. It is unclear from the other sources cited precisely what they are reporting as casualties (ie national military casualties v total combatant casualties). The other sources are not great, in that they are largely Indian in origin. The subject edit would add the 1,500 figure to both sides. However, the reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) has since been questioned, citing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Question: Is the subject source (India: A Country Study) sufficiently reliable to support the edit made to the infobox in respect to casualties.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I have no ties to either country.

Comments (India: A Country Study)

• Not a reliable source for the purpose.
  • That being said, what is the end-game? A majority of men employed by Pakistan were irregulars supplied with arms-stashes and money; who had recorded those casualties? There is a reason why even semi-official histories (see Shuja Nawaz et al) skips mentioning casualty-counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• The time of the event is around late 1940's. This makes it very difficult to gather enough information on the casualty figures. Misplaced Pages was earlier quoting an indian figure which seems to have no official source and was not reliable enough. The 1,500 casualty figure estimate is the most neutral source on the internet neutral source at page 571 and is quoted by global security.org . It is also cited in some university work. No concensus can even be reached on global security.org not being suitable for being quoted. It has been cited in over 25,000 articles and also by Reuters and new york times as well as Washington Post which are considered reliable sources and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar. It is only logical to quote both the 1,500 and 6000 figures as an estimate. Going by what TrangaBellam, that would mean removal of all the casualty section as this argument will even apply for the 6000 figure, which also it not a sure shot reliable source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.

So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The India country Study states 1500 Indian soldiers died, so it's off by 397 from the Indian History of the War. However, it's unclear whether it includes the J&K/AJK/GB/Chitral forces for either side and if it does, it would indeed be off by a wide margin. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There may be some confusion of terminology. Casualty is killed+wounded. It's apples and oranges to compare 1,500 killed with over 3,000 casualty. -- GreenC 03:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• This source doesn't rule out that the 1,500 figure is wrong. The 6000 Pakistani casualty figure and 3000 indian casualty figure still turns out to be an indian claim. The 1,500 comes out to be a seperate estimate of casualties, not related with }}. No official pakistani casualty figures were released and thus the source cannot be ruled out. Your source only suggests thats the indian killed figure be changed to 1,500-3000 and Pakistani be kept at 1,500-6000. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The question that is being discussed is whether it is reliable for the purpose. I gave evidence that proves that it is not. The best you can do is to quote it verbatim in the body. It is nor reasonable to split it up into pieces and format it in whatever way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• For the sake of including a neutral perspective I agree with using it. Currently, the article cites Indian figures. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with including it, as a range. The source is widely cited by other reliable sources as noted by Truthwins018. Furthermore reliable sources are not required to cite their sources to be reliable. A research division within the Library of Congress is not faultless, I doubt any numbers are definitive, but it would require more than Wiki editors disagreeing with the numbers to exclude it from the article, particularly when given as a range. -- GreenC 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "Global security.org figures". Globalsecurity.org.
2. Broad, William J. (2013-01-28). "Iran Reports Lofting Monkey Into Space, Calling It Prelude to Human Flight". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
3. "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
4. Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379
5. Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

• Unreliable for the purpose. The source which is India: A Country Study is clearly not widely cited. The assertion that it is, is based on a different website called globalsecurity.org quoting it. The website globalsecurity.org which looks like a group blog, is the one being used as a source for an opinion in one NYT article and produces 25k+ results on google scholar (every result after the 8th is from the website itself). This is very marginal use in RS, not to mention its use is irrelevant to the actual query here. Searching for India: A Country Study itself produces similarly barebone results. The subject of the source is an overall profile of India and is not specific to the military history of the Kashmir Conflict. The topic area needs specialist academic sources, especially for things like casualty estimates. On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wide citation of global security.org has already been mentioned by SpicyBiryani on the talk page of 1947-1948 indo-pak war.The founder of the website is John Pike. John Pike is one of the worlds leading expert on defence in the world and more can be read about him in the sources cited.Global security also has a reputed range of staff with wide experience in the field of defence.Global security has been cited in Reuters by an article worked upon by Reuters Staff. It has been cited in CNN . It has been cited in Washington Post here, here ,here. It has been cited by NYT , . Some of the book citations are:

  • Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.
  • Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.
  • Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf

All the book citations may be viewed here. It has been cited in numerous books on National Security.

As for the subject issue, The book does concentrate on one of the participants of the war. The killed figures are given in a seperate National Security section. We till date are not equipped with accurate figures of the casualties from the war. An indian version of figures are available. A neutral version is established from this source. It is only wise to continue with an estimated range of casualty figures which gives all the figures Truthwins018 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see merit in the arguments of those who esteem the source unreliable for the purpose for which it is being used on the main page. There is hardly any correlation between the reliability of a source and the magnitude of hits it gets on a search engine. The tangible criteria are enumerated and enunciated at WP:RS and there is no indication that this source, which uses a broad-brush to coalesce the two countries' casualties under a single sentence with unwarranted brevity, measures up when the yardstick of WP:RSCONTEXT is applied. Kerberous (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

1. "GlobalSecurity.org - John E. Pike". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
2. "John Pike". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
3. "GlobalSecurity.org - Staff Directory". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
4. "Factbox: Key facts on China-Taiwan relations ahead of Taiwan vote". Reuters. 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
5. CNN, Madison Park. "North Korea boasts about rocket testings". CNN. Retrieved 2022-01-06. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
6. , Martin Kleiber, Anthony H. Cordesman. Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf. PRAEGER SECURITY INTERNATIONAL. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-313-34612-5.

• It definetely fulfils on the criteria of WP:RS. Your opinion WP:OR is irrelevant in the present criteria. The source directly cites the material and its under a seperate section of Natural security. Vaious citations of globalsecurity.org does increase its reliability especially by already considered reliable sources and none of the discussion was aimed at " magnitude of hits"Truthwins018 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had come here to seek opinion that was hopefully independent of the topic. By and large, this has not been the case so it is substantially just a rehash of the opinions being offered at the original discussion. Perhaps though, the most telling comment is that of Tayi Arajakate: On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. It would strongly suggest that the solution is: "remove one, remove all". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that would be one way to go about it. Although a better solution would be to find independent specialist scholarly sources and replace these sources with them. To give an overview of the sources, I can see 3 books published by Lancer Publishers which is the in-house publisher of the Indian armed forces, a Pakistani newspaper article, one book authored by Ved Prakash Malik, one commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and an article from an Indian military think tank. This reminds me of a previous discussion arising from a similar dispute, and the article in question appears to have more or less analogous issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CR request made. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this purpose. Similarly I don't see how globalsecurity.org make the estimate more credible. It is not reliable as well. The number of hits on google does not correspond with reliability, as pointed out by others already. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does this need a closure? Has anyone said it is reliable? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Background. It has been claimed none of the below sources are reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by any of the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier". Further, it has been claimed that citing them is WP:OR, . Discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and WP:FRINGEN#Staffordshire Bull Terrier have failed to reach a consensus.

The below sources and specific quotes have been claimed to refute the sources above.

Question. Are the sources detailed in the top box considered reliable and specifically are they reliable to cite the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes all of the sources are reliable and yes they are reliable for citing the claim the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by all of the various names listed above. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hasn't this question already been asked at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How is this not forum shopping? Damn, I was about to note that Talk:Bull and terrier had not been edited since 2019 and suggest that these discussions continue there, when you started this!! wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, there has been no determination on the reliability of the sources. This is just to seek a determination about whether the the community considers these sources reliable, I believe the discussions have broken down because of a refusal to accept their reliability (or potential lack of). Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC).

• Wow - a malformed RfC improperly worded to get the answer you want? The fact that you already failed to gain consensus at 2 other venues over this same issue needs an admin's attention. If this isn't forum-shopping with a splash of TE, then I don't know what is. I've seen editors get t-banned for far less than what you've been doing for over a week now. Atsme 💬 📧 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the sources in the first box are WP:TERTIARY (Atlas, Dictionary, Encyclopedia). These are down-scale quality. Some are also quite old. It may be there are two perspectives: traditional cultural understanding, and scientific/DNA analysis. Thus it is possible both are right, depending on context. Stuff like this is best handled with careful prose. Report what we know including contradictions. -- GreenC 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment(invited by the bot) You basically have wp:RS's saying somewhat conflicting things. IMO your solution isn't going to come from deciding on inclusion or exclusion of sources based on policy. I certainly would not knock out either claim or source based on that. Most likely you'll need to say both with attribution. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that the sources are reliable for saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly called the sundry names given above. This has been hashed out a few times now, and I'm familiar with the arguments out forth. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Trout and close. Why is this RfC even here? It's as if this page didn't have instructions at the top about what it's for` and how to post. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, these appear in reliable secondary sources. There are a few sources that disagree, so they should be referenced as well with their point of view.--Seggallion (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• More or less. Quite a few of these are clearly tertiary sources, including Coile, Jones (both books), Morris, and Wilcox. Beaufoy is probably a primary source. That said, all of them except maybe Beaufoy (depending on whether he has a reputation as an expert) are probably reliable enough for the facts at issue. I agree with complainants here, however, that these facts should not be at issue on this page, after just being discussed on another noticeboard and being subject to an ongoing thread at Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. Cf. WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If the question here is to evaluate the sources, I would say that the first group of sources appears to include more in the way of books about the subject, which is a point in its favor, but the sources on both sides of the disagreement are largely reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes, albeit with the caveats about tertiary sources noted above. This is not a decision between reliable sources and junk/deprecated sources. Since the underlying question goes beyond source reliability, to which POV should be reflected by the page content, I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Misplaced Pages's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a waste of time. Why can't Cavalryman and Atsme work out a compromise wording that explains both sides of the dispute? Why do Cavalryman and Atsme feel the need to start these noticeboard discussions? The sources are disputing the facts. As others have said, say both with attribution. This is an AN/I thread in the making because neither one of you feels the need to compromise and you are both adamant on your correctness. How hard is it to just write the article acknowledging that there's a dispute in reliable sources? For what it's worth, the dog breed doesn't have to be proven to exist as a separate dog breed to have its own article. Look at the Khorasan group. This group may or may not exist as a separate cell of Al-Qaeda, although many reliable sources have said that it does exist many have said it doesn't. It gets a separate article because many reliable sources have covered it as a separate entity, and then in the article itself we go into detail on the dispute over its existence. Dog breeds should be less controversial than international terrorism but for whatever reason it was a whole lot easier to adopt a compromise wording in that article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Is the Greater Khorasan the parent breed of the Afghan Hound? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, it is certainly not my intention here to recontest the close of the merge proposal, there is a pretty clear process for how to do so and it does not involve this noticeboard. My intention here was simply to gauge the community's views on the sources listed because their reliability has been continuously denied throughout the two other discussions, this noticeboard is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. That being said, if general feeling is this is a waste of time I have no objections to it being closed. Cavalryman (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - in summary, the sources have been assessed as being reliable by the vast majority of editors here. That established, it is now time to close this thread. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International

There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:

2019 - Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Misplaced Pages?

2021 - Amnesty

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

Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Amnesty International)

• Comment I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the Israel article, it has twice been referred to as questionable. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --Jayron32 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a fact, furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  see here. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I refer you to my reply below.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, with an asterisk. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover should be understood to may reflect a left-wing bias; in particular, they should be considered partisan in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. —Compassionate727  15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. —Compassionate727  16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 with an asterisk. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. Pious Brother (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm not sure if the use of AI has been credibly challenged; but they have a long history as a highly respected human rights organization. Yes, they're an advocacy organization, meaning their opinions should be attributed, but factual information does not need to be, and I see no evidence that they're in any way unreliable for factual information. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree with Vanamonde, the very definition of a respected, widely cited, and professional organization. When they make an accusation of such and such being a human right violation it should of course be attributed, and since their views are routinely cited in reliable sources it should not be difficult for a secondary source for their views. But when they report facts, like in the last 20 years there have been X refugees fleeing Y country, an absolutely solid source. "According to Amnesty International" can be found 600+ time on nytimes.com, 469 times on BBC, 352 times on The Guardian, some 5000 results on google scholar, nearly 700 times on JSTOR. A solid source on all counts. nableezy - 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not for nothing, but According to Xinhua appears "according+to+xinhua"+site%3A"nytimes.com over 700 times on the NYT, around 275 times on the BBC, about 280 times in The Guardian, about 580 times by WSJ and over 2000 times in the South China Morning Post. Amnesty International certainly has more integrity than Xinhua, but it's important to note that the way in which RS use Amnesty international matters more than merely the times that somebody says something according to them. Are these uses mostly uses as a source for facts, or because the NGO carries weight even if it is seen to fudge numbers at times? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course and that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. nableezy - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact and there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see scholarly sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label, they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. Sir Joseph 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the Pegasus Project (investigation), it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's Citizen Lab , which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Pilaz (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribution required for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the bias is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see Amnesty_International#Country_focus). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Misplaced Pages. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. - Who said that? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No one. It's a rhetorical question which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. Alaexis_¿question? 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:GREL and WP:BIASED, so attribute the source. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or that Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define WP:RS for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Misplaced Pages's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to WP:NPOV. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy through its own particular lens. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the legalization of prostitution, opposition to capital punishment, and resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, WP:BIASED keenly notes that sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for certain sorts of information and that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. WP:BIASED also indicates that a strong bias on a topic may make in-text attribution appropriate. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be WP:GREL where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its detailed reports exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are stating their stances on issues, such as Is abortion a violation of the right to life? No. This sort of stuff is key to WP:NPOV—just as attribution to the ADL that Amnesty’s report on Israel creates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what WP:NPOV calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,' The Forward 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 and dubious discussion start. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of Israel where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted Gunnar Myrdal’s groundbreaking American Dilemma (1944) when its detailed analyses, anti litteram of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation? Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully UNDUE . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Misplaced Pages, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Misplaced Pages policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.Tritomex (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As an example, take Forward's coverage where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 Can be used with attribution. As an advocacy organisation, it tends to be less nuanced and more forceful in its descriptions than standard RSs such as when it equated Guantanamo Bay with a Soviet gulag. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Misplaced Pages article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. Tritomex (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel

14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report

I have sources to support my view, do you? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts Deborah Lipstadt call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism --Shrike (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The crime of apartheid was criminalized by the Rome Statute, and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg here) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? nableezy - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the prisoner of conscience title. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Stellar source. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. OtterAM (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What relevance do political declarations by countries have in assessing a scholarly report concerning another country? None.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

• Option 1, as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be attributed in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Misplaced Pages’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Of course, attribution for its interpretation of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the torture article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " (Conrad, Courtenay R.; Hill, Daniel W.; Moore, Will H. (2018). "Torture and the limits of democratic institutions". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0022343317711240.) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, et al. seems to be a good summary. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 -- reliable for facts, attribute for opinions; good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Assessments and opinions are best attributed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a WP:BIASED source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information?

In terms of the apartheid analogy, the crime of apartheid has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate, pure fantasy. AI is discussing the crime of apartheid and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is intended to incite or not technically accurate. nableezy - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 with a caveat. Compassionate727 nailed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. Alaexis_¿question? 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, Triangle and Negev regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS. nableezy - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Source saying it is false please.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. . So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Misplaced Pages (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Spatial Segregation in Israel says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so-

called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021

Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Since all sources have a bias, what does an asterisk mean? If one wants to insist on attribution, one has merely to select Option 2 and say so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sceptre, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. _signed, Rosguill 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Seeing as the OP also wants it reopened, I've reopened it. FWIW, I was working on the assumption that AI already occupies GREL, and I don't think there's a likely prospect it'll go to MREL (like I said, the "asterisk" option is the absolute limit downwards in this discussion). I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. (Also, I make no opinion on the Israel report myself; I'm just saying that if it's questionable, then it can be discussed without affecting GREL). Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering the head of Amnesty has a problem with the report should tell you that at the very least we should not be using the report as a RS, but as an opinion. Amnesty’s Israel chief criticizes group’s report accusing Israel of apartheid Sir Joseph 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  The head of Amnesty International Israel not the head of Amnesty. Same sort of situation as Amnesty in Germany.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. nableezy - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidu Tieba

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.

My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news.

See also: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Can_we_use_blogs_to_show_that_a_subject_is_discussed_in_cyberspace?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Baidu Tieba is an Internet forum with user-generated content, which is self-published. Tieba is one of the most widely used communication platforms in China. We don't usually blacklist or deprecate popular forums or social networks in their entirety because they are platforms instead of publishers, and because article subjects occasionally use these platforms to publish uncontroversial self-descriptions that can be cited in Misplaced Pages articles in limited cases. We do typically add these platforms to User:XLinkBot/RevertList, which instructs XLinkBot to automatically revert link additions from new users when the link is not in a citation; this is usually done to address problems with spam or promotion. Tieba is similar to Reddit (RSP entry), Facebook (RSP entry), and Twitter (RSP entry).https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7636663652 is not a reliable source for the Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) article, since it does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per Newslinger. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable also per Newslinger, it's a Chinese social media platform, the usual policies (WP:UGC, WP:SPS) are sufficient for handling Tieba. Jumpytoo Talk 23:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fox News

• I propose that Fox News be deprecated as an unreliable source for political topics on WP:RSP. I will present evidence here that "the news side" of Fox News fabricated a major outright lie, which continues to advance despite significant blowback from reliable sources, to create a false narrative of "Hillary Clinton spied on Trump" that has spread like wildfire as truth across right-wing media. This can get a bit complicated, so if anyone asks for a source to substantiate anything I say, I'm happy to provide it, though the wikilinked articles should be adequate.

Background: John Durham indicted former Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly lying to an FBI official by saying during a 2016 meeting between them that he was not representing a client for the purposes of their meeting. Durham alleges that Sussmann was actually representing the Clinton presidential campaign. Sussman, a cybersecurity law expert, represented the Democratic National Committee when they were hacked in 2016, and his former Perkins Coie colleague Marc Elias represented the Clinton campaign. Parenthetically, Elias almost single-handedly shut down Trump's 60+ legal attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, so it goes without saying some might be kinda upset with him, perhaps to the point of seeking payback. But I digress...

Sussmann worked with internet analyst Rodney Joffe, who analyzed DNS traffic (not communications content) during 2015 and 2016, both at the White House and Trump properties, which his spokesman has said was based on concerns of Russian infiltration to disrupt the election (Russians hacked the Executive Office of the President in 2015 and the DNC in 2016). Joffe's company, Neustar, had a government contract for this work to identify security threats. In February 2017, Sussmann took to the CIA Joffe's findings that a Russian phone was querying the White House and Trump properties networks. Durham asserts Sussmann did this to gin-up intelligence community suspicions about Trump and Russia, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Sussmann denies this. Again, he went to the CIA after Trump was already president.

On February 11, Durham filed a court motion that included a description of Joffe's alleged activities. This is where Fox News comes in. The next day, the Fox News news side ran a story entitled:

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham

and the lede continued...

Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House...

Here's the problem: Durham did not say the words "paid" or "infiltrate" in his motion. Instead, Fox News reveals in the 21st paragraph of the story that those words actually came from former Devin Nunes and Trump employee Kash Patel, who is characterized as a Trump loyalist. But not surprisingly, and likely/certainly by design, the Fox News headline and lede were sufficient to detonate an explosion in conservative media: "Clinton spied on Trump! He was right all along!" It's no accident they used Patel's word "infiltrate," they know their audience will interpret that to mean "hacking." There is no evidence of hacking.

Durham's motion said none of these things:

• Clinton campaign was involved
• Payments were made
• Joffe's alleged activity was unlawful
• "Infiltrate" or "paid"

Today, the same Fox News journalist ran:

Clinton campaign lawyer Sussmann files motion to dismiss Durham prosecution

Again, Durham has alleged Sussmann was a Clinton campaign lawyer, which has not been established as fact, and which Sussmann has denied. The reason the "news side" of Fox News has done this is transparently obvious, to misleadingly connect dots to fabricate a false narrative:

"Joffe monitored Trump's internet traffic, Sussmann took that to the CIA, Sussmann worked for Clinton, therefore Hillary was the mastermind behind a scheme to spy on Trump."

And of course, the primetime opinion side of Fox News amplifies and blasts that false narrative out to millions, who will accept it as proved because, you know...Durham said so. Except he didn't, not yet anyway. Since Fox News first published this false story days ago and it was ripped apart by reliable sources, they have made no effort to correct it, let alone retract it.

This is egregiously unethical conduct. It clearly demonstrates that the opinion side of Fox News now fully controls the enterprise, and it should be deprecated as an unreliable source for politics. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As a follow-up, yesterday the presiding judge in Sussmann's case held a hearing which was characterized as:

• "Judge: Legal filing by Durham team created a 'sideshow'". Associated Press. March 11, 2022.

• "Judge warns special counsel over provocative court filing". Politico. March 10, 2022.

• "Durham investigation: Judge pans filing that fueled right-wing firestorm". CNN. March 10, 2022.

• "A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy". Business Insider. March 10, 2022.

But the same Fox News reporter who wrote the previously-discussed story once again deeply buried the lede, focusing instead on a peripheral matter:

"Durham probe: Judge rejects Sussmann request to 'strike' special counsel's 'factual background'". Fox News. March 10, 2022.

soibangla (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's already considered unreliable for politics. This wouldn't change anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated". But WP:DEPREC says it requires an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox News (politics and science) (RSP entry) has been designated as "no consensus" since the 2020 RfC. Only the talk shows (RSP entry) have been designated as "generally unreliable". The closure and subsequent indexing of that RfC were accurate reflections of community consensus at that time. I don't think a new RfC would be helpful right now, since political content on Fox News that is determined to be unreliable can still be excluded from Misplaced Pages articles on a case-by-case basis. — Newslinger talk 03:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, in this specific case, its clear that we can document how Fox is approaching the story from far more reliable sources to flag any attempt to use Fox as a "factual" source here as completely inappropriate. --Masem (t) 03:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But is Fox News reporting anything substantially different than the Wall Street Journal or NBC, on this story? It's reasonable to assume that investigative journalists are able to uncover facts that go beyond what a prosecutor is yet willing to divulge their strategy on. So the indictments shouldn't be held as a ground truth to which Fox News should be compared. I don't watch Fox News, and generally only hear bad things about Fox News, but it's not like there's some "fair and balanced" counternarrative among journaists, that paints Joffe as innocent. People who've actually looked into it seem to be reasonably in consensus:

• Tech exec used access to White House computers to look for dirt on Trump

• Who Are Those 'Techies' Who Spied on Trump?

• The Politics of Neustar

And, if you feel like going a little further in depth:

• The Checkered Past of the FBI Computer Contractor who Spied on Trump

So, sympathetic as I'd be with the notion of deprecating Fox News as a source, this seems a very weak basis on which to do so, since it would equally hold against NBC and the Wall Street Journal. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ articles are clearly marked as opinion pieces, and RealClearPolitics articles are usually op-eds, so those links don't have the same issue as there is with Fox News calling these stories "news." The NBC article might be in the "Hillary Clinton" category (I say "might be", because it just links back to the one article), but they're not running a sensationalist headline, and they bury any connection to Clinton deep in the article, where it's only present in quotes or carefully qualified as an unproven accusations. Even if the NBC article was essentially identical to what Fox is running (it's not), NBC still doesn't have Fox's long, sordid history with this sort of thing. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to be careful that the "anti-Fox" stories are talking about normal Fox News reports vs commentary from people like Tucker Carlson etc. The opinions/analysis expressed by the commentators are already marked as unreliable and are separate from the normal news reporting. Also, I think some of the "nothing to see here" sources are basically taking the limited claims of the Durham report and saying they don't prove larger claims. For instance, lets accept as true that a lawyer who does work for the Clinton campaign contacted Joffe to get meta data from Trump computers. That does not mean the lawyer did any of that at the request of the Clinton campaign nor that Clinton herself had any knowledge. This is a simple logical statement that association doesn't equal causation. If CNN runs a story saying as much and saying that this isn't proof even though a Fox commentator is saying as much, well that is correct. However, it doesn't mean a commentator is wrong to say, "this looks like" or "this may mean". This is also problematic because we had many sources who took evidence that was just as limited as this and used it to accuse Trump of Russian associations (a claim that hasn't been conclusively proven one way or the other). Now, let's assume that in a few months more conclusive evidence comes out and it turns out the Fox talking heads are right. Would we then say this is proof that the NYT etc should be considered questionable at least for political analysis? This is really a new source Rorschach Test. We have something that currently isn't conclusively anything. It could be A, it could be B or even something different than A or B. What we probably should report is what the sides claim. We shouldn't assume one side is right or wrong unless they make a claim that isn't supported by the very limited evidence to date. It may not be a bad idea to take a wait and see approach. Sadly it may be many years before the news sources on either side can give an impartial review of this huge mess. Springee (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Fox News article is presented by them as "normal Fox News reporting" and not "commentary", it's not categorized by them as an opinion piece, and the case being made here is that there is no longer any meaningful distinction between the two at Fox News. Also, in this case, your suggestion would almost certainly run afoul of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you would need to show which article they are they refer to. I know in a related discussion I followed a link and saw references to Fox commentators. We should be careful about what is actually claimed vs what other sources claim is claimed. Saying what various sources report is false balance if we have only a few sources on one side vs the other. However, we actually have quite a few sources that are saying things similar to Fox, that this does at least appear to support a claim that the Clinton campaign was attempting something. Yes, a number of those sources are no-consensus on political topics but when so many say the same thing (and The Hill and WSJ are green) we shouldn't just act like there is nothing to see here. Springee (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Wall Street Journal articles (, ) are clearly marked as opinion pieces, the Fox News article () is not. The rest of your comment is tangential. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the sum of all articles on the subject. Also, OpEd restrictions dictate how we should use these sources in articles. It doesn't mean we can't point at the arguments made in those sources to say they tend to counterbalance the analysis made by the NYT et al outside of their OpEd pages. Springee (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is Fox News, or more specifically, the article I linked that was also linked above. This is not a general discussion of the topic of that article, we are discussing the article itself. The WSJ articles were presented by BurritoTunnelMaintenance to show that other news outlets were publishing similar reports, but the difference is that the WSJ articles are presented by them as opinion pieces, while the Fox News article appears to be an opinion piece masquerading as news reporting. Do you disagree, and if so, on what grounds? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but if the justification for this subject is Fox News is making false claims based on the claims of a few other sources then we need to show that what Fox is claiming is outside of reasonable. So far you and Soibangla haven't met that standard. As for the OpEd "masquerading as news reporting" part, well that is a big problem with many sources. Many sources that claim to just be reporting include some level of analysis even in stories not marked as OpEds. However, if that is the issue we should zoom out and discuss this as a general topic, not something restricted to Fox News. Springee (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, will discuss Fox News in the Fox News section, and other topics in their own sections, because I view the alternative as being disruptive. I think Soibangla has done much more to support their opinion here than anyone else has, and they've provided enough verifiable evidence to convince me, but you're free to disagree. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Paraphrasing Durham from last night: "It's not my fault some are lying about what I said."

If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.:

soibangla (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unnecessary - Fox is already listed as “generally unreliable” for political topics. That is enough. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

To be precise, it is listed as no consensus on the reliability. It isn't listed as unreliable. The commentary shows are listed as unreliable. Springee (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation noting that even after setting the various problems with deprecation as a process aside, it is from a technical perspective not possible to enforce deprecation for a specific set of topics, as the edit filter cannot tell what the subject of an edit is. No opinion at this time on otherwise adjusting the reliability. _signed, Rosguill 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support unreliability, oppose deprecation - I agree that Fox News is unreliable for political and science news, and RSP should be changed to clearly say that. But I don’t think it is practical to deprecate for just some topics. John M Baker (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, we can't deprecate a source for just some topics. That being said there is an extremely strong argument for deprecating Fox but that will have to be a holistic argument/discussion because we would be deprecating the whole enchilada not continuing the split opinion.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Update: now that its an RfC with a formal question I would support downgrading to generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" We should have a consensus that the "news" division of Fox News exists to prop up the U.S. Republican Party and related causes. They have been overhyping the Canadian trucker convoy. Fox News isn't news, it's propaganda. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Neither of those sources criticize Fox’s news coverage for being factually wrong–they just don’t like that Fox is providing positive coverage regarding the protestor’s goals. But that is evidence that Fox News has a conservative (or I guess in a really narrow sense for those two articles a “pro-protester”) bias, not that it is unreliable. The Hannity and Tucker stuff is already considered GUNREL, since the talk shows are largely commentary, opinion, and entertainment. And Media Matters for America isn’t exactly a WP:GREL source either, per WP:RSP, so it really should not be the basis of downgrading Fox. Fox News, used in a manner that doesn’t put it in Wikivoice for exceptional claims, is generally fine and can provide useful information on politics-related topics when people keep in mind that additional considerations apply. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is all just the tip of the misinformation iceberg. So many times Fox News pushes misinformation and disinformation. It's real bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

In order, your sources are an WP:MREL source that is actually criticizing the fact-checking on Fox’s opinion-based talk shows or an article that Fox corrected (which is actually a sign of a good editorial practice), an opinion piece (

• Short of deprecation, at minimum the Fox News RSP entry should be amended to explicitly mandate that any Fox News reference in politics/science must be accompanied by at least one fully corroborating green source. soibangla (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We should change the results of a RfC that had over 100 participants and a panel closing because you don't like how they covered a recent story? OK. Springee (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no "results" in the last RfC, it was closed as "no consensus". And it was from July 2020, which was almost an entire pandemic ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, after over 100 editors weighed in there was no consensus. Where is the evidence that things have changed? Springee (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence they are referring to is currently being discussed here and now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though this argument is akin to Circular reasoning ie "How can there be a new consensus if there was no previous consensus, and if there was no previous consensus, how can there be a new/different consensus?" I'm not trying to straw man, just asking for clarification. DN (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox overhyping Canadian truck convoy is not a valid reason to downgrade them. Fox covering more about news that are more favorable to the conservatism or Republican Party is not also a cause for downgrading. SunDawntalk 04:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Leave as is: The evidence presented here is not sufficient to show Fox News should be downgraded. Yes, we should always be careful when commentary gets into factual reporting but this is hardly unique to Fox. Springee (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable", without prejudice towards deprecation (via RfC) should the trend continue. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" "generally unreliable for politics" per Soibangla's and Mysterious Whisper's arguments. DN (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to generally unreliable for politics, or full depreciation if a consensus exists for it, though not solely because of this one incident. High-quality sources bluntly describe Fox News as distributing misinformation. Sources specifically note that both the news and opinion portions of the network have worked to intentionally spread disinformation and that almost nothing that Fox News airs meets traditional journalistic standards. In the previous RFC some of its defenders speculated that while Fox's talk sections and opinion pieces are obviously unreliable, it could be possible that the other parts are reliable; however, no evidence has been presented that its news sections actually have a higher reputation or that the problem is confined to opinion, while there is plenty of evidence at this point unambiguously indicating that no such division exists. This is just the latest example; but sources are extremely clear that Fox's news section systematically and intentionally spreads misinformation when doing so serves the network's political processes. Obviously Fox is a WP:BIASED source when it comes to American politics and could never be cited without attribution anyway (many of the sources above use it as their specific example of "partisan media"; many others specifically note that it was created with the intent of being stridently partisan and to advance its owners' political agenda), but the key point is that this institutional bias has led to it introducing intentional misinformation into its news side. This certainly makes its political reporting unreliable, and truthfully it's sufficient to justify wholesale depreciation, especially given that the political divides it both created and exploits means that there will always be people who continue to try to use it as a source for topics directly or indirectly connected to American politics, despite its plain and well-documented unreliability. EDIT: Since people have asked what changed since the previous RFC, I'll point out that, in addition to the incident that prompted this, there is a lot more coverage of Fox's misinformation during COVID, as well as broader coverage sparked by it or reflecting it. Most of the sources I mentioned are from 2021 or later. In addition to directly providing an example of deliberate misinformation by their news section, the significant impact of COVID misinformation has prompted more coverage of ideologically-driven misinformation from partisan sources in general; many sources have used Fox as a prime example for this. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Aquillion, Political Communication in the Time of Coronavirus do not say anything like that on page 83. There is nothing there that can reasonably construed as "not that both the news and opinion portions of have worked to intentionally spread disinformation." Can you re-check your reference and provide the exact quote? Alaexis_¿question? 18:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It spills onto page 84 and 85 and isn't easily summarized into a single pull-quote. But the key points are The parade of pseudo experts appearing on right-wing news and interview programs helped spread and legitimize claims that Trump had been making since march that hydrochloroquine (hereafter HCQ) was a cure for COVID-19. This false narrative was widely repeated within the radical right media sphere, which we define as a media ecosystem in which a variety of outlets produce and spread a mixture of conventional and fake news, political propaganda, and public mobilization activities (Yang, 2020). A casual observer might conclude that outlets in this sphere, centered around Fox News... --Aquillion (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this isn't equivalent to intentionally spreading disinformation, which would require them knowing that they were spreading falsehoods. In the hindsight we know that, but you can't retroactively charge them with it. As you'll remember, there were experts who quite confidently said that masks were useless for laypeople, and this wasn't disinformation either. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you continue on to page 86, the piece describes Fox as "producing propaganda materials" and part of the "co-production of disinformation." I think it's fair to read intention in to those, at least so far as this article takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. The examples on that page appear are all about the opinion pieces ("falsehoods ... came from Fox personalities", "...Fox news host ... railed about economic shutdown") which we wouldn't use anyway. It looks like nitpicking but Aquillion's claim was that both news and opinion parts of Fox News intentionally spread disinformation and I still think it's not supported by this source. Alaexis_¿question? 06:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Croce & Piazza 2021 are more nuanced than you claim. The full quote is The first objection sheds light on the difficult problem for mainstream media of finding a balance between the duty to report what relevant public figures maintain – including cases in which what they assert is mostly fake news – and the duty to inform their audience, that is, to provide them with high-quality information. This problem becomes even bigger if media outlets themselves are involved in distributing misinformation. As anticipated, this typically happens with partisan media such as Breitbart and Fox News. So the claim here is that "partisan media such as Breitbart and Fox News are typically involved in distributing misinformation", which adds two (three?) qualifiers to your quote, and hence is not their blunt description. JBchrch talk 19:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Croce, Michel; Piazza, Tommaso (19 July 2021). "Consuming Fake News: Can We Do Any Better?". Social Epistemology. 0 (0): 1–10. doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1949643. ISSN 0269-1728.
2. Aelst, Peter Van; Blumler, Jay G. (13 September 2021). Political Communication in the Time of Coronavirus. Routledge. pp. 83–84. ISBN 978-1-000-46710-9 – via Google Books.
3. Jones, Jeffrey P. (2022). "Challenge Fox News". Fixing American Politics. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003212515-36/challenge-fox-news-jeffrey-jones. ISBN 978-1-003-21251-5.
4. Mort, Sébastien. "Truth and partisan media in the USA: Conservative talk radio, Fox News and the assault on objectivity." Revue francaise detudes americaines 3 (2012): 97-112.
5. Peck, Reece (2021). ‘Listen to your gut’: How Fox News’s populist style changed the American public sphere and journalistic truth in the process. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003004431-18/listen-gut-reece-peck. ISBN 978-1-003-00443-1.

• Comment: If there are going to be !votes, then this should be an RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  An RfC is only necessary for a formal deprecation; other sources have been declared "generally unreliable" through informal discussions like this on this noticeboard. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  A RfC is required to change the outcome of such a well attended RfC even if the question isn't deprecation Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was no result at the last RfC, and I see that someone else has already explained that to you. Unlike that RfC, this discussion may yet yield an actionable consensus. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was a result, no-consensus. This discussion with editors who happen to have seen this discussion is not sufficient to overturn a no-consensus at a RfC that specifically asked this question and had over 100 editors !vote and a panel of closers. Springee (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  "No consensus" means no consensus, it's not an endorsement of the source, and it doesn't mean a consensus can't emerge later. Can you cite a policy that requires an RfC when previous RfCs failed to result in a consensus? So far, this discussion is going more smoothly than that RfC, and I think it's more likely to result in a consensus, while another RfC would probably go the same way as the last one. That might seem like a good thing, if you endorse the status quo (because "no consensus" defaults to the status quo, without explicitly endorsing it), but then it would also be a waste of everyone's time.
  Do note the rest of the closing remarks, about bludgeoning and avoiding "parallel discussions" during contentious debates about this topic. You participated in that RfC, so you should already have known better. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural close, per discussion above. When an RFC is opened, I would also suggest using the standard format, as it is not clear to readers what "keep as is" means. BilledMammal (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to generally unreliable for politics, or full depreciation if a consensus exists for it as well. CaribDigita (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade per Aquillion above. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Agreed that the !voting, if it happens should surely become an RfC.

Regarding my !vote, neutral about downgrade for politics.

The review of the scientific literature is fairly clear: this paper argues, Fox News is a sui generis kind of journalism, but it doesn't seem very supportive of it; this one summarises an argument that Fox News mixes conservative viewpoints with tabloid journalism). This includes a chart in which a grading of fact-checkers is presented, and Fox News is about as good as the Daily Mail and the New York Post, which, well, aren't.

Looking at the stories they publish, this one reads fairly cringe, and we have the above almost obvious fabrication + we have beating the dead horse about the "lib'ral bias!!1" described on p. 122 of the book. This would make you think that I'd ask for a downgrade. I don't think this should be the case for national politics, though.

I know of pieces such as this, this and this (with input from AP). I'd cite this one too for the fact the lawsuit is out there, however. Looking here, I see that whatever is not labelled "Media Buzz" (opinion rants about lib'ral bias and about-faces of Democrats) and "Videos" seems to be reported either rather neutrally (such as here, this and here) or with some deliberate spin (such as this story - I see no apparent reason to raise fentanyl in this article other than to show disapproval of her policies), but I see in general no policy-based reason not to cite it for facts presented in the articles - the bias is rather obvious (sometimes in wording but mostly in what they select to cover), but there is a mixed bag of plain political reporting mixed with dubious pieces. This leaves me with a very hard choice, as Fox both seems to have some legitimate usage but at the same time is capable of doing "reporting" like this one. Leaving the current grading sends the wrong signal, while downgrading will omit a fair part of what seems to be otherwise fair reporting but with a strong slant, so I ultimately am undecided on that.

I remind everyone that pundits (Tucker, Hannity, Ingraham etc.) have all a dedicated rating (generally unreliable), and most scholarly works understandably, but unfortunately for us, concentrate on pundits, not the reliability of plain news reporting. With the nonsense that Tucker spews, I'd even deprecate it but I'm afraid we won't because there's no technical way of implementing it.

Downgrade for science topics. We should ideally restrict ourselves to scholarly/scientific sources when describing scientific topics per WP:SCIRS (not a guideline, sadly). Fox News is just too bad for lay summaries of scientific articles, and we shouldn't cite it for levels of consensus or non-ABOUTSELF scientists' viewpoints (and, unless we're speaking of Fauci-like jobs where such communication is critical, I hardly imagine any legitimate scientist making an interview for a Fox pundit). Many of the more mainstream outlets also often fail to produce good science journalism, but at least the latter seem to be trying harder. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, downgrading for science/medical topics is unnessesary, as WP:MEDRS already downgrades (all) news media as a source for such content. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The current listing says "Fox News (politics and science)" as a "no-consensus for reliability". This creates the misleading IMHO impression that we can't agree if Fox News is good enough to cover scientific topics, including in lay summaries of scientific articles (there are legitimate uses for NYT or The Atlantic for scientific topics). No, we need to change it explicitly. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is more to Misplaced Pages than can be found in the RSP list. There is an entire guideline (WP:MEDRS) that deals explicitly with which sources are acceptable for medical and med-science content… it already says that news media sources are “generally unreliable” (See WP:MEDPOP). This applies to Fox, and also to CNN, BBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Guardian… (etc). They are all deemed generally unreliable in this context. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, but MEDRS does not cover non-medical science and thats were Fox has been the most problematic, for example around climate change and pollution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And I specifically remember the Fox RFC talking this in the context of climate change coverage that Fox had. --Masem (t) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Are people proposing downgrading them for climate change/science coverage or for politics? While there is an overlap they are not the same thing so examples of issues in one area should not be used to justify a change in the other. Springee (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

More generally, wouldn't we just be better off using scientific studies for most things climate change? I'm confused as to why we'd use news organizations at all given the robust corpus of academic work on the topic. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to oppose reclassification. Practically speaking, we already treat Fox News as not-so-good for political topics under the current classification, and don't know how much would be achieved by formally downgrading it. The effect would, I think, be more about meta discussions about Misplaced Pages than any change in the way we source contentious political topics. At very minimum, in order for this thread to go anywhere, it would need (a) an RfC tag, (b) a concise summary of Fox News's coverage outside of the Durham affair (Aquillion gets this started above), and (c) importantly, evidence Fox is still being treated as reliable for political topics. Otherwise what's the point? — Rhododendrites \\ 13:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Any change we already downgraded FOX I don't see the evidence presented as pervasive to support any change Shrike (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I am curious if the current lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems, which "accuses Fox of trying to boost its TV ratings by falsely claiming the company rigged the presidential election against Republican Donald Trump" should also be added to the pile, here? DN (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• While it's something we can certainly take into account, I don't think it should really have that much sway until final in some way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think not. The original complaint, as summarised by Delaware state judge in his granting the motion for trial of the defamation case, explicitly notes that: Dominion contends that: (i) Fox intentionally provided a platform for guests that Fox's hosts knew would make false and defamatory statements of fact on the air; (ii) Fox, through Fox's hosts, affirmed, endorsed, repeated, and agreed with those guests' statements; and (iii) Fox republished those defamatory and false statements of fact on the air, Fox's websites, Fox's social media accounts, and Fox's other digital platforms and subscription services. The judge later notes that the relevant non-parties in the case, working for Fox News, are: Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro - all pundits and none of them "plain" journalists in the way AP journalists normally are. In any case, the complaint does not refer to plain news coverage about current politics (unless by that we count quoting XYZ as saying "the election was stolen", but then again it's opinions, and WP:FRINGE ones. Unless the website or the prime time news asserted that as fact, but I've missed it (or rather, I don't watch American TV in general, so...) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" in the area of politics I could have sworn this was the result of the prior Fox News RFC but if not, this should enshrined now. Fox is fine when covering elements that do NOt have any political angle but their veracity should be immediately thrown into doubt when politics enters the picture. --Masem (t) 21:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade Fox News is a propaganda outlet, with no reputation of fact-checking. Why would we trust that Pinocchio will not tell lies? Dimadick (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, certainly Fox News has a lot of eyes focused on it but where it the hard evidence that the politics news (not commentary) is actually unreliable? This also raises a big bias question. One of the legitimate bias concerns with Misplaced Pages is that sources that are seen as "conservative" are far more likely to be considered yellow vs sources on the left. Consider a recent RfC where we decided that Jacobin is actually a green source yet now we want to claim Fox is not just "no-consensus", a result from a very extensive RfC, but actually "unreliable". Note that we don't see CNN is problematic even though we have evidence that top people at CNN had not only serious conflicts of interest with regards to coverage of NY Gov Cuomo but that they were coordinating on how to handle coverage of Cuomo's sexual abuse scandal. Aquillion likes to post searches for Fox News in scholarship but is it actually good scholarship and does it say what they are claiming? How often are they citing Fox simply because they have become a target for "all that is wrong on the right" rather than for any specific misdeed? Does it actually provide the hard evidence that Fox is putting out false information. The opening accusation here is not sufficient to show that Fox's report is false or misleading. How would many other sources fair if we looked so carefully at what they claimed when dealing with Trump or other political hot bed cases like Kyle Rittenhouse or George Zimmerman? What about the settlements places like the WashPo and others have had to pay out to the Kentucky Catholic high school kids who were accused of misdeeds in DC? Anyway, it is interesting to look at what we consider green and yellow sources then look at an independent rating site like Adfonts Media. WE consider MSNBC green yet would have Fox as red. Adfonts has them basically equal but opposite left right. We say the Daily Beast is no consensus but want to say the similarly placed Fox is unreliable. We say the Daily Wire is bad but the similarly ranked Salon is just yellow. Sadly this often isn't because one side has the fundamental facts right or wrong. Politics is very often dealing in gray which allows our own bias to help decide a source is bad because we like or dislike their interpretation of the facts. As a non-fox example, take these two Rittenhouse related Politifact articles. In this fact check they say Trump was wrong for claiming Rittenhouse was trying to run away and was attacked . That appears to be what was found at trial yet PF still says Trump's claim was false. Why? Because they felt that Trumps statement left out critical context. Well that might be sufficient to say, "True but..." it certainly doesn't make the core of what he said False. Another example is PF fact checking the legality of Rittenhouse having a rifle. PF came out shortly after the crime and said a claim that it was legal for Rittenhouse to have the rifle was false. At trial the charge was thrown out because the court found it was legal. PF updates their statement but leave the assessment as False even though the court disagrees. What does this have to do with Fox? These are exactly the sort of gray areas people use to say Fox (and other conservative sources) are mixed or unreliable yet we overlook them, we over look obvious conflicts of interest at CNN and say they are fine. That certainly creates an inherent bias in what we cover since any time someone wants to add an opposing view, ie this evidence does support a claim that Trump was being spied on in at least some capacity according to some sources editors just say, "not reliable". Fox saying Cuomo was messing up would have been viewed as unreliable while statements about Gov Cuomo from CNN, where there was an actual conflict of interest, are fine. It's one thing to say, we have to be careful how we use political content from sources like Fox. It's much different, and not good for balanced coverage of political topics, to say, we can't use sources on the other side because we don't like their spin (while ignoring the spin coming from sources we do like). I apologies for the length of this post and also note that I can't think of a time I was an editor who originally added a Fox News source though I have defended/restored it when others falsely claim Fox News is listed as "red for politics". Springee (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" where politics is concerned. Their last figleaf of respectability left with Chris Wallace. It's not our job to ensure that citations come equally from all parts of whatever we imagine the political spectrum to be. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" in the area of politics - Fox News' essence is counterfactual political storytelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade, not convinced that there is a problem. There was one editor with substantial arguments for the downgrade (Aquillion). I've reviewed their arguments, to the extent I could get access to the underlying sources, and I don't think they support the claim that the news part of Fox news is unreliable (the opinion part of course is already deemed unreliable) - see above for the details. Also many examples of misinformation are about COVID coverage, for which we would never use Fox News per WP:MEDRS. Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Even though we do not use opinion pieces for a number of reasons on Misplaced Pages, news organisations are still editorially responsible for the contents of opinion pieces they publish. If they are happy to provide a platform for disinformation even for information related to a public health crisis and pertaining to matters of life of death, why on earth would you want to trust that same platform to behave better when reporting on less critical, but still politically charged, matters. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  By that logic Wall Street Journal must be unreliable because its opinion pieces on climate change and techniques to fight COVID often went against the scientific consensus. See here for an example. Even though their editorial board position has shifted to the right (towards libertarianism?), WSJ is still a newspaper of record. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. Fox News peddles the stuff of pure conspiracy. Here, WSJ published an op-ed from a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine who it would rightly have assumed was a subject-matter expert, but who later turned out to be flawed in their analysis. There is no indication that the professor was willfully peddling misinformation, only that there methodology was off. It is more of a reputational issue for John Hopkins. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  But we don't have the evidence needed. Lot's of people dislike Fox News but, as Alaexis showed, they often conflate Fox News commentary with the news reporting. Fox is one of the major networks and, in large part due to their commentators, they have been closing scrutinized and villainized by other sources. That means it would be relatively easy to do a key word search for an article that is critical of Fox vs Jacobin (a site we have said is green). That doesn't mean the average Fox News political story is somehow less reliable than Jacobin only that more people are searching to find fault. Zooming out, I would question if we really should be dumping sources into these big blocks of Green, Yellow, Red. RS says reliability is context dependent. We really should be doing less blanket banning (which is a bias issue for Misplaced Pages) and do more case by case evaluations. Springee (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, major =/= reliable. For a case in point, see Telewizja Polska - the most watched outlet news outlet in Poland and yet, since 2015, generally unreliable for political coverage.

  While, as you rightly note, the majority of people tend to scrutinise the commentators, the fact-checker reliability rating as provided in Pennycook seems to show that the criticism has merits despite what you say is "villainising" Fox News (though undoubtedly some of it definitively happens on talk shows of, say, MSNBC and a few other channels). The paper seems to query about news coverage, not commentators.

  Finally, I see RSP as useful. People forget it's guidance, but it is better to have general guidance and query in cases of doubt than to have no guidance and repeat the RSN infighting whenever a more controversial story appears or when a correction/retraction is issued. This has a side effect of people forgetting that RSP is only a guide in sources and not be-all and end-all, still, could be worse.

  If you have any specific issue with Jacobin (such as posted here) that actually reflect on its reliability, as opposed to its opinions, you are welcome to relitigate the RFC, presenting new evidence. But let's remember one thing - Jacobin is more like Reason in that it does not really pretend to make news coverage, it's about voicing opinions based on factual premises. This is different from Fox News, which says it's reporting straight news. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  In response to this false-balance charade, and to add what Szmenderowiecki has written, if we are relying on a source (Ad Fontes Media) that is considered to be "a self-published source methodology", we should not rely on it at all to prove a point as you did — if it ain't reliable to cite, it shouldn't be reliable to weight in. Instead, we should be doing what Szmenderowiecki said and what Aquillion did, e.g. relying on clearly reliable sources; we may disagree about what they entail (e.g. they are more nuanced, Aquillion's reading was correct, etc.) but not on their reliability, which is not the case for those self-published media charts (I recall one user saying they rated a clearly centrist source as left-wing). Arguments sourced to unreliable sources should hold no weight. For the record, I think the status quo is fine, as would be a downgrade to generally unreliable but still usable otherwise, which is what we do anyway. Davide King (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Davide King I think you missed the forest for the trees. Ad Fontes is self published but, unlike Misplaced Pages, it does at least use a reasonably consistent rating method while we rely as much on editor opinion as anything else. It is generally respected even if, by virtue of what it is, we don't treat it as gospel. That doesn't mean it can't be a useful reality check. Your "if it isn't reliable to cite..." argument is circular. You say it isn't good because we say it isn't good thus it can't be good. It isn't reliable only because we have said so. But what would happen if we, the Misplaced Pages editors in the political space, we are biased as a group? How would that impact what we think is OK/not OK over time? A group bias isn't likely to take a clearly bad source and call it good or a clearly good source and call it bad. However, it will tend to take borderline cases and call them in one direction which can create a bias issue over time. Giving the benefit of doubt to sources who's overall leaning we agree with and the reverse when we don't agree. We don't have to take Ad Fontes to be fool proof to illustrate the point that we seem more forgiving of left vs right leaning sources. That is a problem if our objective is to be neutrality. As for Aquillion's research, did anyone check to see if those sources were strong academic sources? I'm sure editors are aware that not all academic sources are created equally . It also appears that those sources were picked for little more than keyword inclusion. Others have shown the sources don't support the discussion here. As a side comment, if you are going to specifically cite an editor's post it is best to include a ping or similar. Springee (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, I get what you are saying but I stand by what I said. I did not ping them because I do not recall who actually said that (a centrist source categorized as left-wing), or were you saying that I should have pinged you? I thought it was unnecessary, but my bad for that.

  I think that you should do what Aquillion did and present sources to support the claim it is "generally respected", when JzG said it is not only self-published but also does not have a "peer-reviewed methodology" (to be fair, it appears they do agree with you that we can rely on them on wiki space; "it is a useful guide for us here to be factored in holistic assessment of a source based on multiple perspectives on its reliability", which is fine when it is uncontroversial and there is no major disagreement among reliable sources), which makes it no better than us, who generally rely on reliable sources when assessing sources, at least that is what I do and what I hope everyone do, rather than just stating our opinions about them.

  I think that you are being too dismissive in our assessment of sources, as if we are all just expressing our opinions without relying at all on reliable sources and what they say about said source. In conclusion, you used a self-published source with a questionable methodology to support your claim that there is a double standard in evaluating left-wing and right-wing sources (many left-wing sources are opinionated sources, while many right-wing questionable sources pretend to be straight news, and Canarin, CounterPunch, and several others are rated as "generally unreliable", while for Fox there is no consensus on politics). What I am saying is that rather than relying on self-published media charts, you should have provided reliable sources that support your double standards assertions. Either way, this discussion is about Fox, and as much as I like consistent standards (a double standard was rating Reason green and Jacobin yellow), the way we rate other sources should not be used as an argument, unless we have not self-published, reliable sources in support of it. As I said, I am perfectly fine with the status quo, like you (?), so we do not necessarily disagree on this, though I think Aquillion's reading of sources was mostly correct but I prefer to be conservative for now. Davide King (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Grrrr… how many times must we say this… WP:MEDPOP tells us not to use news media for medical content… period… whether that’s Fox or WSJ or BBC or etc. We don’t need to say: “Don’t use Fox for medical content” because we shouldn’t be using any news media for medical content. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what people are saying, people are saying “Don’t use Fox for science content” only a small fraction of which is covered by MEDRS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

But the examples they give are mostly medical (such as Fox’s coverage of Covid). Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the example they give most (and this has been consistent for a few years) is Fox's climate change coverage which is not medical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade. Are we really using court documents from an ongoing, high-profile legal dispute to decide things of that amplitude? Everybody here is aware that those are not reliable sources per WP:LAWBRIEF, right? In my view, any change in policy or consensus about the reliability of a source with such a wide readership/audience as Fox News, should be made on the basis of high-quality secondary or tertiary sources. Aquillion has attempted to do something like this, but their sources do not completely verify their claims. However, I would be open to changing my !vote if such sources were to be provided. JBchrch talk 19:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I should note that I oppose any sort of mention of Fox News' reliability for medical claims per Blueboar, which would imply that other medpop/news sources would be more reliable for medical claims, and that is not the case. JBchrch talk 19:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad we found such a quick use for the shortcut, JBchrch :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Demote to "generally unreliable", as per my position in previous RfCs, these >80 sources and other, more recent evidence. François Robere (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Deprecation is for true garbage, and while Fox is a poor source, it's still not a rag. Its no great secret that Fox is a questionable media source when it comes to politics. But when the topic isn't controversial or opinion based, the coverage is actually not atrocious. Certainly a lot better than the alternatives. But what has changed? They published a dubious article? That seems to square with the current "generally unreliable" stance. It remains valuable attribution for opposition statements (which must of course still comport with DUE).

Nor do I think changing our stance based on active litigation is smart. Court documents are supposed to be truthful. But there's no gaurantee that they are. Even if they are, such documents are full of spin: putting the best possible light on the facts to persuade the court (and more likely, the court of public opinion). Court filings lack the context and truthfulness. So let's not use the court documents and instead see what RS are saying. The NYtimes calls the issue "Byzantine" and seems to conclude that perhaps the issue was that journalists tried to tackle such a complex issue to begin with. If we remove Fox as an RS for politics, it will make major news. But this issue is too complex, too "he said/she". Fox should only be deprecated if we have an airtight case, but we do not have one. CaptainEek ⚓ 03:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – CaptainEek, that seems reasonable. Just one thing, WP:FOX is not listed as "generally unreliable"; it is "generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science", there is "no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science", and is "generally unreliable" only for "Fox News talk shows". Davide King (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Well, CaptainEek, to be more precise, "deprecation", per Misplaced Pages's definition, is reserved for sources that are highly questionable and which editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources' guideline in nearly all circumstances. This, for you, may be quivalent to "garbage" but I believe we need to be careful about labels when discussing sources. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose procedurally and consequentially. Procedurally, I don't think believe this discussion can (or should) overturn the results of a previous well-attended one without a neutrally worded opening statement and an RfC tag to solicit uninvolved participants. In terms of the consequences, I oppose downgrading and especially deprecating Fox News on the basis of what has been shown here. Telling a news story, at least at a national level, inherently involves the construction of narratives: in addition to whatever happened, you are saying something about what all those happenings mean. Some sources are more explicit in saying what those happenings mean, others less so. Fox News reports, I think, tend to be more explicit in making those claims than the average outlet. For us editors, this has caused divisions in our assessments of them. On the one hand, some of us understand this relationship between coverage and meaning very implicitly; this is why one editor above argues that Fox News is unreliable because it talks too much about the Canadian trucker convoy. Others of us (I think instinctually) sift out Fox News' interpretative claims from its bare factual coverage; hence, a different editor argues that Fox News' coverage of the Durham-Sussman thing isn't substantially different from other sources when you really scrutinize it. I get the impression that the majority of editors are skeptical of Fox News' interpretative claims, especially their bolder and more controversial ones, and with reason. I think that's why they're at no consensus right now. Many (though certainly not all) editors would say that Fox News often says wrong things; few, I think, would say they are often wrong about the basic facts. Personally, I think that's good enough. Anyone who can objectively summarize the RS to write an encyclopedia article should be able to apply a little bit of scrutiny to Fox News reports, pull out the questionable interpretations and attribute them in-line, and treat them as standard RS for basic facts. —Compassionate727  03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on the evidence presented, the key problem is how Fox writes its headlines and its lede, not how the article is written. The problematic statement, while buried in the 21st paragraph, is still written in the article. Deprecating is for news that is obviously lies and fabrication, while the problem articles mentioned are not lies. Yes, burying key details is not showing neutrality in reporting and showing clear bias, but I expect news sources, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox to BBC to show bias. It is human to be biased. SunDawntalk 05:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

SunDawn: The content in the 21st paragraph demonstrates that not only the headline, but also the lede, was false. A false quote. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why when you quote an article you don't quote the headline, which most likely created to garner clicks, but from the content of the article. First of all, this following statement from Fox is factual: 'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.'. And in the lede, Fox chooses to uses the word "infiltrate", note also the use of double quotations mark in their lede. While Durham didn't say "infiltration", mining DNS traffic and other data could be classified as "infiltration", at least according to Fox. In my opinion, this is biased reporting, not a false statement. Nowhere in the article it is shown that Durham said the word "infiltrate" verbatim, a read on the article shows that "infiltrating" is the opinion of Fox and Patel, not Durham. The article did take quote verbatim from Durham, such as 'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.' or the allegations "relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic" that Tech Executive-1 and others "had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider." Both statements are clearly made by Durham. And if we are talking about giving false quote, Fox clearly stated that the "infiltrate" word is used by Patel, a personal opinion from Patel after reading the report from Durham, Patel told Fox News, adding that the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers.. In closing, while it is clear that this is bias reporting as is expected, this is not false quote. And why would Fox state that it is from Patel if they want to put up some fake news? SunDawntalk 02:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why when you quote an article you don't quote the headline, which most likely created to garner clicks which I'm well aware of but from the content of the article which is what I did. this following statement from Fox is factual in the sense that Durham made that allegation. And in the lede, Fox chooses to uses the word "infiltrate", note also the use of double quotations mark in their lede followed by "a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found," which is flatly false. Fox clearly stated that the "infiltrate" word is used by Patel in the 21st paragraph, which demonstrated that they were lying for 20 paragraphs, knowing that few readers would reach the 21st paragraph before exploding in outrage because of the lie in the headline and lede. while it is clear that this is bias reporting as is expected, this is not false quote It is profoundly deceptive, and every credible source knew it and ignored it, causing Howard Kurtz to complain about it on Bret Baier's "straight news" show, until Clinton mentioned the story could constitute actual malice for a defamation suit, at which point Fox News abruptly stopped talking about it, as did everyone else in conservative media. They tacitly acknowledged it was a lie. soibangla (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting other sources don't do the same? Example: NYT article regarding the US Women's Soccer equal pay lawsuit settlement. The article glosses over why the courts haven't sided with the women's team (or that during the 2020 shutdown the women were paid while the men got zero). The NYT's lead and opening paragraphs suggests this is a done deal. It recounts some of the women's complaints but doesn't offer up the solid reasons the courts rejected their pay complaints. Only when you read almost to the end does the article mention a really critical point, the deal is contingent on the men's team agreeing to transfer some of their winnings pay to the women. This is also where the article notes that the core cause of the pay difference is FIA's mens vs womens soccer pay schedules. Why aren't those facts near the top? How is this different than the complaint about Fox News? Springee (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As I stated before, Fox placing it on the 21st paragraph didn't mean that it lies. Fox lies if they stated that "infiltrate" come from Durham, which they didn't. Fox clearly stated what Tech-Executive 1 is doing, and uses the word "infiltrate" in the lede, hoping that the reader will come into their own conclusion that "infiltration" did happen. This is clearly biased reporting, but this is not a lie. This is not something extraordinary, this is something done by other sources. For instance, check this CNN article and compared it with Reuters article. In the CNN article, there is not a single mention about "defamation", which is clearly stated in the Reuters. CNN don't even state what they are being sued with. Is CNN lying? Should they be deprecated to "generally unreliable" because of failure to mention the details of the case? No, because they are not lying. They, like Fox, "buries" the details, hoping that their readers come into a conclusion they prefered. SunDawntalk 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade The OP alleges that Fox's headlines are misleading; I agree. But we don't source information to headlines, we source it to articles. The sources which are critical of Fox do not clarify if they are referring to the talk shows or the news shows, so they are not useful for purposes of this discussion. Therefore, in the absence of solid evidence suggesting serious problems with the quality of Fox's reporting, I see no reason to downgrade. Mlb96 (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Mlb96: Not just the headline. The lede. The body. A false quote. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrade The substance of the article in dispute is true but slanted or misleadingly framed information. This is common for politically biased publications, which Fox News is, but it does not mean it is impossible to rely upon them for the facts they take and then frame or spin. "Infiltrate" was a real quote from Kash Patel, and if you wrote in a Misplaced Pages article that Patel characterized what happened as "infiltration", you would not be adding false information; Fox misleadingly framing that quote in delaying explaining who it came from does not change the fact that Patel really did say it. The issue with including the quote would be a question of why you chose to include a quote from an obviously biased Trump loyalist who is using inflammatory language merely in an attempt to attack the Clinton campaign. I think it will be helpful to compare this to other true but slanted or misleadingly framed stories in recent memory that riled up conservatives, from publications that have a bias but are nevertheless reliable. Conservatives recently got angry at CNN for describing the ivermectin Joe Rogan took as "horse dewormer" or a "livestock drug". Is this true? Technically, yes – ivermectin is often used for deworming horses, though the medication Rogan took was intended for humans, in pill form, and prescribed by a doctor, so this characterization was misleadingly framed (even though the medication was probably not very effective...). Does this mean we cannot rely on CNN to provide us with accurate information that their characterization was based off – that he took ivermectin, and that ivermectin is often used for deworming horses? No. CNN is reliable enough, and those things happen to be true. Fox News is a far worse offender than CNN is in this regard, of course, but framing or spinning true information in order to score political points for your tribe and get people riled up is (unfortunately) a common thing among biased news publications. It is not impossible to rely upon Fox News for the facts underneath the spin, like it would be for Tucker Carlson for example. Endwise (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Infiltrate" was a real quote from Kash Patel that was falsely attributed to Durham, twice, right up top, but the true source was deeply buried. If that was merely an error, wouldn't a credible news organization have acknowledged at least that by now? soibangla (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In the same way that news articles sometimes use quotes in headlines they then explain in the body of the article, they are using quotes in the lede they then explain (unfortunately much later) in the body of the article. Is this sneaky and framed in a biased and misleading way? Absolutely. But the information you'd use from this article on a Misplaced Pages page – Patel told Fox News the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers – does not have factual issues, just editorial ones surrounding bias and balance. Endwise (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If burying the factual issues deep in the article was merely an editorial issue, by ten days and lots of blowback later they could easily remedy that by appending "Editor's note: due to an editing error, the original version of this story incorrectly attributed the words "paid" and "infiltrate" to Durham in the headline and lede; they were Patel's words. We regret the error." But they haven't. What are they waiting for? A demand letter from an attorney? One doesn't even need to be an intern in a reputable news organization to realize, "hey, wait a minute, Durham didn't really say that, we need to change the headline and lede before we run this." Even without taking Fox News's history with such stuff into account, and especially after taking their obsession with Clinton into account, there can now be no doubt this was a deliberate smearjob to whip up yet another fake scandal. They have a long history of this, it's their business model, it drives ratings, it propels an entire media ecosystem that makes lotsa money for lotsa people who poison the minds of millions with lies. Lies work, but they shouldn't work here. soibangla (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that quoting Patel in a Misplaced Pages article – Patel told Fox News the lawyers worked to "infiltrate" Trump Tower and White House servers – would not impart factual issues onto that article, there would only be issues around bias and balance for us, the editors of Misplaced Pages, who chose to quote a Trump loyalist making inflammatory attacks on the Clinton campaign instead of presenting things in a less biased way. This article shows evidence of open and flagrant bias on the part of Fox News, which everyone already knew, but it does not show that it is not possible to use them for the facts underneath their spin. Endwise (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable" I argued a while back for this, and it continues to show it can't be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad idea at every level. First I oppose all such overgeneralizations and think that the entire overgeneralization list should be deleted. Second, they are the largest news organizatrion in the US, deprecating them would be a large blow to Misplaced Pages at several levels including content, bias, and our reputation for bias in this area. Third, the reasons given are far from sufficient to justify such a move. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "They are the largest news in the US"—what does this have to do with their reliability? "Deprecating them would be a large blow to Misplaced Pages at several levels including content"—such as ...? "Bias, and our reputation for bias in this area"—see WP:YWAB. "Third, the reasons given are far from sufficient to justify such a move"—why? Kleinpecan (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Your questions look more like sealioning my post or try to deprecate my post than asking specific questions for a dialog.North8000 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I would support "generally unreliable for US politics", though.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post for a public figure's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and

• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable for politics". Lacks appropriate editorial policies and fact checking.--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, Support Reupgrade Under Bush, CNN and Fox lied about the same, and neither complained about the other. Under Obama, MSNBC joined CNN on the left, and started calling Fox racist liars with gusto, even good reason at times. But since WaPo joined MSNBC and CNN in openly declared and constant Trump bashing, Fox has become the relatively honest and objective mainstream domestic political propaganda outlet. Fox didn't insist George Floyd died of nothing but a physically impossible choke under the knee of a racist cop alone. Fox didn't call the resultant race-based rioting mostly peaceful protests. Fox didn't double, then triple down, on whether racist insurrectionists murdered Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher, bear spray or "all that transpired". Fox didn't accuse Joe Rogan of being a wormy lying horse, Russia of stealing Clinton's preconceived win or the Freedom Convoy of hiring racist insurrectionists (tied to Jan 6, tied to 9/11). Fox didn't punk Ted Cruz. There are many more lies Fox does not echo, despite the pressure from Big Tech, Pharm and Arms. It used to be the worst on TV. Now it offers the only alternative facts in mainstream American politicization. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke? Kleinpecan (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • No. But I do find the one CNN pulled on Cruz pretty funny. I'd treat the stricken part as dubious or poorly expressed. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading the facts on the first few pages of the Durham report reposted here ]. From #3 it clearly states that the suspect repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign which to most people means he was paid by the Clinton campaign. From #5 "The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”)." Infiltrate means to enter or become established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive purposes - from Merriam Webster. I see a lot of POV positions in this post and I see using other so called "news" sources as evidence is not helping. Durham never said which news source was reporting incorrectly. Misplaced Pages expects us to use reliable sources at all times. Facts are king on Misplaced Pages. POV is not. This is a waste of time.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading the facts which are actually allegations. soibangla (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

True in relation to the legal document but in regards to this discussion the person who started this is challenging the use of the words pay and infiltrate by FOX which are both correct.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am the person who started this and both "paid" and "infiltrated" are allegations, regardless of who said them. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Durham this fact is under the heading Factual Background. These are the facts he is using. "The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations." This is not an allegation but a fact that Durham uncovered. I don't think you can judge anyone at FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc... until this has gone to court and he is found guilty which I think will happen. Durham is not a fool. It is clear to me that you hate FOX and it reflects here that is POV.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

According to Durham is exactly right. He has asserted things as "Factual Background" which the defense has asserted contains falsehoods and moved to have the judge strike them as prejudicial. Because until this has gone to court and he is found guilty Durham's assertions are not established facts, regardless of how he characterizes them in a pre-trial brief. Durham is not a fool We know only about how he has been described by others from the distant past, but we know virtually nothing about who a man appointed by Bill Barr may have become in more recent years. It is clear to me that you...oh nevermind. soibangla (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support downgrade - per arguments above. Opposes have not convinced me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons I laid out last time.  Spy-cicle💥  20:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Fox news, should be treated like MSNBC news & CNN. Otherwise, we'll have an atmosphere of Democratic-bias. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: unless you're saying that MSNBC & CNN have the same issues Fox does (in which case we can open discussions about their reliability) then treating them the same would be an example of a false balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Fox)

• Oppose downgrade The Fox story looks to me like a good description of Durham's filing. A news story is expected to describe events, and it does. The fact that it does not use the same words is irrelevant. Durham's statement that news coverage has mischaracterized him is also not a reason to downgrade. It is unclear which news coverage he was referring to. Also, I wish people would use more arbitrary breaks like the above. These threads get too long. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's not too late to insert non-arbitrary breaks. Either one in the middle or two at the tropics, same shortening effect. I tried, halfheartedly, but kept zoning out and losing count. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, while Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have said controversial stuff on air, our policies already make clear that we don't allow talk shows like Tucker Carlson to be used as sources of information, regardless of which channel this is on. A lot of the news you encounter every day is biased, our goal is for Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Sure Fox News covers different stories than CNN, but then they have a conservative appeal, just as CNN has a more liberal appeal. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 18:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fox News was created with the specific intent of a partisan slant. CNN? Nope. Perhaps consider the possibility that people watch CNN for a reality appeal, rather than a liberal appeal, and depicting it as liberal is part of a strategy to demonize it and normalize Fox News as "centrist." soibangla (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• There are two parties in America, with unaffiliated vastness between them. The idea that one would see the other with a 24/7 channel and not match it is ludicrous, that's career suicide. On the centrist reality channels (NASA, HGTV, MTV...), the idea that a Democrat or Republican is better or worse than the other in some seat simply isn't discussed (or only briefly). There's nothing demonic about liberals, from a centrist's perspective, they're just more likely to vote against something conservatives would likely support, or shit on the other's political commentators. I promise you, as a Canadian, it's as simple as that. You don't have to support the people and ideas CNN or FOX does if you're watching it for a sports, weather or crime story (or just straight voting results), but even those tend to be tilted accordingly lately. Pre-Fox CNN had way more apolitical general interest coverage, it's true, but that ship then clearly sailed against its competition. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wager it more likely that the Establishment which owns both of them planned this divergence a much longer time ago. Neither side exists to inform. Both are to divide, to set people against each other along easily controlled lines. Look at how controlled both of you are being to this end in this very discussion. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So what? A lot of reliable sources are also unapologetically slanted. Misplaced Pages's policy allows for that because sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. And no - I am not saying that Fox News is centrist, I am highlighting that despite Fox News being conservative and CNN being slightly left-of-center and MSNBC being liberal, they are all ok sources for most facts. See (about Fox News) and (about CNN) and (about general bias in cable news) all published by Vox.com. The key point I am driving home is that biased != unreliable. We should never be using opinion talk shows shows like Hannity or Don Lemon Tonight or anything similar to verify claims of fact. Just like we do not cite the Onion or Stephen Colbert despite how funny they are, we don't cite opinion sources for facts. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Misplaced Pages already has a documented, systemic bias towards leftism. The last thing we should be doing is deprecating right wing sources. If you think Fox News is so disreputable, argue the point on the respective article's talk page. Forbidding the use of Fox News as a source regarding politics is a near-admission that your only goal is to control the narrative. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade, support boosting to generally reliable. Firstly, nothing has changed from the previous discussion to say this needs to be downgraded. Not that it matters anyway since editors practically already treat Fox as though it's blacklisted, even in cases that don't cover politics and science. Fox News is a standard WP:NEWSORG with press access to the White House, routine interviews with highly notable people, and normal journalistic practices. Discussions about Fox New's reliability is always clouded with the credibility of their talk shows. The vast majority of the sourcing below is referring to the TALK SHOWS, not the the website. Like most political talk shows (including CNN, MSNBC, etc), the Fox News talk shows are biased to a point where it's misleading and skews the facts, and just like CNN, MSNBC, etc Fox New's website is reliable for factual reporting. We have no reason to believe the contrary. Also the fact that it's biased is not an argument against it being reliable. In fact, we are doing a great disservice to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy by excluding practically the only conservative voice in American politics. This has become a major problem on Misplaced Pages and has led to a left-wing bias, and we all know that. This Allsides source gives a good look into the bias in Misplaced Pages, including 2 studies from Harvard University supporting the idea of a liberal bias. To not allow Fox News only cements the now prolific issue of bias on Misplaced Pages and is not based in any concrete evidence of unreliability (again talk shows are different from the website). Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrade One (potentially) wrong story does not an unreliable source make. The sacred cows of political sourcing on Misplaced Pages have all screwed up royally on occasion, and some have as-yet unretracted nonsense still published on their websites. A balanced perspective on issues necessitates drawing from idealogically diverse news sources, as each "side" covers the stories and angles that the other deliberately ignores, downplays or whitewashes. Deprecating/downgrading yet another right wing source would only entrench further Misplaced Pages's naked cultural leftist bias, which the diktats produced by this forum are in no small part responsible for creating. If Fox is wrong or misleading on a particular story, don't use it on the relevant article. Simple as, end of. 118.211.69.107 (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade for this but for all mainstream media mouthpiece products as well. FOX calling Arizona for Biden early wasn't sound journalism, but Establishment narrative-building (even if eventually officially "correct"). Hyperbolick (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that Fox News incorrectly reported that Trump had lost Arizona to Biden? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and oppose downgrade. Use with attribution as with any WP:BIASED source. CutePeach (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose just this past week there has been Washington Post news of Fox News side, cross-checking Fox Opinion side, but more importantly, our present policies and guidelines handle the issues raised and are not broke: we should be skeptical of all news-of-the-day and cross check, and cross check, and cross check; that's what is required for our DUE NPOV work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" as yes it is unreliable. Mostly propaganda and just makes stuff up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mostly because its not unreliable. People need to understand the difference between the opinion and news side. After reading through all the comments the support comments just don't do it for me, largely focusing on IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. While the oppose seem to give more thought out and reasoned arguments. Honestly given the strength of arguments I could see a promotion to Generally reliable. PackMecEng (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have noticed a tendency during contentious discussions of this sort that some editors cast a vote based on an argument they present, then their argument is refuted, but they don't follow up and yet their vote stands, while others concur with their refuted argument and vote accordingly. Cognitive dissonance. It would be nice if we could conduct a more qualitative analysis of the arguments here rather than a straight arithmetic count of support/oppose when we seek consensus. IIRC, policy mentions something along those lines. Anyway, maybe at some future date I'll present some interesting reporting by Bret Baier, host of the network's flagship straight news program. soibangla (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    It would be nice wouldn't it. Also I would at no point use Media Matters are a reliable source for something about Fox. No no no lol PackMecEng (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Oh sure, yeah. I'm well aware many despise Media Matters for presenting objective video proof that Fox News relentlessly lies. They also don't like that MM has a huge video library of it all going back many years. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Who is this they? This mysterious they that oppose all the things... Whatever. Listen, they are not a reliable source for this stuff. Just facts, they are not. Which is why their RSP entry is the way it is. They are a partisan advocacy group. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    "They" are the people who reflexively dismiss MM, primarily because they've been told to by people such as Fox News hosts, because such people know MM has a vast library of indisputable video proof that "they" are being systemically lied to and the channel is a primary reason our politics are a trainwreck now, to the point people will actually attack the Capitol to stop a legitimate election. soibangla (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    I linked you to the RSP on the subject which shows several discussions and RFCs on the subject. Simply put the community at large disagrees with your assessment and shows you are wrong about the source. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Even for Talk? And the RSP entry is qualified.soibangla (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I've examined the evidence provided by both sides and arrived at a different conclusion. Strength of argument may be more subjective, but I find that many of the comments that seem to align with yours actually stray from the topic at hand, and quite a few are built around fallacies. Can you point out a few specific comments that best show the thought out and reasoned arguments you see in opposition to this proposal? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to generally unreliable for politics and science. Fox News has been on a race to the bottom for a while now. Especially when it comes to stories related to U.S. immigration, climate change, renewable energy, or anything related to Trump, they are basically acting as a propaganda mouthpiece. It seems clear that their reliability, even for straight news, has been compromised by politics. Nosferattus (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support downgrade to "generally unreliable for politics and science" but not more broadlyk, per Soibangla, Mysterious Whisper, et al., who've said what I would have but more concisely. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Fox : Would we grandfather older coverage?

Moving this to its own subsection, as it got lost in the discussion above…

• Question: If we do “downgrade” Fox in some way… should we put a time frame on it? Looking at the examples given in support of a “downgrade”, I notice that they are all fairly recent. But then I think back to the news coverage of the past (from programs anchored by the likes of Brit Hume and Shepard Smith) and things look much better. I would definitely argue that Fox’s straight news coverage was much more reliable in the past. So … if we do “downgrade”, should we include a grandfather clause to allow these older programs and reports? Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

My gut would say around 2014-2015 - this is about the time that the current culture conflict started (eg at the time of #MeToo and Gamergate). --Masem (t) 22:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That culture conflict predate Gamergate and #Metoo by a long shot. They were always nutter friendly, but started to embrace it openly in 2008, and by 2016 they were glad to be operating on 'non-liberal/alternative facts'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• 187 signatories of the Professors of Journalism open letter to Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch: "Fox News has violated elementary canons of journalism. In so doing, it has contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic."
• 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.”
• 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 invasion" and "the media as the enemy of the people". On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”
• Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, 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.”
• 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.”
• 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.”
• 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. fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”
• 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.”
• 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.”
• Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".
• 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.” “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.”
• 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.”
• 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.”

Last updated on June 2020, with one exception. Feel free to add more. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This again looks like a keyword search. How many of these are actual research papers vs just someone's opinion? I note that all but one of these sources predate the last RfC. If these weren't convincing then, what makes them better now? Going down the list:

1. This is an article about Covid and refers to "Fox News hosts and guests" thus the commentary not news reporting. "Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting."

2. This article predates the previous RfC. It isn't clear this is saying the basic factual reporting is wrong even though he is saying the bias etc is clear. It's not clear how this would disqualify given we accept biased sources.

3. This article predates the previous RfC. Again, heavy emphasis on the commentary shows/hosts.

4. This article predates the previous RfC. This appears to be commentary though most of the article is behind a paywall.

5. This book predates the previous RfC. Does the book say the factual reporting is wrong or is it again talking about the commentary part of the mix? Without reading it I can't say. The abstract does not mention Fox.

6. This article predates the previous RfC. This looks more interesting since it appears to be a work cited by others and presumably with actual citations of its own. However, it also is almost a decade old and we can't decide if this is a commentary or news factual reporting concern.

7. This article predates the previous RfC. Commentary/analysis from an ideologically opposed source. This article focuses on claims made by the hosts rather than the news reporting.

8. This tweet predates the previous RfC. It's the opinion of a proof and doesn't make it clear if he is referring to commentary or factual reporting.

9. This tweet predates the previous RfC. Opinion of assistant prof and cites a segment from a Fox commentary show.

It appears the idea is throw up a massive wall of citations and hope that editors conflate the commentary/talk show part of the network with the factual reporting. Since we already say the commentary/talking heads are not reliable this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to my other ~80 references. In the meanwhile - before moving the goalposts, do you have any sources of equal quality of your own? Remember, if you're arguing for inclusion, the WP:BURDEN is on you.

Regarding " the commentary/talk show part of the network with the factual reporting": it's the other way around: the consensus among experts is that such a distinction does not exist. To quote the open letter (emphasis mine):

Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting... But Fox News does not clearly distinguish between the authority that should accrue to trained experts, on the one hand, and the authority viewers grant to pundits and politicians for reasons of ideological loyalty.

Neither the network nor its >190 critics make the distinction you're asking us to make. How is it not OR? François Robere (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on you. I'm suggesting we maintain status quo that was decided by a 100+ editor RfC. Since we specifically say Fox commentary is not reliable your concerns regarding commentary reliability are already addressed. Which of your sources say they get the facts wrong vs they get the commentary wrong? Don't just throw up a list of sources, you tell us what they are supposed to mean, that is your burden. Your quote, the extension of the one I included say "authority viewers grant to pundits etc. That is commentary which is already called unreliable. I'm not moving goal posts. You are the one unable to provide sources that support the actions you want to take. I'm sorry I don't have a list, I haven't devoted so much time to this cause. Have you considered investigating some of the other news sources or do you just have an issue with Fox? Springee (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your comment does not address François Robere's point that the distinction between "facts" and "commentary" is original research and that researchers specifically criticize Fox News for this lack of clear distinction.

I suggest you keep your whataboutism and "anti-Fox agenda" aspersions to yourself. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did address it. I went through the list of sources provided and noted when they were specifically critical of the commentary part. If the difference between facts and commentary is OR why do we mention the distinction in wp:RS? Your whataboutism is a pointless comment. When FR asked about my, call them pro-Fox sources, I don't have any because I haven't devoted a lot of time to searching for them. It appears they have. Why would you consider that an aspersion? Springee (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan, Springee, and François Robere: per WP:OR, This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Arguing that a noticeboard discussion that analyzes a news source somehow violates the Policy on no original research is wholly incoherent. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

For sure - one is allowed to argue whatever nonsense one wishes, but what value does it have if it's not founded on fact? I've gone through many dozens of sources on this, and the consensus seems to be that whatever distinction used to be between Fox's "news" and "opinion" has been intentionally blurred, to the point where a casual observer might find it difficult to tell which is which (which is one problem for us, the mere observers). But more than that, there's strong consensus that Fox as a whole is a "super-spreader" of misinformation which is a threat to democracy and public health (in those words). I can't see how, where authorities on such matters offer such strong condemnations, we could insert a caveat; and if we ought, then we should at least see some sources to support it. François Robere (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What scholars say in response to news media inquiries is not peer-reviewed research. JBchrch talk 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Open Letter to the Murdochs". Medium. 2020-04-09. Retrieved 2022-02-22.
2. ^ Nelson, Jacob L. (2019-01-23). "What is Fox News? Researchers want to know". Columbia Journalism Review.
3. ^ Mayer, Jane (2019-03-04). "The Making of the Fox News White House". New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X.
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. Meirick, Patrick C. (March 2013). "Motivated Misperception? Party, Education, Partisan News, and Belief in "Death Panels"". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 90 (1): 39–57. doi:10.1177/1077699012468696. ISSN 1077-6990. Archived from the original on January 1, 2020. {{cite journal}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 31, 2030 suggested (help)
7. 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.
8. Jay Rosen (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.
9. Steven White (2018-10-28). "Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans..." (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Top ten results from Google Scholar through "Fox News" search, with no preferences:

• Morris, Jonathan S. (July 2005). "The Fox News Factor". Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10 (3): 56–79. doi:10.1177/1081180x05279264. ISSN 1081-180X.
• DellaVigna, Stefano; Kaplan, Ethan (1 August 2007). "The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122 (3): 1187–1234. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187. ISSN 0033-5533.
• Jones, Jeffrey P. (June 2012). "Fox News and the Performance of Ideology". Cinema Journal. 51 (4): 178–185. doi:10.1353/cj.2012.0073. ISSN 0009-7101. JSTOR 23253592.
• Yglesias, Matthew (2 October 2018). "The Case for Fox News Studies". Political Communication. 35 (4): 681–683. doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1477532. ISSN 1058-4609.
• Aday, Sean (1 March 2010). "Chasing the Bad News: An Analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan War Coverage on NBC and Fox News Channel". Journal of Communication. 60 (1): 144–164. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01472.x. ISSN 0021-9916.
• Schroeder, Elizabeth; Stone, Daniel F. (1 June 2015). "Fox News and Political Knowledge". Journal of Public Economics. 126: 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.009. ISSN 0047-2727.
• Ash, Elliott; Galletta, Sergio; Hangartner, Dominik; Margalit, Yotam; Pinna, Matteo (27 June 2020). "The Effect of Fox News on Health Behavior During COVID-19". Rochester, New York. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3636762. SSRN 3636762. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Biswas, Shirsho; Dubé, Jean-Pierre H.; Sacher, Szymon K.; Simonov, Andrey (May 2020). "The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Non-Compliance with Social Distancing During the Covid-19 Pandemic" (27237). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w27237. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Feldman, Lauren; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward W.; Roser-Renouf, Connie (2 November 2011). "Climate on Cable". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 17 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410. ISSN 1940-1612.
• Brownell, Kathryn Cramer; Hoewe, Jennifer; Wiemer, Eric C. (1 October 2020). "The Role and Impact of Fox News". The Forum. 18 (3): 367–388. doi:10.1515/for-2020-2014. ISSN 1540-8884.

For broader context, found as the top source citing Morris 2005:

• Cappella, Joseph N.; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (22 July 2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974086-4.

Davide King (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-RFC discussion

Any thoughts on the best way to neutrally open an RfC on this subject? Should we go with the standard four options? My thought is to re-use the format in my now-aborted RfC attempt, which is a very short question with a link to the current RSP entry and the usual four options. Pinging @Soibangla, BilledMammal, Springee, Mysterious Whisper, and Mhawk10: your input would be appreciated. It's possible your advice will be "don't start an RfC", which I'd be happy to hear about but unlikely to agree with. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Standard four options, with a link to the current entry would be appropriate. I'm not sure if we should ping the individual editors in this discussion though; better to let editors join the conversation on their own - a new CENT listing, and a post in the Village Pump, would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks BilledMammal. I disagree about the pinging, but agree about the format. I wanted to let you know so it doesn't later seem like I ignored your comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• What do you hope to accomplish by starting an RfC? Mysterious Whisper (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I see that there is community interest in changing the RSP entry. Fox News is a major media outlet, and RSP entries are (AFAIK) only changed after RfCs, so there are at least two reasons to want as much community-wide input in the discussion. Regardless of the outcome, I hope to accomplish a solid consensus that can last for at least a couple years or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so you're operating under the assumption that starting an RfC now will result in more "community-wide input", but there wasn't exactly a flood of new participants after you added the RfC tag to this discussion, even though it was quickly indexed by Legobot, so there's no reason to think this discussion hasn't already gotten comments from most or all interested parties. Then there's the practical issues posed by the above discussion. It's still happening, and it's gotten a lot of responses already. We can't just ignore it, but neither can we just copy everything over to a new RfC, nor can we require or expect that all the participants in that discussion will follow any instructions that accompany a new RfC. Those are just some of the reasons I've suggested allowing the discussion to run it's course, reflecting on the results, and only then starting an RfC. Also, as far as I can tell, an RfC is only required if you're seeking a formal deprecation, anything else (like "generally unreliable") just requires some amount of discussion; judging by the above discussion, there won't be consensus to deprecate at this point, so in any case, I think an RfC would be ill-advised. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Deprecation is definitely on the table, though I don't predict it as a likely outcome. RSP recommends RfCs for this at WP:RSPIMPROVE. Per WP:CONLEVEL, we shouldn't be overriding wide community consensus with narrower consensus. You might be right about no new voices joining, but I'd bet an hour of RCP anti-vandalism work that you're wrong. RfCs are often started when prior discussion is not formally closed. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RSPIMPROVE says "consider starting a discussion or a request for comment" (emphasis mine), and if you follow the links given in the list, many of them lead to discussions at this noticeboard that aren't RfCs. We differ on our interpretation of the concept of "no consensus". I interpret "no consensus" to mean there was no consensus (and thus, nothing to override), you seem to think that "no consensus" is itself a type of consensus. I'd really have to dig into policy and previous discussions to see which interpretation is better-supported. While I agree, in principle, that an RfC would hold more weight, I need to point out that this is not a wikiproject, it is in fact a community-wide noticeboard, and it's the exact place where this kind of discussion is supposed to happen, so I'm not convinced WP:CONLEVEL applies the way you seem to think it does. If you start an RfC now, I predict that it will not achieve your stated goals, and that some of the disruption it causes will carry over to the next RfC. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mysterious Whisper: thanks for your comments. I gave it some thought, and I agree with you about "no consensus" closes. My bad on WP:RSPIMPROVE, which I selectively quoted out of haste and not an intent to mislead. I am more hopeful that the discussion above could lead to actionable consensus than I was at the end of last week. Either way, I'm ok to wait until the close of this discussion before making any big moves. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think it should be very clear what the RfC is attempting to answer. In this case the question appears to be should Fox News reporting (not talk shows/commentary which is already generally unreliable) be downgraded from no-consensus (WP:MREL) to unreliable (WP:GUREL) for political topics. That will help scope what is reasonable evidence and what is off topic. We should also ask if this applies to all of their political reporting regardless of the claim being supported. For instance would we consider Fox acceptable for a statement like Senator Smith said "" in Texas on 25 Feb. The question needs to make it clear that this is not a question about the accuracy of commentary made by Fox News pundits, guess or hosts as that is already WP:GUREL. Springee (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'll do my best to accommodate your advice on defining the exact scope of what Fox coverage is under debate. The first part of your comment seems to be suggesting a straight yes/no on moving from MREL to GUREL, as opposed to listing all four options. My gut is to do the same, but more editors seem to prefer the standard layout. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• As a side note, I think this sort of broad brush bucketing is a bad idea and goes against WP:RS. Context matters and we should be doing less blanket accepting/rejecting sources and more looking at the actual claims being made and asking if the source is accurate for that specific claim rather than so broadly. Springee (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC

That view of considering context seems to no longer be the favoured view here anymore, it seems to be about deprecating or not deprecating nowadays. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: ANNA News

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of these best describes the reliability of ANNA News? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Survey (ANNA News)

• 2 At first thought this was too soon with only 35 citations on wikipedia, but given their about us statement at bottom of page- https://anna-news.info/about/ they are clearly writing with a biased agenda. Whether its enough to deem them unreliable? Not sure, as didn't see any misuse of the source on wiki or evidence of obvious fake news, though only checked 5 or so uses.Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• 4 – I came across this source being used at Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020), while preparing to contribute to the relevant deletion discussion there. It is obvious that this is a propaganda outlet of the worst kind, which is in no way fit to be cited in Misplaced Pages articles. Our own article on the outlet itself provides RS-based documentation of numerous examples of fabricated information disseminated by ANNA. Please deprecate this source. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. Propaganda website (questionable source) that repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, as cited in the article on ANNA News. See the discussion section for one of the many examples. ANNA News has a very strong pro-Kremlin bias and any uses (which should be extremely rare per WP:ABOUTSELF, if there are any at all) would require in-text attribution explicitly noting this bias. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 08:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  After reviewing Szmenderowiecki's link to the Russian Misplaced Pages discussion (below), which concluded that all citations of ANNA News should be removed from Russian Misplaced Pages, I am going to go further and state that there is no valid use for ANNA News on Misplaced Pages outside of the article on ANNA News, and that blacklisting the domain is a justifiable option. ANNA News is a jingoistic tabloid that regularly uses phrases (in its own voice) such as "damned America", "terrorists and bandits from the so-called Free Syrian Army", and "frogs" (an ethnic slur for French people, see ru:wikt:лягушатник#лягушатник II) to describe anything that can be construed as an opponent to Russia. I don't see how it would ever be appropriate to cite this source anywhere on Misplaced Pages, aside from the article on ANNA News itself (per WP:ABOUTSELF), since on top of the site's propensity to publish disinformation, it would be unencyclopedic to incorporate the site's crude language into our articles in Misplaced Pages's voice. — Newslinger talk 15:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, instead of the word invasion like any reliable source, ANNA News likes to use the word "denazification" to refer to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in its own voice (not attributed to any other entity). Examples: . I think this speaks for itself. — Newslinger talk 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 as ANNA News is well-established as an outright disinformation site. - Amigao (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 Either is fine. For writing about self, or for citing the propaganda as propaganda (using as an example), would be fine, but should never be used as a credible source for anything else. --Jayron32 14:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Obviously it's heavily biased, most of the time should not be used on Misplaced Pages. In rare cases when it's warranted it should be attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 the ANNA News article gives almost everything you need to know about the outlet. Also: who gives them money to pay war correspondents and to maintain a website in 5 languages? I still do not know that. And to use it in rare cases, we do not need to keep it as WP:GUNREL, because a deprecated source can be used if there is a specific consensus to do so. So it is better to keep it as WP:DEPREC to warn inexperienced editors and help in detecting abuse of this source. --Renat 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 as per Newslinger. It is more than just generally unreliable; it has actively promoted classic fake news pieces. My immediate thought was that there's no reason to discuss it here or deprecate as it's so marginal, but if it's cropping up as a citation in the current Ukr/Ru conflict then would be good to deprecate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Newslinger. The Russian Wikipedians don't seem to be enthusiastic about the resource, either, see: , (mostly about OR but also touching on reliability). There are certainly better sources than that, including from the pro-Kremlin perspective - use them instead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate This appears to be a site with very limited uses in Misplaced Pages. It can be handled on a case by case basis and it would be far better to discuss rather than go right into trying to rate the source. Absolutely should not be deprecated because it is not widely used on Misplaced Pages. Springee (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate Inappropriate use should be handled on article talk pages, and specific cases (rather than bans of all use) can be brought here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 4 - Per cogent arguments by Newslinger. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per Newslinger's argument and is described as a propaganda outlet by multiple sources provided by the WP article. The source is devoid of editorial standards, and despite it not being used widely on WP it should likely be deprecated IMO. VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (ANNA News)

• I found this peer-reviewed academic publication that covers ANNA News, formerly known as the Abkhazian Network News Agency (emphasis added):

Because these semi-state Russian groups are shadowy and protean, it can be challenging to find reliable information about their activities. They are surrounded by rumors, and some of the prominent individuals involved with them have been caught in direct lies.

The existence of at least one Russian PMC seems to have been completely fabricated, for unknown reasons. Ruslan Leviev of the Conflict Intelligence Team (a group that describes itself as conducting open-source, devil’s advocate, big-data intelligence on Russia’s wars in Ukraine and Syria), demonstrated through comparative photographic evidence that the group, “Turan,” a supposed Muslim Russian PMC in Syria, was fake. A different “journalist,” Oleg Blokhin of two pro-Russian-state news organizations (the Abkhazian Network News Agency, http://anna-news.info/about/, and Russian Spring, http://rusvesna.su/about), who “broke” the news about Turan, actually created an elaborate photo-shopped hoax, starring himself and a colleague in combat fatigues.

I now see that it's already cited in the ANNA News article, which has more examples of ANNA News's publication of false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Please see these discussions: Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021)#Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020). In both cases, editors assert a right to use ANNA News, and ANNA content continues to be inserted into these timeline articles, as you can see by glancing through them. Hence, I opened this discussion. However marginal this source may seem from the outside, it must be properly considered here to prevent further distortions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Please look at the discussions linked above. Attempts to deal with this source on obscure article talk pages have repeatedly resulted in certain editors continuing to place this source into articles. In fact, one editor even claimed that precisely because RSN has not yet deprecated it, it should be considered a 'partisan source, reliable in certain contexts', despite the fact that this source is well-documented in scholarly works as participating in fabrication. Therefore, as I said above, it is absolutely necessary that something be done about this source here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan saw this discussion before "voting" here. See diff. Renat 16:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I posted that because I believe it can be appropriate to notify talk page participants when a thread's subject has been brought to a different forum. I also believe it might be appropriate to ping the "certain editors continuing to place this source into articles" whom RGloucester refers to, but RGloucester hasn't identified them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The goal of opening this RfC was to attract uninvolved participants, not rehash arguments among involved parties (and please note, that discussion is a year old, and I didn't participate in it). I haven't pinged or canvassed anyone to this discussion, no matter their opinion. Your suggestion of impropriety is no less than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Take your accusation to WP:ANI where you'd have to show evidence, I won't engage further with you here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source Arbcom has proposed the following finding of fact (FoF):

"Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability. By contrast the most recent discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics."

Does the above accurately reflect the consensus at RSNB concerning this source?

Arbcom appears to be especially interested in use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs. Our Thomas John (medium) BLP and the use of Operation Pizza Roll – Thomas John from Skeptical Enquirer as a source in that BLP would be an example of this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That FoF is about the "historic" case and I think it's correct. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't come up much and when it has it's received support from experienced editors. The recent GSoW dramafest has caused renewed attention but this is mostly centred on what seem to me to be fruitless considerations of it as a "COI source" in respect of certain targeted editors. In my experience there's not often cause to use this source other than for very niche fringe topics (e.g. Thought Field Therapy) and then it may be useful for WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tyler Henry is another example, as csicop.org. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The conduct related to me and other editors has made it difficult for the community to arrive at consensus on this matter, so I would suggest putting a hold on this until the Arbcom case is closed. I will note that a concern that wasn't properly resolved in the past discussion here on SI was that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of facts they published. Me and others agreed that while not an SPS, this does make them a questionable source due to their lack of editorial oversight, although this perspective did not gain consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"they take no responsibility" ← this is not accurate. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. There are esteemed scientific journals (e.g. PLOS One) which make no attempt to verify the accuracy of the research they publish, merely verifying that it's conducted correctly on the surface. Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it (and of course this has become a huge problem). Attacking SI because it does similar seems like yet another example of the special new harsh regime for "skepticism" that some editors seem very attached to lately. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective is a quote from their submission guidelines. Please do not make vague accusations about other editors, Alexbrn, as that will be disruptive towards reaching a consensus on SI. I'll leave the discussion until Arbcom case is closed. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not make "vague accusation", I specifically said a claim you made was inaccurate. So it was, as you showed when you quoted SI's actual position. I suggest what might actually impede consensus is making such inaccurate statements and then kicking sand up about "vague accusations" when those statements are specifically addressed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, what I meant by vague accusation was your last sentence. Describing criticisms as "attacks", describing behaviour or attitudes by editors as a "special new harsh regime for 'skepticism'" and the phrase "some editors seem very attached to lately" reads to me as a vague accusation, Alexbrn. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

SI is not a scientific journal, though. They are a general interest magazine with no fact-checking process. Because SI does not require authors to be academics (unlike The Conversation, which does), there is simply no way of knowing if something published on SI is a reliable source unless it is written by a scientist in their field. How could anything outside that narrow definition be reliable by our standards? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest that it useful for WP:PARITY purposes when there is an existing, unrebutted fringe claim in an article. Apart from that, it shouldn't be used. BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an established generalist journal, and well-reputed: that reputation counts. "Scientific" journals are not automatically trustworthy - huge numbers of them are trash. For a few very niche topics, like Roswell, SI has some seminal content, like this from K Korff, who is an authority on UFO stuff. For pseudoscience, quack medicine, UFOs, etc WP:PARITY often comes into play and in that context SI is a cut above even "alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages" such a blogs. I don't think anybody is proposing to use SI for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, or as WP:MEDRS or anything. It's only use is for providing sanity in niche WP:FRINGE topics, and as such its use should be limited and rare. You know: time cube, bigfoot, alien autopsies, morphic resonance. All that kind of stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, but the majority of its uses are outside of WP:FRINGE topics, and within fringe topics it is usually used to both introduce and rebut the fringe claim, when it would be better to not mention the fringe claim at all. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn explained the context of the The authors, however, are responsible quote, for example with Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it. Those journals could write exactly that same sentence, and it would be true for them too. You people's reasoning that the sentence shows that the journal is not reliable is just your personal, rather colorful and one-sided interpretation of that sentence, carefully circumnavigating and ignoring a better explanation of its meaning that had already been given. I don't think you can actually point out a subject SI got wrong and doubled down on, as unreliable publications would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like SI, Nature, Science, and I suspect most if not all other scientific journals have no fact-checking process or, at best, their checks of "facts" presented in submitted manuscripts range from limited (e.g., software to detect plagiarism) to non-existent. Also like SI, those journals do not require authors to be academics. So I am uncertain, Pyrrho the Skipper, about your criteria/standards for assigning unreliability to SI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nature publishes scientific research from academics which is reviewed by exclusively PhD-level editors and only a small minority is selected. That's vastly different from SI which has no requirement that an author is doing actual research, original or otherwise, or is an academic. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nowhere in the author guidelines for Nature (or Science) will you find a requirement that authors be academics. You can confirm that yourself at the journals' websites. FWIW, I will also add that not all of their reviewers are exclusively PhD-level, although by nature of the business that is the common outcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. That statement is false, as evidenced here and here. Your use of the phrase actual scientists is also incorrect, as any number of non-scientists (e.g., journalists, politicians, and even the general public) regularly have material published in those journals. At the risk of repeating myself, having no requirement (your term) that authors be academics/scientists is a feature common to SI, Nature, Science, and an uncountable number of other science journals. Because this is becoming tangential to the main thread, I suggest we move any further discussion to one of our Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right?", Not even close. Amateur scientists have made many important scientific discoveries that have been published in scientific journals. Forrest Mims is an amateur scientist who's work has has been published in Nature. Guy Stewart Callendar developed the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rising global temperature and created the first climate change model. He was a steam engineer. Though he had almost no formal training in mathematics, Srinivasa Ramanujan made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. It was a Jesuit priest who discovered that Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria. It was a retired carpenter who discovered two species of wildflowers growing previously unnoticed just across the bay from San Francisco and published his results in a botanical journal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but SI isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's the journal of a non profit. The farmer's co-op I belong to publishes a quarterly journal written by subject matter experts. I wouldn't compare it to an actual peer reviewed journal though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. The reasoning was, a bit shortened, "SI has no fact-checking process" - "Neither has Nature". The point is that a lack of fact-checking process is not a reason to call it unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would say the problem is that the way WP:RS is written, lack of fact-checking would, in fact, be pretty fatal to reliable status. That said, I also agree that those who say the submission guidelines language indicates no fact-checking at all are overreading that bit, especially when taken in context. Still damned murky to me, but hopefully wiser heads see things more clearly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I shortened it too much. Your response does not fit the longer version because "SI has no fact-checking process" is not in the source, it is a Misplaced Pages editor's interpretation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to do this it should be a widely advertised, actual RFC. We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think it would also be a good idea to have it broken down into use cases, i.e. for WP:PARITY, in a WP:BLP, making contentious claims about a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like an RFC is needed, but my snap take is that they do not have editorial oversight. Certainly useable for the authors opinion but it would need to be attributed to them and then take appropriate weight concerns. I would be hesitant to use them to make claims about BLPs. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, Skeptical Inquirer now being targeted. There was a similar attack on Quackwatch , in 2019. Science-Based Medicine will probably be next. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Its a good thing when less reliable sources are removed or clarified. Why would you be against that? PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am against quackery and pseudoscience. These websites are very reliable at debunking nonsense and have many academics and scholars writing for them. IMO there is no valid reason to remove them from Misplaced Pages. They have been on Misplaced Pages for decades and improve many articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above the issue is their lack of editorial oversight. While I will take your word for it that whatever they publish is right, that falls short of the bar set by Misplaced Pages. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be this persistent misconception that just because a source debunks nonsense/unreliable sources that it is itself a reliable source... Skeptics aren't inherently any more reliable than any other loose grouping of people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said that the reliability is "inherent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that Skeptical Enquirer has a reputation for accuracy and for printing retractions when they get it wrong. They also clearly label opinion pieces.

As for editorial oversight, see :

"The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript. Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal, although a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer."

IMO Skeptical Enquirer is generally reliable for factual claims, and that some (but not all) of their authors are recognized subject matter experts.

I would also caution some of the participants in this discussion to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. If your new comment basically repeats something you said already, you may wish to skip it. Everyone here is capable of reading the entire thread and we all heard you the first time. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised in previous discussions, so my apologies that I'm probably repeating some things. But in regard to SI:

• I have noticed significant problems with some claims in articles in the past. I think is generally reliable, but as a highly partisan source it should be used cautiously, especially in regard to contentious or serious claims.
• Their editorial process is selective at best. It doesn't give me a lot of faith, but as the authors tend to be experts, I'm happy enough sticking with the generally reliable for factual claims bit.
• The columnists are a different matter, especially as regards living people. Without a clear editorial process evaluating claims about living people, I think columns should be regarded as equivalents to SPS. Viable under WP:Parity in regard to their expertise, but not to be used in BLPs.

There aren't any glaring red flags, but I look at it as a source that requires caution, if only due to being highly partisan, and probably a bit too risky in regards to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point about columns and BLPs.

Let's look at a particular column (I chose the first column in the current issue to avoid cherry picking):

• The Philosopher’s Corner: Science Denialism Is a Form of Pseudoscience

The author, Massimo Pigliucci, is clearly a subject-matter expert in the areas of evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, and pseudoscience. Let's look at a claim in this column that might be used as a source in a BLP:

"My colleague Sven Ove Hansson of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has written an insightful paper about this... Hansson begins by distinguishing two kinds of bad epistemic practices that fall under the broader umbrella of pseudoscience: science denialism and pseudotheory promotion."

I see no problem with using this as a source in the Sven Ove Hansson BLP describing (with attribution) Hansson's paper. To my mind a blanket prohibition of SI columns in BLPs would be too broad. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is "I found a random statement in one column and it is good - therefore it is all good?" Surely you can see the problem with that. - Bilby (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as a mischaracterization, given the last sentence of Guy Macon's comments above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The prohibition on using self published sources in BLPs is not based on whether or not they occasionally make accurate statements we could potentially use. It is based on the idea that without adequate independent fact checking, we need to assume that they are unreliable. The occasional accurate statement in an SPS does not mean that we can use them. That said, we have been able to use them as statements about the opinion of the author - so if Guy's claim was "we could write according to X ..." I'd be much more open to the argument. - Bilby (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So would you say a blanket prohibition would be too broad, and certain statements could be used with attribution? Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, just that is how we would use an SPS without violating BLPSPS. What I'd like to know if there is evidence that columnists are put through a proper editorial process before publication. What they say is that authors are responsible for the accuracy of their own content, and that "technical or controversial matters" may be sent to reviewers. But does that extend to statements about living people made by columnists? In a lot of these publications, online columns are treated effectively as blogs, so I'd like to know if they are treated differently here. - Bilby (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide evidence supporting your claim that SI columns are self-published sources ("online columns are treated effectively as blogs"). WP:SPS says this:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

That is quite different from a column by a subject matter expert that goes through the usual editorial review that pretty much every printed periodical goes through before being sent to the printing press. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Many of these are online-only columns, so what happens with a printed periodical may not apply and there is nothing to suggest that they are reviewed. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support the characterization of Skeptical Enquirer as generally reliable for factual claims. Evidence for SI being de facto unreliable is lacking and, as evinced immediately above by Guy, a broad-stroke prohibition on using SI for BLPs would be harmful to the encyclopedia. That said, the use of SI for any content within BLPs, whether "positive," "negative," or "neutral" in nature, should always be done with care (as a matter of course) and explicit attribution. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Media, the arts, and architecture Maths, science, and technology Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source for facts?

1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact;
2. Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply;
3. Generally unreliable for supporting statements of fact; or
4. Should be deprecated.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Skeptical Inquirer

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to pseudoscientific claims, fake products, and fringe theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• 2: Other considerations apply - Articles in the source can be suitable for WP:PARITY statements, but due to their strong POV, and lack of editorial control (The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective - from SI's Submission Guidelines), editors should be cautious of their use outside of those areas, particularly regarding BLP's.

The columns should generally be avoided, with the only exception being when the author is a subject-matter expert and the article is not a BLP, given the lack of evidence of any editorial control, and the fact that some columns have been written with the intent of them being used as sources for Misplaced Pages BLP's.

I would note that while the articles are suitable for parity statements, editors should be cautious when using the source to both introduce and rebut fringe claims; in such circumstances, mentioning the fringe claim is likely to be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and blacklist via the WP:Spam blacklist. The fact that it specifically makes no claim to fact-checking or accuracy makes it useless as a source, even for WP:PARITY purposes - anyone trying to cite parity to argue for this source needs to actually read what parity says; it is obviously inapplicable. Parity allows us to use non-academic / non-peer-reviewed sources and sources of somewhat lower quality in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source, but it doesn't allow us to totally ignore WP:RS, which would be necessary to use this source at all in any context; since Skeptical Inquirer performs no fact-checking, it is comparable to eg. Forbes contributors and provides no reliability beyond a WP:SPS. On its own that would just get a red / generally unreliable rating, but it has also been systematically spammed, and there's no reason to think that that is going to stop. The spamming of an unreliable source means this is a case for the spam blacklist, which exists precisely to prevent that sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI's article submission guidelines don't say that they don't fact-check anything. The full quote is The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. The Editor checks it, and if they need help they'll get another reviewer. The author is responsible for not wasting the editor's time with poorly researched junk. That's how more or less every non-peer reviewed publication works. If we were to disqualify SI on this basis I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It states "will often"; we can't determine from that when the editor decides to send it off to reviewers, or how often they decide to do that - all we know is that they place all responsibility for accuracy of fact and perspective on the author. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is one of several comments that led me to add a comment to the discussion saying that I think we need a resource educating Wikipedians about the realities of how oversight at publishers work. You are generally a well-informed editor, but I find this comment naive: publishing venues with any substantial momentum are regularly going to put their editors in difficult situations. We should not bring a narrow box-ticking mentality to assessing publishing venues but decide what level of trust we should put in the venue based on its fruits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. Any examples? Honest question. JBchrch talk 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a peer reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. Their manuscript guidelines include: Authors are responsible for accuracy of their manuscripts, so ask colleagues to help review your draft before submitting it. National Defense Magazine is currently cited hundreds of times on Misplaced Pages. Their contribute an article page includes the text Authors are responsible for accuracy of all material reported. As User:Alexbrn notes in the discussion section, much is being made of a boilerplate phrase that can be found in the policies of many publications. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, and SI isn't. If National Defense Magazine publishes unreviewed texts by non-subject matter experts, then they should be booted off Misplaced Pages. JBchrch talk 22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a non-sequitur. Are we going to discount the New York Times because its editorial processes rarely involve peer review? — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. See my support comment in the previous section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• 3: Treat as self-published. Per their Article Submission Guidelines, which indicate that they publish articles from outside authors with no review or fact-checking in many cases as a matter of principle (see "Categories, Topics, and General Information") correction JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC). As a result, it's essentially equivalent to a group blog or, rather, one of those "academic blogs", which feature shorter works by subject matter experts—but, crucially, not only subject matter experts. Examples in my field of interest include the Columbia Blue Sky Blog or the Oxford Business Law Blog. In all of these cases, many works published on these websites are citable because they are written by authors who fit the WP:SPS criteria. But that determination has to be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who the author is, whether they are a subject-matter expert, and with respect to what field they are a subject-matter expert. JBchrch talk 04:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked the link and looks like what you say ("no review or fact-checking as a matter of principle") is simply untrue: in particular, "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers". Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Read the sentence you're quoting: The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. So, in principle, no review. Maybe "as a matter of principle" was not the correct language, but this sentence says all we need to know: most of this stuff has not been reviewed. JBchrch talk 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Alexbrn Since you have accused me of saying "wrong things" below, I've made the correction that you pointed out. JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. I generally concur with MrOllie here. The idea that it has no editorial control whatsoever is not borne out by their statements, and I've yet to see a pattern established of them being, well, factually wrong. Nor does a source having been used inappropriately on Misplaced Pages translate to unreliability. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There were a few examples in the previous discussion, but this article demonstrates the lack of editorial control. The underlying premise and conclusion is fine, but the issue is the method used - the author decided to invent a new field called "forensic caricaturing", which involves proving that two images are of different people by caricaturizing the photos, allowing differences to be more readily perceived. The issues with modifying evidence through subjective methods to prove a point are obvious, but were not identified by the editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The real procedure here was to look at the photograph and the sketch produced by the psychic and observe that they don't look much alike (anyone can replicate this part). The 'method' you are concerned about was just a means to make a graphic to go with the article: I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. I finally decided to create a new field, “forensic caricaturing. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The method was the means the author proved it, and that is the issue. The fact that they could have proven it through dozens of ways that don't involve modifying evidence through subjective methods is not relevant. Moved from here to try and make the conversations possible to understand. MrOllie, please move back if you believe that location is more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It is not "clearly wrong", and you did not "explain it above". Dorothy Allison is not a psychic, and the two pictures do not depict the same person. Nickell just used a way of emphasizing differences to make them clearer. As he wrote, I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. He could have done that, and the result would have been the same. SI is not "wrong", let alone "clearly wrong", it just used a didactic tool you did not like. You are grasping at straws, just as you are grasping at straws with your "imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Let me just point out that the author of the article being criticized is Joe Nickell, a formidable investigator and forensic expert. And this is not an example of lack of editorial control, or of a bad method. As a forensic expert myself, I have to say that his use of caricatures is just a clever, as well as amusing, tool to make the differences between the two faces more easibly distinguishable. There is nothing wrong here. The comparison with "using dowsing rods to figure out the shape of the Earth" is completely bogus.VdSV9•♫ 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Modifying evidence through subjective methods is wrong. It might be entertaining, but publications that seek to be entertaining rather than correct typically have reliability issues - see the opinion content of Fox News, which has the same intent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

              Have you ever read the data-driven reporting from The Economist , FiveThirtyEight , The Atlantic , etc. etc. Such pieces often "modify evidence through subjective methods". One must choose the reporting bounds, the resolution, even the color scheme.Data categorization, visualization, and interpretation are inherently subjective endeavors. Journalism is an inherently subjective endeavor that strives to be as factual and objective as possible, but acknowledges its failure. — Shibbolethink 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

              SI changed the data to make their point, while the examples you provided did not. If 538 had changed the educational rate of voters in counties to better indicate the trend, then it would be equivalent - but they didn't, and if they had we would be questioning their reliability. Alternatively, if SI had cut out parts of the images - such as only showing the jaw lines, to emphasise the differences between the two - then it would also have been equivalent, and we would not be discussing this example as there would not be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Additional considerations apply. I don't feel we can give this publication a blanket pass. It does seem to mix opinion and fact and lack a clear cut editorial policy. However, it does not appear to publish false information any more frequently than, say, The Times. Individual articles should be judged on their merits, which can be discussed at the relevant talk page. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ok for some facts per WP:PARITY, although better sources are preferable. Not ok for BLPs. Fundamentally, this is a highly partisan site aimed at beliefs, actions and individuals they disagree with. As such, I do not believe that it is reliable when it comes to living people, much as is the case with other highly partisan sites. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. Too much emphasis is being placed on peer review. Here are over 20 peer reviewed journals on homeopathy Here is a peer reviewed journal on cryptozoology. Here is a peer reviewed journal of 911 Studies. The question is does SI publish recognized experts saying true things? Yes, yes they do. Have they published misinformation, or lies? I haven't seen any compelling evidence. Is their track record as good as other reliable sources? Geogene complains above that SI is used when other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact This is not how sourcing policy works. Citing a random personal blog for "the sky is blue" in Rayleigh scattering is worse than not sourcing the statement at all. There is no reason to use low quality sources when better sources are available, see for example WP:BESTSOURCES. Problematically, SI often strays into high profile areas, into geopolitics, where better sourcing is available. Havana syndrome is another example of this. What if, hypothetically, one of SI's dubious experts decides tomorrow that Novichok isn't a real chemical weapon and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was a mass hysteria? Recent experience has shown that editors will go to that page to try to use it as a source, to "counterbalance" mainstream sources. Geogene (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Any source may hypothetically publish something daft. I'm interested in actual examples. Again, what is this "review of a cancer researcher's book" in SI you mentioned above? Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  What are you saying here, Alexbrn? That since any source can publish nonsense, they're all of equal quality? Surely not. Geogene (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, but a source isn't unreliable because of what it might do in your imagination. Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others. Again, what is this cancer review you invoked above as an example of SI problems? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others I agree with this point, but SI's contributors' field(s) of expertise needs to be defined. I view it as a usually reliable, but low prominence Parity source. Geogene (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which is why your cancer example is of interest. Link please! Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  (...Sound Of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know how I missed this before, but it is baffling how Geogene refers to "SI's dubious experts", while referring to Robert Bartholomew an expert and authority on psychogenic illnesses, who wrote a book on the Havana Syndrome alongside Robert W. Baloh, a neurologist who wrote a textbook on the vestibular system and remains unconvinced of the evidence presented. All while defending the outlier conclusions presented on a paper with poor methodology from an advisory panel led by microbiologist and immunologist David Relman, with no background in either neurology, the auditory system, microwave or sound weapons, or psychology. And they do this even after a lot of the mainstream position on HS has shifted away from attacks and more evidence has been shown confirming what the "dubious experts" have been claiming all along. A lot of examples given here by others for the claimed lack of reliability of SI are of similar quality. VdSV9•♫ 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @VdSV9: What was his day job again? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Whose? VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Bartholomew's, of course. While you're at, could you clarify what the word "Honorary" means, in the title, "Honorary Senior Lecturer"? Geogene (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the relevant policy, Geogene. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link. It says, Honorary appointees are not remunerated, other than reimbursement of expenses. So if VdSV9 calls this person an expert, what is his day job again? It's obvious this Bartholomew wouldn't pass WP:NPROF on this. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, the policy also says that to be an honorary appointee, a person must have a national and international standing outside the University in their area of expertise. Now, it's certainly not binding on Misplaced Pages, but it does let me know that the University of Auckland considers him notable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  But not enough standing to justify paying him a salary? I suspect that University of Auckland considers all of their people notable in some way, and I also suspect they pay most of them. Few of them are notable enough to receive any coverage at all in an encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. A google news search suggests to me that he is likely notable, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what his day job is, don't care, and am not willing to go along with your red herrings. His specialization is in medical sociology, and there are plenty reliable sources to support the claim that he is an expert in MPI (mass hysteria), having written or co-written books and articles on notable publications about it. Do you want more information on Robert Baloh, with whom he co-wrote the HS book? VdSV9•♫ 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  You SHOULD care what he does for a living, because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate he's a world class expert. If a university WERE paying him for his expertise, that would be independent, objective evidence in favor of that expertise. That it doesn't is a red flag that you don't seem to be able to recover from. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This focus on drawing a paycheck strikes me as odd. Notability, expertise, and the like, should be, to my mind, a holistic inquiry. While you're free to take employment into account, it is not for me a sine qua non for expertise, source usage, or anything else. If consensus is against me on this count, I will find a way to survive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I fail to see what the relevance of this whole Bartholomew expertise discussion to the wider SI debate. We're kind of just walking in circles here. I will say though, that for all intents and purposes Bartholomew is an expert in some areas of medicine, being published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and Dumuzid's description of honorary positions is in line with my (brief) professional experience in the field. But again, this has no effect on the editorial practices, biases, and ethics of SI nor its use within Misplaced Pages. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable wrt to facts. Opinion pieces still need to be cited as opinions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact As others have been saying above, their main articles are fine to use as is, but any opinion pieces need to be attributed to the authors. The good thing, also as many have noted, is that their opinion pieces are almost always done by a notable expert who also often already has a Misplaced Pages article anyways. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to SI that I've been seeing taking advantage of the source's admission of negatively covering pseudoscience are those who would want said pseudoscience to be positively covered and are using this as an opportunity to try and remove one of the primary sources of debunking WP:FRINGE topics out there. Silverseren 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren, LuckyLouie, and Shibbolethink: I believe most editors who question its reliability support its use for WP:PARITY statements, but have concerns about its use beyond debunking fringe topics. As your response appears focused on its use in fringe areas, is this a position you could agree with; can be used for parity, but should generally be avoided outside of fringe areas. Pinging LuckyLouie and Shibbolethink as well, as their comments were similar. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. SI actually describes itself as focused on "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" — which is the bulk of its content. And most Wikipedians agree (me included) that opinion pieces should be attributed ("According to John Smith..."). Here's the latest issue , can you indicate which content is unreliable, should be avoided, etc.? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It is what it is primarily focused on, but use of the source often goes beyond that, and given the issues with the source it seems likely that this shouldn't be happening. In response to your question, I would recommend avoiding content that is not being used to rebut fringe statements. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Their "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" sync with mainstream scientific thought. Obvious caveats are that unambiguous SI opinion pieces should be attributed, especially in the context of BLPs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. As with many GREL publications, there are also opinion pieces published here, and those require additional considerations such as attribution, closer scrutiny for evaluating DUE, etc. As others here have said, the reporting standards of SI are not very different from most other publications in this area, or in popular journalism in general. It checks facts which are contentious with external review, it has standards for who it allows to publish, and it has an editorial process. I want to emphasize, the factual reporting of SI makes it an essential source for matters which have serious parity issues, such as pseudoscience, charlatans, the paranormal, hoaxes, and the occult. Many wiki articles about these subjects are overly laudatory, and lack a skeptical perspective to achieve NPOV balance in due proportion to reliable sources. They are overly reliant on in-universe content, because of a very common problem: The more FRINGE a topic, the more polarized the sources, and the more interested editors may be biased in favor of the subject. This is similar to Brandolini's law, or its sub-corollary that proponents of a fringe topic will almost always know more about it, and in more detail, in-universe, than critics of that fringe topic will know negative content. In order to maintain DUE and BALANCE, we need more reliable independent sources like SI to counter that common bias. — Shibbolethink 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. All the reasoning above about no fact-checking is crap, and it has already been refuted in the section above the survey. To repeat: Even scientific journals do not check all facts. Peer-review, for example, does not mean that the peers go to the lab of the authors and check all the records. So, there are unchecked facts in scientific journals! Deprecate them all! There has not even been one single example given about anything SI ever got wrong. I am not saying there isn't - there must be, it is unavoidable that it will happen at some time in 40 years, even if you extremely careful. But the fact that not one of SI's detractors has named such a blooper tells you that its supposed unreliability is just hypothetical, not real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • First, you could have referred to this better, for example, by saying "08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)". (I guess that is whyt you meant.) Then I could have searched the page for that instead of for your name or XOR'easter's. Thank you for unnecessarily wasting my time.
    • Second, you found an example of something you disagreed with, not an example of something where SI clearly got it wrong. If someone wanted to quote that one in an article, they would fail because it would be WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except it is clearly wrong, as I explained above - I would even go so far as to call the chosen method pseudoscience. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        BilledMammal, I would implore you to re-read the article you link again. The 'forensic caricature' which gives you so much pause (and understandably so) seems obviously to me to be (1) tongue-in-cheek; and (2) a description of the method for illustrating differences--not in fact a heuristic for coming to the conclusion. You can certainly take issue with the conclusion or actual method by which it was reached (which seems to have been "I see differences"), but I think your description here is a bit off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        • I am responding to this above, where the same discussion is duplicated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I haven't seen anything published in SI that has been so egregiously incorrect as to call into question its reliability. Of course, such honorifics can be taken to extremes. I've seen people argue that obvious typos need to be accepted at face value because a reliable source printed it. The word generally is the key term here. jps (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable and worth noting that scepticism (sometimes spelled skepticism) is merely a public reflection of mainstream science, something ARBCOM would do well to acknowledge. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Of course it's generally reliable for supporting statements of fact within its topic—the authors and the publication are generally good and suitably credentialed. Is there evidence of any substantive and incorrect information in Skeptical Inquirer? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to Shame on Shamus Sham? That mentions The Mystery Chronicles: More Real-Life X-Files, with publisher: "The University Press of Kentucky (UPK) is the scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth of Kentucky". You might argue that someone with no qualifications in examination of faces is not a reliable source to point out that two faces have marked differences and are obviously not the same person. But to claim that conclusion is incorrect would be absurd—have a look at the photos. The question of whether SI is reliable of course depends on what fact it is being used to verify but if WP:PARITY were being used to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer, the source would be perfect. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The conclusion is correct, but that isn't enough for a source to be usable; the method the conclusion is arrived at also needs to be correct. An equivalent example would be someone proving the earth is round using dowsing rods; even though the conclusion is correct, the method means that we cannot use the source. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you did not read my question which asked for an example of incorrect information. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Can you explain what the difference is? It doesn't matter why the source is unusable - incorrect method or incorrect conclusion - just that it is unusable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • A lot of time has been wasted (see Arbcom proposed remedies) mainly because participants have been unable to respond in a logical fashion. I asked if there is an example of SI publishing incorrect information. Your response implied that such an example can be found above. I hunted for it and found the article to be 100% correct. Now you are shifting the goalposts to say that this example is correct but is unusable as a source. Did you see where I pointed out that the article would be reliable to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer? Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that the article is correct. In the future, if you're going to respond, please make it logical. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
              • Sorry, it appears I was not clear. The example provided is an example of SI publishing incorrect information, as the method the conclusion is arrived at is not correct. This means we cannot use the article, even as a parity source - just as we could not use an article proving the earth is round using dowsing, even as a parity source, as it would be incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                • Regarding simple logic, are you aware that "the method the conclusion is arrived at" is totally irrelevant for whether this is "an example of SI publishing incorrect information"? I might conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow by consulting a psychic. My method is bogus but the conclusion is correct. After all these replies you still have not identified any substantive and incorrect information published in SI. And you fail to respond to the point that the SI source would be suitable to counter a claim from a psychic. Please either answer my question with an example of incorrect information, or agree that no such example is known. After that, we can debate how SI authors arrive at their conclusions and whether a particular article would be suitable as a reference for a particular assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall - would you really consider an article claiming that the sun would rise tomorrow because a psychic told the author to not be incorrect? And I have responded to that point; per my !vote above, SI would generally be suitable as a WP:PARITY source. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall This is your opinion of how "correctness" should be determined. It is not wikipedia's. See, for example: WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibbolethink 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    This definition of correctness is widely held; for example: do you consider a person proving the sun will rise tomorrow with the help of a psychic to be correct? I also don't believe WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant to a discussion about whether a source is reliably "correct". BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    I think you have completely misapprehended Joe Nickell here. The claim he is debunking is no more solid than the method he is using, and that's rather his point. He is meeting the argument on its own terms and thereby argues that the entire premise is quite ridiculous. This is rather like when cynical commentators use the methods of creationists to "prove" evolution. The point of such exercises is not to say that such methods are the way things should be done. The point is to show that they don't even do what they claim to do. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Which is the issue. Neither the claim, nor the rebuttal, are reliable, and publishing either raises questions about the publisher, and suggests that at best they seek to entertain, rather than inform. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable due to it being a self-admitted biased publication that has a problem with issuing corrections. I don't have the entire collection of SI handy to provide issue dates, so I am relying on my memory, but there was an Editor's note some recent years ago where the magazine proudly proclaimed its content was non-neutral. It also once falsely claimed as a puzzle answer that the source of the quotation "Everyone who believes in telekinesis raise my hand" was writer Kurt Vonnegut (It's a one-liner by comedian Emo Philips). They never published a correction, so it makes me wonder how many other errors they wouldn't correct over its publishing history. I also note famous skeptical writers Robert Shaeffer, Gary Poser, and much earlier Marcello Truzzi quit their association with its publisher for similar reasons over bias. Its use as a source should be considered on a case by case basis. 5Q5| 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They admit to bias, and so do we. What is the issue here? Why admiting to one's own biases would not be a good thing? I thought we were discussing reliability. Do you have any evidence to the claim that they have a problem with issuing corrections? I have yet to see a publication that never makes a mistake, and I don't expect them to catch and publish corrections to all of them. The one you caught may have slipped by, I have seen other mistakes they've made, but that's a long shot for claiming a publication has such a bad record as to be "marginally reliable". VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "They admit to bias, and so do we...": Who exactly is we? WP:GOODBIAS links to a user page. GretLomborg (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Just us, the reasonable people that try not to have our heads in the clouds. The only bias they have is a pro-science and pro-reality one. Everyone has biases, as does every publication, and admiting to one's own biases is not a bad thing and doesn't make it unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 00:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - It seems strange to again have a thread about this source. It's often useful for WP:PARITY. If the recent ARBCOM case was an excuse to repost this, it doesn't have to do with if this source is reliable or not... —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - No meaningful evidence has been presented by the other side. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - Surprised this is even up for discussion, SI is an absolutely irreplaceable tool in the coverage of fringe. Obviously, it has to be used with a certain amount of care, because they're advocates not journalists, but absolutely meets RS. Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable—on top of the issues discussed above, the biggest queries I often have is—can this be replaced with a better source? And if it can't, is the topic actually something we should be covering? Misplaced Pages is a general-purpose encyclopedia with topics that should be receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. We're not Quackwatch or a place to relentlessly catalog frauds and hucksters and pseudoscience just because it's pseudoscience. It's a different remit. If you can't find good coverage of a topic besides SI, I'd question whether the topic is actually notable in the first place. And if SI is the only place "rebutting" another POV, that implies fringe POVs. It should be used sparingly, and generally treated as a SPS and looking to the author given its lack of editorial controls.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Shibbolethink's point about the importance of this publication for maintaining DUE and BALANCE is well made. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1/2: - Reliable but considerations apply for opinion pieces. I also don't think we should lean on skepticism magazines for statements of fact in scientific subjects. We have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for that. CutePeach (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how to count a "1/2" !vote. Some considerations apply for all opinion pieces, even those that we determine are generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. And nothing in WP:SCHOLARSHIP in any way implies that other sources (WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED) are unreliable or marginally reliable -- just that we should "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent". Could you please make your !vote clear so we can get a clean count that nobody can dispute? Suggestions:

• "1 with the usual cautions about opinion pieces and bias",
• "2 ",
• "1 second choice 2",
• "2 second choice 1".

Any of those or something similar will be easy to count and hard to dispute --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I wanted to position myself between 1 and 2, but reading some of the !votes below, I now lean more towards 2. There is a real WP:ADVOCACY concern with the skeptic cabal on Misplaced Pages. I don't think they're a net negative, but they need to be kept in check to assure WP:BALANCE is maintained, and SI looks like it can disrupt that. It's not clear how SI's editorial team reviews submissions and distinguishes between fact and opinion, and I can see that as giving rise to sourcing disputes. CutePeach (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact - I have spent a long time thinking about this and looking for secondary sources and other mentions, but there's a funny issue insofar as it seems the magazine occupies a very specific niche. It is largely hegemonic in the kookier pseudoscientific field--you don't get scholarly journals which spend time debunking interdimensional bigfoot, to put it crudely. That largely means its existence is sort of unexamined; when it comes up in major news sources, it tends to be noted and quickly ignored (from what I can tell). That said, I would obviously be open if anyone has found better sources than I have (which is certainly possible). Still, I think there is a general reputation for accuracy, without implying perfection, and to me, the fact-checking concerns are overwrought (though it would be nice to know more). So, this is where I stand, though I reserve the right to change my mind as new information is adduced. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 It looks like they have sufficient editorial controls; while they take submitted articles they do send them for review and generally have a policy against publishing obvious falsehoods. The boilerplate "authors are responsible for their own content" is not particularly problematic for me. --Jayron32 16:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of factOption 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply, with the usual opinion caveat. With that said, I have two specific concerns about it's use. First is it's use in BLPs, as it is clearly biased, and columns written with the aim to get negative information added to Misplaced Pages and search results is a real concern for me. Generally, I would treat any stings and the like as primary sources, and would not include them unless they are covered by additional secondary sources. Second is to make sure information sourced to SI is WP:DUE. If there are no other secondary sources covering something, especially in a BLP, it likely should not be in the article at all. If the only reliable source that says Subject A believes interdimensional Bigfoot faked the moon landed is also the source debunking dimension shifting yetis pulling hoaxes, it's probably not due for inclusion. While I'm less bothered than some others by its use when better sources exist, it should generally not be used far outside the topic of skepticism, i.e. in Anorexia nervosa. Also, I believe Dumuzid puts it best, Reasonable minds may differ, of course. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been giving this a fair amount of additional thought, and have decided to adjust my !vote. Firstly, there are many comparing SI to a journal. If this is true, it does not have a peer review process, and per WP:RS, Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. All mentions of using journals as sources hinges on them being peer reviewed or a well regarded academic press, which SI is not. WP:RS also says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. SI is not "high-quality" when compared to other high-quality non-scholarly sources. They do not have a strong, established editorial policy, or a team of fact checkers reading and vetting articles. High-quality non-scholarly sources, like the New York Times, have teams of fact checkers that verify facts in articles. They have strong editorial processes, and a published standard of ethical journalism. They have a reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. There's also the bias and advocacy issues. Again, using the New York Times as a benchmark, review the tone of and , While consultations can feel very therapeutic, he said, these online marketplaces are full of fraudsters, looking to trick vulnerable clients out of their money... This exchange is a gift to critics looking for examples of how Gwyneth Paltrow’s wellness media empire peddles expensive quackery in the name of self-care. They clearly state the issues with psychics and quackery, and call such things out, but they don't refer to people as grief vampires, or write in an overly sensationaist tone, Maybe I missed the press release and the Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded to Henry for breaking the natural laws of the known universe. Possibly the smoke from the burning of all the textbooks that now need to be rewritten has polluted the atmosphere to the point that I forgot when this discovery was announced. That kind of writing is fine and good, but it's not a high quality source for an encyclopedia. This Guardian article on the ethics of stings in journalism puts a large emphasis on editorial oversight, and again, that's not something we see with this source. WP:PARITY usage is fine, but usage in BLPs and making contentious statements should be limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply: it's a self-declared and heavily WP:PARTISAN source that covers scientific topics from a non-academic, popular journalism perspective. Just on this score it would be easily recognized by everyone as generally unreliable, if not for two facts: (1) for some aspects of some fringe topics, there is no other and better source, which makes it usable under WP:PARITY, and (2) there are quite a few editors who are specifically here on WP to fight fringe, and they have no qualms with applying different standards to sources which they regard as useful in 'fighting the good fight'. In particular, the !votes for "option 1. generally reliable" that cite WP:PARITY as a rationale should be discounted because, apart from the fact that WP:PARITY does not automagically render a source generally reliable, a source that is truly generally reliable in and of itself would never need WP:PARITY in the first place. Instead, the fact that WP:PARITY applies shows that additional considerations apply which in some cases may legitimize the use of an otherwise marginally reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality, and that we ought to find sources that are neutral and balanced in the debate between Swiss watchmakers and time cube proponents. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And we've had some discussions before about "we can never know anything" philosophical statements (that may well belong in a philosophy article but that is by no means appropriate in practice for Misplaced Pages)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Indeed, if "Universal Skeptic Inquirer" exists, I am sure it is NOT reliable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks for illustrating my point, y'all? Anyway, as you know, I take the view that we're WP:NOTBIASED, and that as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to always look for the best sources. This of course doesn't mean something 'between' an anti-fringe magazine and fringe magazines, but academic, peer-reviewed sources. The magazine can be cited when nothing better is available. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Headbomb that is a false equivalence, and a particularly hyperbolic one at that. SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact. It is not unreasonable for atheist, skeptical, or "free thinker" publications to be criticized as biased (similar to the way new atheists have been criticized as evangelical and militant). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    • As usual, in order to claim someone else has commited a fallacy, ACS has to create a strawman of what they said. And then follow it up with a non-sequitur. Just tiresome. VdSV9•♫ 00:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
      • What strawman? SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact is a direct response to Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality. Additionally, I still believe that new atheists provide a very useful comparison to modern American-style skeptics in both how they organize and operate since to me they seem like two movements with significant overlap. It's not as much of a reach as you'd think when the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (a New Atheism-styled foundation) is a division of the Center for Inquiry, the parent company of SI. I'd appreciate some explanation on why that is a non-sequitur, VdSV9. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
        • At this point I advise not responding to A. C. Santacruz. There is no point in debating someone who reads the words "Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality" and somehow transmogrifying that argument into a strawman claim that SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact. Yes, it is a classic Straw man but nothing anyone writes will result in A. C. Santacruz seeing that. They will, no doubt, respond at length to this comment, but IMO we should all at that point stop beating a dead horse and let them have the last word, for the simple reason that we have a consensus and nobody involved is going to change their position. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Replying only to 'advise not to reply' and to take another ad hominem stab? Please do better. I'm collapsing this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Note: Uncollapsed by ‎Guy Macon Alternate Account with the summary Either collapse the discussion or you can add a "last word" comment with your opinion. Please don't do both. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted. As I said, collapsing a section is (usually) OK -- but in general should be done by someone uninvolved, not someone who has taken a position in the discussion -- and adding another comment that accuses an editor of engaging in the ad hominem fallacy is also (usually) OK, but doing both in the same edit has the effect of unfairly giving the editor who made the ad hominem accusation an unanswerable last word.

Furthermore, BilledMammal's collapse is a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline: "Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors" Do it again and we will end up discussing the talk page guidelines at WP:ANI. (Any uninvolved editor should feel free to collapse the discussion without tacking on a last word accusing one participant in the discussion.)

In such cases, reverting just the improper collapse while leaving in the added comment is controversial. If you just remove the collapse you may be accused of reverting part of an edit, which is to be avoided. If you revert the entire edit you may be accused of deleting other editors comments. even though reverting a a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline is allowed -- see WP:TPOC.

I also note the irony in collapsing a correct accusation of engaging in the Strawman fallacy with an incorrect accusation of engaging in the Ad hominem fallacy.

In the discussion above, the real subject of the argument ("Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality") was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one ("SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact") followed by "refuting" the false claim that the opponent never made. That is a clear example of the Strawman fallacy.

On the other hand, the definition of Ad hominem is "a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". I clearly attacked the fact that a strawman argument was being made and not any other attribute of the person making the argument.

I strongly advise everyone involved to carefully read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines paying careful attention to what someone involved in a discussion is and is not allowed to do. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note the irony in uncollapsing a portion of a thread that had no active discussion and where you told people not to respond to an editor, then baited that editor because Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This is certainly the best way to reduce drama and have a nice civil conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted - what recollapse? I restored the comment you deleted, not the collapse. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2:Marginally reliable,See below - Apaugasma put it best. Parity doesn't grant a source reliability, nor should we take a popular science magazine as equal to journalism with a proven track record or peer reviewed academic journals. It would be mind-boggling to me for the community to accept History (American TV network)'s magazine as reliable for statements of fact. Additionally, their strong partisan point of view in their coverage of living people as well as their publishing of opinions by non-medical professionals in medical topics is highly problematic when using it on Misplaced Pages. I have little confidence in their editorial oversight. That's not to say their contributors aren't usually experts, but I think that's better covered by attribution than trusting a marginally reliable source. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You want to deny them equality with journalism, but their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism". If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. VdSV9•♫ 01:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    • their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism" according to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim.
    • If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. are you implying sources like NYT or (the alternative you failed to comment on) peer reviewed medical journals are promoting fringe theories? Wouldn't this make them unreliable?
    • In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. This is a case of PARITY use that would be entirely covered my "marginal reliability".
    • The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. According to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim.VdSV9 I'd appreciate some clarification on the evidence (not opinions) that back your claims, especially since you seem to disagree option 2 would cover both parity and attribution uses. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  One of the issues is how widely the source (or parent company) is being used for areas where the contributors don't have any experience. For example, Benjamin Radford (an educational psychologist by training and an urban legend/fringe popular-writer by trade) is cited for his experience in avalanches, suicide-by-self-immolation rates in the developing world (40%!), antisemitism by the Nation of Islam, short-term memory, and organ transplantation procedures. Massimo Polidoro is cited on Roman persecution of Christians and medical side-effects of chastity belts. They are frequently cited in areas that demand tertiary sources or as gratuitous fancruft, such as in articles about law, the immune system, and opioid addiction treatment. These uses are opposed to the type of expertise attribution is meant to respect. I haven't even looked at the claims they make in BLPs, but the issues I show above are already enough for me to not support the source as generally reliable (especially the MEDRS violations). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think in light of the comments others have raised elsewhere in the discussion, I support Option 3, with option 2 as a second preference. It is clear to me that those most likely to add the source will fail to understand the important caveats and considerations "marginal reliability" would imply, such as the actual meaning of WP:PARITY use and the relation of SI to sources considered to be more reliable (such as reputable newspapers and peer reviewed academic journals). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is high-quality popular press and particularly useful in its niche: coverage of WP:FRINGE topics. Not WP:MEDRS, and any use for biographical content should be cautious. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact is i think inline with most of WP:RSNP, tho also think that the green color and "generally reliable" gives too much license and editors should be more critical of sources across the board. Problematic usage of the source:

• Does not meet the WP:BLP requirement to adhere strictly to WP:V's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. There are most likely very reasonable usages of the source within a BLP context, but it's hard to look at for example: ...applies to all references to living persons throughout Misplaced Pages and find good guidance for that. I think if a source is reasonable in criticizing a persons ideas rather than attacking the character of that person, and has some reputation as a publisher we can rely on, then that should meet the BLP burden. But there is no support for that view in the policies and guidelines.
• "America's Longest and Costliest Criminal Trial" an expert author and used for non-controversial statements in McMartin preschool trial and Paul and Shirley Eberle, but the content of the article at SI is beyond the competence of the publisher. Even though it is just a book review, this source should be used nowhere near this topic.
• Elizabeth Loftus and Taus v. Loftus, another instance of SI going beyond its competence and here the publisher is not an independent source.
• Stephen Novella's "It’s Time for Science-Based Medicine" in Science-Based Medicine, marginally promotional YMMV.
• Strategic lawsuit against public participation#Germany WP:UNDUE and promotional
• CVS_Pharmacy#Sale of homeopathic remedies publisher not independent for topic
• Criticism of Walmart publisher not independent for topic

Count my vote as Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply if the limited fact-checking, BLP concerns, and restriction to areas of competence for the publisher aren't strongly reflected in the closing summary. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the history of the articles where CSI is involved in lawsuits and the editors making those changes there is evidence of blatant misuse of the source. Combined with the inability of some taking part in the discussion below to take on board criticism and acknowledge the limitations of the source i think a much stronger warning and much higher burden for usage is appropriate. I realize this is an editor problem and not a real problem with a source, but if WP can't count on good judgment from those wishing to use articles from this publisher then more forceful warning in the RSPN entry is probably appropriate. At least Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply. fiveby(zero) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - leaning option 3, They admit to not having editorial oversight of the articles they publish. Full stop! Maybe they check some, who knows which those are? What we do know is they specifically say they do not on all their articles. That said, if it is by an expert in a field then considerations apply there. I would not use them for BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. My view of the magazine matches Guy Macon. SI has a good reputation and reports on topics that are important to Misplaced Pages. I haven't seen anyone offer strong evidence that they routinely publish inaccurate information.Talrolande (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Of course, being generally reliable for supporting statements of fact does not mean that SI is always the best source to use. Conversely, not always being the best source to use does not mean that SI is not generally reliable for supporting statement of fact. Cardamon (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: It does not exactly inspire confidence when they inform: The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. They claim to sometimes have manuscripts reviewed when their claims are completely novel or especially controversial, but the overall impression I am getting is that the Editorial Board has little confidence in its peer-riview process. I think the primary thing distinguishing them from other sources we have denounced as having "meaningless" peer-review processes is the fact that they are somewhat up-front about it. I would say they should be treated as a self-published source, or maybe marginally better, but no more. I also firmly believe that without editorial review of every article, Skeptical Inquirer is not an acceptable source for claims about living persons, ever. —Compassionate727  13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, the more I think about it, the more firmly I am convinced that because we cannot be certain which articles have been reviewed, they should all be treated as self-published. —Compassionate727  15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Skeptical Inquirer is reliable. It is has solid editorial oversight and is generally regarded as an authority in its area of expertise (broadly speaking, the rebuttal of bullshit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is has solid editorial oversight... But they don't, they even say that they don't. Its not even a question. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. ScottishFinnishRadish lays it out pretty well. 'Considerations apply' just isnt a high bar to get over when it matters. If you cant, then there is a different issue than how reliable this one source is. Bonewah (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, marginally reliable yes I think there are ways to use this source but they need to be worked out on a case by case. What we need in terms of editorial standards and reputation just aren't met here. I understand the knee jerk reaction that anything from a skeptical perspective must be reliable, but that has no basis or reflection in policy/guideline. A questionably reliable source does not become reliable because of its specific POV no matter how sympathetic we as editors may be to that POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. SI is often used on medical topics to justify definitive statements in the lead written in editorial tone in SI, and then pasted into Misplaced Pages as if its encyclopedic tone. This would clearly not be allowed elsewhere, so these standards should apply. There is no Wiki policy or guidelines that allows us to change our tone to editorial tone simply because it's psuedoscience. If we refrain from this type of editorialized source, we will have more encyclopdic tones in articles and less rhetoric. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - If SI places responsibility on the authors for accuracy, that's not fact-checking and is as reliable as the author themselves as primary. That's a no-no for BLPs but may be acceptable about non-BLP matters if written by an established expert in the field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. I don't have much to add to the discussion above except stating that reading it makes it very clear which users rely in erroneous information, misinterpretation of facts or statements, or fabulist fear-mongering statements about "what could happen if there was a publication which..." without actually providing concrete examples for their arguments and which users counter such arguments and state verifiable facts. Which is quite interesting in a discussion regarding reliability of a source like this.--Ebergerz (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ebergerz: I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Misplaced Pages (most are on the Spanish Misplaced Pages) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Misplaced Pages-space here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Skeptical Inquirer

• Are there any actual examples to be considered? Or is this another case of WP:RSP-itis? Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that there's a discussion above on an ArbCom finding of fact, the point of this is to try to more explicit gauge community consensus on the reliability of the publication. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The FoF is just that, and not up for debate. But even arbcom seem to think the idea of a forced RfC for an RfC's sake is daft. What evidence are you bringing to the table here that would give "the community" something to chew on? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment is it understood here that a GREL consensus means within its area of expertise? SI's area of expertise is in proving that Sasquatch isn't real, and that kind of thing. But I've seen editors try to use it outside that area, including for a review of a cancer researcher's book (no connection to FRINGE) and a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals). Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually fake explosive detectors are in the same realm as proving Sasquatch isn't real in my opinion. Both are based on magical thinking. I assume you are referring to dowsing rods and such similar things. Debunking these has been the venue of SI authors since its inception. — Shibbolethink 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, SI was citing ABC News for their info about the dowsing rod devices being fake, so the Wiki article, Explosive detection should have directly used ABC, or any better source than that, and not SI. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Geogene could you gives links for those two specific cases? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My intent in linking WP:GREL is to indicate that, though discussion on its area of expertise might be helpful if you think that there are some areas where it is more reliable and some where it is less. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Above, Geogene mentions SI's coverage of "a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals)."

This appears to be in reference to The Legacy Of Fake Bomb Detectors In Iraq.

Here is the BBC's coverage of this: The story of the fake bomb detectors

And here is Jame Randi on same: A Direct, Specific, Challenge From James Randi and the JREF

And here is our article: ADE 651

This is exactly the sort of thing SI writes about and is expert in. Skeptical publications regularly cover things like laundry balls, fake bomb detectors, magic cancer pills, etc. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly -- this was well covered by world-class journalists, including the BBC. So was a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters the best possible source for that? Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices? It's weird that SI was the source for that, and not Foreign Affairs , The Atlantic , or The Guardian or CNN . This was not a WP:Parity situation. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I get that you don't like SI, but "a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters"??? Evidence, please. A quick look at https://skepticalinquirer.org/ clearly shows that SI covers a much wider range of issues than you imply.

Re "Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices?", the author is Benjamin Radford, and it doesn't take an expert on bomb detection devices to determine that dowsing rods don't detect explosives. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they are asking why we want to use SI for such an article, given there are many better sources available - more reputable, more neutral, and with stronger editorial controls? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re, Look, I get that you don't like SI no, I've found that SI has its uses . Radford's BLP you linked to says he's into psychics, ghosts, exorcisms, miracles, Bigfoot, stigmata, lake monsters, UFO sightings, reincarnation, crop circles, and other topics, so I don't think what I said about SI's content is unfair. I agree with your point that it doesn't take an expert to prove that dowsing rods don't detect explosives, but I would take that argument a step further, and say that scientific skeptics are generally not "experts" at much of anything for that reason -- you don't need experts to refute obvious nonsense. Your typical scientific skeptic is just a self-taught hobbyist with a blog/podcast/YouTube channel. And that lack of expertise is why SI shouldn't be used anywhere Parity doesn't apply. Again, I don't have a problem with using it to say that Sasquatch isn't real in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is jumping the gun a little bit. The issues that have been brought up with the source deal with columns by non-experts, saying operations, contentious statements about BLPs, and parity. The discussion should be focused on those, rather than a general RSP style RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying there are additional considerations might well apply to the source regarding BLP? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  They normally do. A source can be good enough for some statements, but still not meet BLP standards. That's more-or-less the argument regarding WP:PARITY - you can use poorer sources on fringe topics as there aren't always high quality ones, but BLP still applies and takes precedence. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I pointed this out above, but since it seems to be at the crux of the discussion - WP:PARITY does not generically allow "poorer" sources. The only thing it does is allow us to use non-peer-reviewed (but otherwise WP:RS) sources in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source. (More specifically, as it explains, it exists to allow non-peer-reviewed RSes to be used to balance out low-quality peer-reviewed sources, which are common in certain fringe areas like creationism and homeopathy. It's not intended to let us cite a complete non-RS.) If a source has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy or exerts no meaningful editorial controls, PARITY does nothing to allow it to be used. The issue with Skeptical Inquirer is not that it lacks peer review, it is that it lacks any sort of fact-checking and accuracy at all, which is way, way beyond anything PARITY can heal. --Aquillion (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Because columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs. Also the tone and writing in many columns and articles shows disdain and outright hostility towards people. We shouldn't be importing that into an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Evidence, please. That's a serious charge, and goes way beyond any evidence presented at Arbcom. Also, it would be very entertaining watching you try to create a policy of rejecting sources because you don't like their tone. You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people who get rich selling ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision#Susan_Gerbic's_writing_for_Skeptical_Inquirer this finding of fact also links to evidence. As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? Not helpful, SFR, and possibly an aspersion. I suggest that we all remember the basketball strategy of playing the ball, not the man. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you take a peek at what I was responding to, You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people... I have that same hostility and disdain as well, but I wouldn't use me as a source when I told a friend of mine from years ago that she wasn't "starspawn" or an "indigo child." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between...

• "Susan Gerbic has written articles in Skeptical Inquirer, and has stated an intent of having those articles be used as sources on Misplaced Pages, especially for biographies of living people. GSoW members have edited BLPs to include negative material sourced to Susan Gerbic's articles. This has created the appearance of collaborative editing to create negative BLPs."

...and...

• "columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs."

The first, which seems accurate to me, implies a COI problem -- the person who wrote the column should not add it to the article, either personally or by proxy. It does not imply that the column was in any way inaccurate or that it should or should not be used as a source (but it has to be used by someone with no COI). The second, which I don't believe happened, implies deliberately creating negative material for the purpose of the negative material ending up in a BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

...and in fact, one of the voting arbs made this specific point (that the source being unreliable isn't the problem but the COI is):

"This isn't a self-published blog, it's (to the best of my knowledge) a reliable source which is clear about which way it leans - indeed, it is something we should be considering as a source when writing an article. However, subverting the content building process by co-ordinated pushing of these sources, especially in a way that can cause real world harm to living individuals, well, a line has been crossed." (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Watch some of the videos linked to in the evidence. She explicitly says she writes articles so negative information does up in Google searches and Misplaced Pages articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how evidence works. You are the one making the claim. Either post a URL of a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that she writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Misplaced Pages articles, or apologize and retract your claim. I have already identified a case (see above) where your paraphrase completely twisted the meaning of the original statement, so lacking a specific time stamp to a specific video I have to assume that you are doing it again. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the videos is here: 10:36 In effect, a subject was targeted who was largely unknown at the time, with 7+ columns then published in Skeptical Inquirer as part of the campaign. This helped to give the target, Tyler Henry, just enough notability for an article, which was then developed into a hit piece with a heavy reliance on articles produced for the campaign. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not true Bilby - listen to what I said again. Tyler Henry was already notable - he had a TV show that was very popular. The articles written about Henry did not give him "just enough notability" but they did add to the article. I did not tell anyone what to say, I just asked if they would "write about Tyler Henry", if the articles they wrote were critical then that is what they discovered. I was talking about Google Rankings, I very clearly state that in this talk. "Someone" created the Misplaced Pages article, that was NOT me nor GSoW. This is all moot anyway. ArbCom has made it's decision and we are all starting fresh with a clean slate. GSoW and I have learned our limits and will be moving forward. Drop the stick please and be done with this. Continue bringing this up over and over again is not helping anyone. I hope this is the last time I will have to respond. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not revisit this, but this is about the reliability of SI, and it wasn't an issue I raised. But no, he wasn't already notable - your specific words in the linked talk were "I have done a lot of writing about Tyler Henry, and I did that because Tyler Henry was brand spanking new - he had no criticism, nothing was known about him". Other than that, sure, you didn't create the article - but it was then taken from 300 words to criticism to over 2000 words of criticism, heavily sourced to you and SI. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This IS about the reliability of SI but somehow Tyler Henry keeps being mentioned. He was notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. What you quoted I said had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages but everything to do with Google rankings. I started writing about him after his TV show came out, he was brand new but there was enough coverage in RS to create a Misplaced Pages article about him. The person who did create the Misplaced Pages page, started with two articles that were already in the public, my article was third. Of course the Misplaced Pages page grew from 300 words to over 2000 words, he had a TV show and was brand new, the media was writing about him and it escalated. If the majority of the content of the Misplaced Pages page was critical of him, then that is what the media and RS wrote. If the RS found when they wrote about him to be genuinely communicating with dead people, then they would have written that, and that praise would be on the Misplaced Pages page. The content is the content. Along with his rise in fame, was the rise in RS writing about him. I wrote seven articles about Tyler Henry, why would they not be used on a Misplaced Pages article? If you are challenging my expertise then say so. Look Bilby - I am giving a talk - I am not reading a script written out and fussed over by lawyers I am speaking at a skeptic conference, this is not a talk at a Wiki Conference, I am having to speak in broad terms. I'm not psychic, so I didn't expect that in 2022 I would have someone picking apart every talk I've given, and analyzing every phrase. Don't read more into a talk than is really there. Please drop the stick. Again this is all moot anyway.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link. The problem is that you are playing the wrong issue - I don't really care if you wrote about him before or after the first show. I do care, when evaluating the use of Skeptical Inquirer, whether or not it has been used to run campaigns against individual people, which have then been used as the basis for hit pieces in WP. The answer is yes, on at least one occasion. Which suggests to me that there are problems with the publication. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link", yes, you did, fixing the problem that ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond when asked for a link and a timestamp. Good work.

Watching the video, it becomes obvious why ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond. I specifically asked for "a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that Susan Gerbic writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Misplaced Pages articles"

That's not what the video shows. It shows Susan Gerbic writing an article and hoping that that will rank well on Google -- a perfectly normal and allowable activity -- encouraging other authors to write about the same topic -- another perfectly normal and allowable activity -- and noting that Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines are based upon what gets written on a subject by various sources. This is bog standard behavior. What author doesn't want to be on the first page of the Google results on a topic? I don't know how many times I have told someone "Write an article about X and get it published. Encourage others to write about X. When there is enough published material, the topic may pass WP:GNG and the article may survive WP:AfD."

What the video does not show is any wrongdoing by Susan Gerbic. None. And even if it did that would be a matter for Arbcom or ANI, not RSNB, and would be totally irrelevant to the question of whether SI is a reliable source. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we watched the same video. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's a certain amount of mystification about what the best publishers actually achieve in terms of ensuring publications are accurate that is misleading some participants in this discussion as it has done in the past in other discussions of source reliability. Confidence in the reliability of publishing venues arises from three kinds of second-looks made in publishing: desk decisions made by the editor who has the final say on publication, peer review by experts, and fact-checking done by copy-editors. All of these are scarce, skilled labour and there is a big difference between the ideal and common practice at even the best publishers. I think we could do with some raising of our documentation of what is really going on in the publishing process. I'm concerned that there is a common tendency to think that having "high standards" in what we consider to be reliable sources improves the quality of our sourcing without enough awareness risks coming from narrowing our range of sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is a lot of confidently-stated rubbish about publishing in this thread based on an imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI. It is quite usual for a publisher, be they ever-so-eminent, to say that "responsibility for the factual accuracy of a paper rests entirely with the author". (This doesn't necessarily make it true). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Such disclaimers are typically written by lawyers in an attempt to avoid lawsuits. It's a lot like the "Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental" notice you see on TV show that are obviously ripped from the headlines. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI is exactly what this is. Very well put, and worth repeating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Interesting how all the talk about peer review and editorial standards goes out the window once it's people "my side" who are concerned. We truly live in a postmodern world. Perhaps all these critical theory publications about the concept of reliability are not as wrong as I thought. JBchrch talk 22:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is called projection. It's more that you've been caught saying wrong things, and most editors prefer to deal in fact. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    "Saying wrong things" is a very personal interpretation of our discussion above. JBchrch talk 04:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    When your false statements are refuted by evidence, that's not "very personal interpretation". Again, you are projecting a postmodern take onto the situation. I suggest, if you want to contribute usefully here, it would be better to stick to the matter at hand rather than engaging in pathetic sneers about how it's "funny how" the other "side" supposedly thinks things you imagine they think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I corrected the wording of my !vote based on your suggestion, nothing more. JBchrch talk 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    That's a start, now if you could accommodate how material that undergoes a third-party editorial and production process isn't "self-published", and correct/delete your !vote accordingly, you would be in danger of stumbling towards the sort of competence which is actually useful at this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I didn't say it was self-published, I said we should treat it as self-published. JBchrch talk 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, I reject any argument based upon "SI's area of expertise is X" or "There are better sources in area Y" that lack any evidence that the person making the argument is correct about SI's area of expertise or reliability. A claim in SI about, say, fake bomb detectors in Iraq, is as reliable as a similar statement in The New York Times and is a better source than the NYT if said fake bomb detectors turn out to be dowsing rods. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on what they were writing. If all they did was summarise an article from a more established source, then no, they are not adding anything more. If they are commenting on the unlikelihood of dowsing rods actually detecting bombs, then I don't see that you need any expertise to make that claim. If they were making the claim that dowsing rods were being employed by Iraqi military, then certainly no - I'd like a source that has some expertise and journalists on the ground in Iraq that could confirm that this was the case. Perhaps an in-depth discussion of dowsing rod physics? In the article raised previously, all they did was summarise an article from established mainstream media. In such cases, the original source is always preferable than a summary that may or may not be accurate. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to have the expertise of SI article authors judged by Misplaced Pages editors who think that the mechanism of dowsing rods belongs in the area of physics. The Carpenter effect is psychology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There you go then. I hope they write that article, instead of claiming to be reporting on what is happening in Iraq. I promise to read it should such occur. - Bilby (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? Is this special report or this one by an investigator, host of the podcast The Devil in the Details, and a member of the Church of Satan opinion, factual reporting, or both? How about this one, which states One example demonstrating this point is our scoring for the prediction: “Australian cricket team does very well on tour this year” (Heather Alexander, 2009). We scored that as correct—but clearly there was a 50/50 chance: the team would either do well or they would not. If every prediction was like that, the average for correct psychic predictions would have been 50 percent. The more of those types of predictions that psychics make, the closer to 50 percent correct their average will get. And they make a lot of those. That's an incorrect statement for a number of reasons, a team could do neither well or poorly, some teams are just better or worse than others, and regularly perform well or poorly. Does that make the statement false, or an opinion? Reading further, you can see that the entire true, false or too vague is entirely subjective categorization. Does that make the entire article opinion? Basically, if there is no clear line between fact based reporting and opinion/editorializing, it makes it very difficult to use the source for any statements of fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Another example, used in Bigfoot is this, to support American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot, does not appear to be an article of fact, but rather an opinion supported with arguments. Per the article, I am merely pointing out, what should now be obvious, that many of the best non-hoax encounters can be explained as misperceptions of bears. The statements of fact in the article are all pointing to other sources, that would likely make better sources. It seems if there's support for using the source for statements of fact, we'll probably need consensus on exactly how far that reaches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. And I can just see some zealous (pseudo-)sceptic editor inserting into the WP Bigfoot article, in wikivoice, something like "Most Bigfoot citings are in actuality American black bears" with a citation to that article ("an RS"!) that "verifies" that claim. (Note: my reason for calling those that might engage in that kind of behaviour "pseudosceptics" is for the reason that, anyone that would blindly accept any claim printrd in SI, no matter how shoddy, cannot, by definition, be a true sceptic, unless "sceptic" has a secondary definition as the name of a dogmatic religion in which its adherents unquestioningly accept anything their authorities tell them to. I am aware of the term's unfortunate use by wingnutter climate change denialists etc and categorically state I have no sympathy for nor anything to do with those people.) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot cannot be derived from anything the source. So, Misplaced Pages editors attributing a statement to a source that does not justify using it is now a reason to call the source unreliable? I just corrected the faked sentence, which any of you two could have done. Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor seems to think I make some improvements. Please try to make fewer personal attacks, and instead address the lack of any clear line between factual reporting and opinion with the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to laugh at asking Hob to do "fewer" rather than no personal attacks. Modicum ad hominem, if you will. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

In what way is it a "personal attack" to note that someone saw an error in an article, did not fix the error, yet still used it to score a point in a RSN debate? In what way is it a a "personal attack" to note that not fixing errors when you run across them calls in to question your commitment to improving the encyclopedia? I am with Hob on this one. If a Misplaced Pages editors attributes a claim to a source that the source does not support is in no way a reason to call the source unreliable. Not even close. In fact it looks a lot like grasping at straws. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Guy Macon Alternate Account, accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia is a personal attack. Hob has had extensive interactions with SFR before, mostly in the fringe noticeboard iirc, and a cursory look at SFR's contributions shows a strong commitment to the wiki. The fact they failed to correct a mistake on an article when using it as an example in a discussion is impossible for me to see as a valid reason to imply their motivations for editing, as a whole, are not aligned with Misplaced Pages. It's just petty piss-fighting at that point and more of an indication of the battleground atmosphere in this discussion than an appropriate reflection of an editor's contributions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It was not an accusation, it was a question. Its goal was to give the user a small shove to make them question their current focus and behaviour. Believe it or not, the same people can do right things and wrong things at different times, and telling them what they do wrong is not a personal attack and cannot be invalidated by the same person telling them what they did right in another case. Do I really have to start an RfC asking, "When someone misrepresents a source in an article, what should I do?" with the following options?

1. Correct the article,
2. Use the incidence to try to have source declared ureliable,
3. Start an Arbcom case to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them?

And then another one: "When you made a bad argument, such as using the misrepresentation of a source as an argument about the reliability of the source, and someone calls me on it, what should I do?" with the following options:

1. Admit the mistake,
2. Complain about perceived personal attacks?

Maybe we do need rules against that sort of shit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I didn't say telling someone what they do is wrong is a personal attack. I said that accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, which you did (making it a rhetorical question is not much of a defense in my opinion), is a personal attack. I would appreciate if instead of implying the Arbcom case was started (btw, not by SFR or myself but by GeneralNotability) in order to punish editors and their family/friends, you would try and de-escalate the situation. Our discussion here is doing nothing more than disrupting the actual discussion above on the reliability of SI. I understand if you are infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source, but your incivility is entirely unwarranted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If you do not want this discussion to go on a tangent, then do not make the tangent longer. If you want to complain, go complain in the right place. I am not infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source but at other editors' behaviour patterns. I just wrote an essay User:Hob Gadling/Admit mistakes about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I lose sight of what is important and make individual decisions that fail to build the encyclopedia. So does Hob. So does A._C._Santacruz. And ScottishFinnishRadish. And Jimbo Wales. The only perfect Misplaced Pages editor is User:example and I have my doubts about him. In such cases asking "are you here to build the encyclopedia?" should be considered a gentle reminder, not a personal attack. It clearly isn't a claim about someone's entire edit history. If you disagree, go to ANI, report the alleged personal attack, and see what happens. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, @2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40: you contributed nothing to the discussion except empty polemics, and you are in the wrong place. And words do often not have One True Meaning. Read the top lines of Skepticism: For the philosophical view, see Philosophical skepticism. For denial of uncomfortable truths, see Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. For example, recent article A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation is clearly opinion with phrases such as "In my experience", while recent article The Kremlin and the Kabbalah: Is the Letter ‘Z’ on Russian Tanks a Reference to the Jewish Zohar? is clearly factual, correctly presenting attributed factual claims by Israeli spoon-bender Uri Geller, Air Force Lt. Col. Tyson Wetzel, and former Marine Capt. Rob Lee. It also correctly describes the content of the Zohar (AKA Sefer Ha-Zohar), which Geller references. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So there's no clear delineation, is what you're saying. This feature article is opinion, but this feature article is, ostensibly, factual reporting? This special report is opinion while this special report is factual reporting? Any determination of what is a statement of fact and what is opinion is left up to whoever is reading? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Request for experienced RfC closer: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical Inquirer --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RS for Board Games- Board Game Quest, Ars Technica, Kotaku and TechRaptor

I am currently working on the board game article Scythe. Should the following be considered RS for articles covering games: Board Game Quest (which seems somewhat unreliable), Kotaku, TechRaptor and Ars Technica (the latter is an RS but for 'tech or science related' articles)? Many thanks.

Note: In error, I originally and accidentally placed this in an archived noticeboard page (337). I have reverted it now myself and corrected the mistake. Apologies- VickKiang (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If they're listed as an RS at WP:VGRS, they should be usable for board game articles as well. Mlb96 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Kotaku and Ars Technica are listed so, but TechRaptor is not listed as so and Board Game Quest is merely an article pertaining board games. Could you please inform me more about your opinions on those websites (I think that the latter might likely be unreliable)- VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

VGRS is not applicable since you’re talking boardgame, not videogame. I think any publisher second-party account is reasonable to use as RS. A publisher-run view is at least somewhat professional and going to be around for the cite to work. If it’s a SELFPUB review, I’d say not really usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Boardgames and videogames are close enough that I would assume good faith if someone attempted to use a source commonly used in one in the other. It is not like they are trying to use an astronomy source to discuss zoos or something like that. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition, there is lots of crossover between the mediums (board games that become video games, video games that become board games), and design principles piggyback off both. Any VG site reliable for VG should also be for boar games. --Masem (t) 21:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A VGRS listing is simply not applicable for board games. First because those listed are simply not reviewing board games, so there is not going to be board game reviews there to pull from, and it is unlikely that video games are always based on board game or faithful to that board game when it is. Second, their focus and expertise is on electronic non-board game topics — on soundtrack, animation, fps, qualities of bot opponent(s), operating systems, computer accessories, their relationship to programming companies, etcetera. This seems like saying use a movie or tv reviewers versus a book reviewer. It just has no edge over any other publisher second-party account. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

About Board Game Quest lists most of its staff as "reviewers", which I think makes it clear that they are mostly in the business of publishing subjective opinions about games. The website could be a reliable source for the reviews published by its staff, but it's not clear to what extent a mention of their review would be WP:DUE. The home page shows that the site publishes some "Board Game News", but all of the news article are written by Tony Mastrangeli, who is also the publisher. I could not locate any editorial policy, so I think the news articles are not reliable to source factual claims. JBchrch talk 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: So is there a consensus on the general reliability of Ars Technica and Kotaku to be listed as generally reliable in the WikiProject for board games, situational for TechRaptor, and unreliable for Board Game Quest? Thanks for all of your help and suggestions and I will subsequently list the reliabilities once this thread is archived. VickKiang (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge the pages autism and autism spectrum. The following sources were provided in the proposal as evidence that the terms are used synonymously:

• The NHS's 'What is autism?' page
• The NAS
• Autism Speaks (sorry)
• Autism Society
• Autism Science Foundation
• Healthline
• WebMD
• NIH
• Autistica
• Psychiatry.org
• Scottish Autism
• Various papers:

There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria. There's also been suggestion that the MEDRS criteria don't apply here because it's a question of common-use names rather than biomedical information. Are (any of) these reliable sources to use for merging autism and autism spectrum? Are MEDRS-approved sources required for this case or are standard reliable sources sufficient?

The full discussion is on the autism spectrum talk page.

Averixus (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Do medical sources use them synonymously? If so then it would better to just use those sources. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by medical sources? Do the NHS, NIH etc not count as medical? Averixus (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You said There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria.. Are there any sources that people are saying does meet that criteria? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks. The person opposing the use of these sources has said None of the sources you have provided are MEDRS, so they believe none of the sources are suitable. Averixus (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm copying over my reply from that talk page, as it seems relevant to here.

While I don't want to speak on behalf of Wretchskull, I would point out that while the NHS is obviously a medical institution, its website (NHS.uk) is aimed at non-medical members of the public. A more appropriate source for current UK guidance, that is explicitly WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDSCI would be the guidance, standards, and pathways published by NICE. It will take me some time to read through it all in detail, as it has been updated since I last read it (most recent update was circa June 2021), however at first glance the following quotation stands out to me as relevant to this discussion In this guideline 'autism' refers to 'autism spectrum disorders' encompassing autism, Asperger's syndrome and atypical autism (or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that particular quote though is the context. Its specificially talking about 'autism' in general and so needs to explicitly clarify the guide applies to all 'autism spectrum disorders'. That does *not* mean the terms are used synonymously, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a clarification for medical professionals. That said, for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, the terms should be/are currently synonymous. For the purposes of a medical encyclopedia, no. The only real question is where do we sit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, except that the ICD 11 only lists five subtypes (6A02.0-5), with the variations being whether or not the individual also has an intellectual and/or language impairment. There are no other meaningful distinctions. Since the adoption of the ICD 11, within the UK diagnoses of Aspergers, PDD-NOS, or others are not issued. For comparison, the previously used ICD 10 listed Aspergers (F84.5), atypical autism (F84.1), and Kanner/childhood autism (F84.0) as separate disorders under pervasive developmental disorders, alongside other syndromes like Rett syndrome (10:F94.2, 11:LD90.4). While the existing diagnoses will obviously continue to exist for people who were diagnosed prior to the adoption of the ICD 11, both on paper and socially as part of their identity, from a new diagnosis perspective there is only autism spectrum disorder.

As for your question at the end, where do we sit? I'd say somewhere around the general encyclopedia area. While we should continue to have pages on Aspergers, or PDD-NOS, I would suggest that those should be made clear that they are largely historical and not applicable in 2022+. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why this is now an RfC? Is it really necessary to answer this question? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

These questions are the central consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with merging two large articles, and it's so far been difficult to reach consensus because of disagreement about whether or how to apply WP:MEDRS to this specific situation. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an RfC? Averixus (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems premature at best to have an RfC on this, when discussion is still unfolding. The original post here was just over a day ago, and per WP:RFCBEFORE this discussion has not been thoroughly exhausted yet.

I'd also like to quote from the page notice for this noticeboard Before starting an RfC please consider: is your question a one-off, or is it project-wide? Is it about reliability or prominence? A question of the form "is X source reliable for Y content on Z article" should normally be addressed at the article's talk page, but you can post a note here. This seems to be, at least currently, a one off question. It's not about the reliability of these sources in general, but whether or not the set of meets MEDRS criteria in the context of the autism merge discussion. I may be mistaken, but I suspect that even if this needs to be an RfC, that this is the wrong place for this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the question of the reliability of these sources in general is likely to go on being relevant. We have MEDRS stating that good sources include 'guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations'. The original citations included what seem to be NHS guidelines, as well as similar from Healthline, WebMD and NIH. If people are liable to dismiss such things as not meeting MEDRS requirements, I think we'll need a ruling on whether that's appropriate. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

But this is asking about it in the very specific context of a WP:RM discussion. Starting it with that framing means it will be of limited applicability in other contexts. Basically it feels like this RFC is asking us to decide the RM indirectly without actually starting the RM itself - that makes no sense. If there's going to be an RM, that should be held on that page first, with an announcement here if necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but there's been quite a bit of discussion on the relevant page. One (former) participant in that discussion was insisting that none of the citations disproving his point counted, which is why the question came here. By the by, it's a merge request, not a move request.

I still think it would be helpful to have more clarity about the citation requirements for different aspects of something like autism: what are the bounds of what counts as 'biomedical', and is it acceptable to cite something like a public-facing National Health Service page in support of points which may or may not be considered biomedical?

We're talking about autism in particular here, but this kind of question is very relevant to other kinds of neurodivergence, disabilities including deafness, and contested psychiatric categories like gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria and various paraphilias. Oolong (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to leap straight to an RFC here. What outcome, exactly, are you asking for? A page merge ought to be decided by a discussion on that page; leaping straight to an RFC at RSN to decide a specific thing that seems likely to require a RM on that page feels like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Examining the sources that might justify a move is normally part of an RM; a global discussion at RSN usually requires some indication that the problem is more widespread. Basically, why couldn't this question be settled via a normal RM? You can of course link or discuss the RM here if you believe it raises major RS issues, but it strikes me as off to try and preempt what might be a key question for it like this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

German hard cover to ePub

Book title: Zwettlers großes Buch der Bullterrier, Bulldoggen und Molosser (Pt 1), publisher: Verlag Ulmer Manuskripte (2007), isbn: 978-3-939496-43-4, authors: Walter & Marlene Zwettler. It appears they published an electronic version of the hardcover via self-published epubli.de as seen here. From what I gleaned via online searches, they publish different topics such as agriculture, and various other types of books. Is there anything more in German or in libraries that might be available? After reading the Introductory, it appeared to me the book was reliable per CONTEXTMATTERS. The author(s) appear to have a good understanding of cynology and of Hauck's (veterinarian) contributions. Sometimes, because of the rarity of these older books, we must depend on sources that publish old articles, and/or re-publish hardcovers as self-published ebooks. I would appreciate a yes or no as to its use for this information, (which I've removed until consensus tells me otherwise). Any helpful information you have time to provide about RS in other languages, and getting access to rare books will be greatly appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume this is related to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Atsme (Don't blame for the bad section title I did not name it that). --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't related. In fact, it's related to this, and the kind of work I'm accustomed to doing on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, will strike my comment. Carry on the good work you are accustomed to. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as you are reasonably certain that the ebook is essentially a facsimile of the print version, I would consider it to have the same reliability as that book. If you are asking for someone to procure a copy of the print book to verify the citation, you want WP:RX. If you are asking whether the publisher is trustworthy, I shouldn't comment because I can't read German, although I am inclined to assume German publishers are trustworthy unless there is evidence otherwise. —Compassionate727  19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• What makes the authors of the book reliable, or experts on the topic and the like? The only thing i could find about them was that they owned dogs for 30 years and use them to hunt as well as breed. Surely that is a self description as well. Not specified what kinds of dogs they breed (potential conflict of interest in their work?). I cannot find much detail about the publisher either, only what they claim about themselves. Not that they seem unreliable. This looks like enthusiastic hobbyists publishing with a small publisher. Even the publisher says published authors range from hobbyists to scientists. And in their 'how to' to use them as a publisher, they also make no note of needing any specific expertise on any given topic. The publisher does claim specialist editing (fachlektorat in german), but how much in that about self statement is true for any given thing they publish seems questionable given the range of topics and small size of the publishing house. The 'about us' does claim they try to work with experts and try to avoid publishing 'bad information', to protect their brand and so on. And yes, i am a native german speaker. This seems a little dodgy to be honest. Just people writing about a hobby and perhaps source of income, with a potential conflict of interest due to it, in a very small publishing house on which i could only find what they claim about themselves. No secondary source about the publisher at all after a quick search, no indication on how they are viewed in the field. Again, not saying they are outright fabrications or lies either. Just that there is no indication that any of the claims the publishing house makes about themselves are true, or false for that matter, and there are no secondary sources talking about the publisher i could find after a quick search. Only claims about themselves and nothing else. The authors just seem to be hobbyists though. But not up to me in the end. Have a good one anyway. 91.96.24.109 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As i see the source is in the article now. Atsme, you surely have looked at the source, who is the specialist editor that has edited the book written by two amateurs? Surely that infromation would be in the book, both hardcover and e-book. The specialist editing would be the only thing making this book by two amateurs with a potential conflict of interest reliable. So, what is their claim to topic expertise? 85.16.41.223 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: AllSides media bias ratings

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727  15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Survey: Allsides

• Option 2: I believe that broadly categorizing AllSides as either reliable or unreliable would oversimplify it. Their website consists of several different sections with different but related aims; they have drawn by far the most attention from editors for their media bias ratings, which attempt to describe the bias of websites' news reporting on a five-point scale. In making these assessments, they depend on a variety of factors; along with each rating, they include a section explaining how they reached the conclusion they did. Some of their explanations, like those for The New York Times and Fox News, are extremely thorough; others, like those for The Telegraph and The Atlantic, seem to rely heavily on surveys, which is problematic. (AllSides acknowledges this by noting that they have "low confidence" in the latter two ratings.) Their research seems reasonably well-done, they have solid editorial control, and they are frank in acknowledging their limitations. Personally, I think that we should approach AllSides on a case-by-case basis; the more exhaustive the methodology section is, the more likely the rating is to be reliable and constitute due weight. Ratings in which they have "low confidence" should probably never be used, while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include. In some cases, content from the methodology section may be usable even when the bias rating itself is not, although when they are reporting what other sources have said, editors should prefer those sources. There are several other caveats that I believe editors should keep in mind when using AllSides: it does not consider opinion columns nor any television programming, it deliberately chooses not to assess the reliability of sources, and AllSides uses the concepts of left- and right-wing politics in their American sense, which does not apply very well to European politics. —Compassionate727  16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. As I note in the discussion below, several media organizations that explicitly cover the source give it high marks for its bias ratings. Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which itself has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The source's methodology is explicitly given, and the explicit statement in the confidence the source has in a particular rating should enable Misplaced Pages users to avoid using low-confidence ratings—this is a significantly better source than the number of media bias sites that don't state their methodology and/or don't give anything akin to a confidence interval. Overall, this has the reputation a WP:GREL source for labeling media bias; even USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks (1 2). — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Like the rest of the "media bias" aggregators, this site does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There are reliable sources for media bias - published, peer reviewed papers. Further, reviewing the Poynter article, the methodology that AllSides uses to rate is beyond problematic - it's bad. "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools." Just no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, the peer reviewed papers use AllSides as their data source for media bias. To say that there is a great deal of separation between peer-reviewed media bias literature and the AllSides ratings is simply not true. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You can use anything as a data source... This is a bit of a specific point but my dog once published a paper which almost entirely relied on Inspire (magazine) as a data source, that in no way means that the house publication of AQAP is a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • If you don't mind sharing on your dog(?)'s writings, can I ask what the data from Inspire (magazine) was used for in that study? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my reasoning in the discussion section. They're a tool which may be valuable for use outside of wikipedia but as a source its a no-go and we have no use for such tools here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I agree with the assessment of Compassionate272, above. Judge it on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on how confident they are in their own methodology and rating. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Generally unreliable. Placing ideologies on the political spectrum is inherently subjective, i.e., it depends on the position of the person placing them. Allsides groups CNN, The Nation and Jacobin as left-wing. In reality there is a large difference between CNN, which is corporate media supporting liberal capitalism, and Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (It shows a picture of Karl Marx.) The reason anyone would believe these publications occupy the same place in the political spectrum would be if they were conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 I agree with most of the comments raised by Compassionate727, who previously I had a discussion with on the reliability of the source. It is indubitably subjective and should IMO certainly be evaluated case by case basis. The quality of AllSides likewise tremendously depends on its asserted quality, e.g., the high confidence ratings are definitely more reliable, but even though they clearly do not manifest Option 1 as generally reliable. For example, it lists the CSM as centrist with high confidence, vindicating that “As of May 2016, The Christian Science Monitor’s AllSides media bias rating remained the same, despite a small majority of nearly 2,500 community members disagreeing with our Center rating.” Nevertheless, currently most of the community disagrees with the rating, which the site states may lead to a re-evaluation, but this is not the case and the entry has not been updated. Besides, its low confidence entries are poor, including the Daily Telegraph one linking back to Misplaced Pages as a ref, which seems to be circular source IMO. As per Compassionate 727’s comments, some of its ratings are almost entirely based on Blind Bias Surveys that are attributed from people all over the spectrum with no noted expertise, which might be unreliable. As a result, to me AllSides could at best be used for rudimentary info preferably with attribution, and if other RS cover it they should be preferred over this.

Mhawk10’s comments are also insightful, but I do disagree with some aspects. Common Sense Media, an RS primarily for film and media reviews, give AllSides a favourable rating. This does not seem to make it reliable- it also awarded WP a four star rating, despite it being user-generated. Further, the source does not seem to have a reputation for accuracy, as almost all source can be found in peer-reviewed journals, including MBFC, but this does not likely warrant significant coverage. Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • The star-rating system you're referencing isn't a reliability scale. According to their methodology, Common Sense Media rates media based on both age appropriateness and, for digital media, learning potential. We rely on developmental criteria from some of the nation's leading authorities to determine what content is appropriate for which ages. And research on how kids learn from media and technology informs our learning ratings. Misplaced Pages is actually quite good for learning about new things—that is the entire purpose of having a 💕. And, CSM flags Misplaced Pages as Collaborative reference: Research with caution. If you read the extended description, it says that Kids must be encouraged to think critically about what they read and double check facts and sources if they are using anything for a homework assignment when viewing Misplaced Pages; it's not saying that WP is actually super reliable for asserting specific facts in a high school-level academic setting (or, presumably, in more serious settings). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I concur with your statements on WP, but you stated that CSM gave high marks, while also suggesting that it only determines learning potential, so how does that make this source reliable? The view expressed for the Poynter article is cherry picked, it states “But use them with caution” and likewise notes the similarities of AllSides and Ad Fontes, the later being generally unreliable. I am also tentative of the quality of the Deseret article, it labels as an opinion piece only and also said that “Meanwhile, the Ad Fonte Media Bias Chart—yet another respected gauge of bias”. Do you consider Ad Fontes also reliable?

Thanks for your helpful ideas and please comment below for any disagreements. Cheers and thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

When I say "high marks", I was not referring to the star-based rating system, but to the quote that immediately followed that statement and to the section of the page titled "Is It Any Good?" more generally. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. The caution Poynter is expressing is to not use bias to determine reliability; we capture this in our guideline WP:BIASED, but that hardly seems like a mark against the bias ratings provided by this source. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful clarification, and apologies for my misunderstanding. However, I would also point out that IMO the CSM's evaluation of 'Is it any good?' on its own is not a sufficient indication of reliability and is skewed towards learning potential. There are dozens of examples, but one of them is that it cites Britannica as the "most trusted resource" and praises it extensively, notwithstanding it being only marginally reliable upon a search on WP: Perennial Sources. In comparison, would you view that source to be as top-notch as CSM suggests? Further, the claim that the experts gave AllSides high marks might be erroneous, as that interviewed expert is Mastrine, who is the owner of the unreliable Ad Fontes and likely does not reflect the general view of professionals in media research (hence her praise is likely biased). The comment of USA Today's use of this source for the fact check is invalid as it also cites MBFC. Would you consider MBFC as well as Ad Fontes (please see my previous argument on your comments made for Deseret News article, which noteworthily is merely an opinion source) reliable? As a result, from my point of view, the statement of "USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks" is cherry-picked as unreliable sources are frequently utilised. It is present in some peer-reviewed journals but is tangentially mentioned (i.e., your discussion noted below, and like already said media bias sites are used for sure occasionally, including MBFC for the Iffy Quotient, but is too restrained for significant use). Nevertheless, AllSides is marginally better than Ad Fontes and MBFC because of its unambiguously stated methodology, still, it lacks IMO the status of a reliable source. Thanks again for your comments and time. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. They are primarily opinion (and are mostly covered as such) but make no particular distinction between fact an option; the poynter coverage of them above specifically does not praise or even evaluate them in its article voice that I can see, and most of the usage or coverage consists of passing mentions; most of what it says is quoted from AllSides. "Raw data" types of websites are generally very hard to use because it's tricky for them to be anything other than primary for their own raw data; but we definitely couldn't use them to support statements in the article voice, and whether to cover things as their opinion is going to come down to due weight - which is often going to be lacking. Additionally, the very nature of AllSides means that their coverage of news sources is going to be indiscriminate, ie. a source having a rating there means little, as opposed to academic papers discussing their bias. There are just much better (and more specific) source available on the political outlook of sources when it is relevant, which AllSides shouldn't be weighted with and therefore isn't generally usable along; and if AllSides is the only source, it's hard to support using it because of its indiscriminate nature and blurring of reporting and opinion. This makes it difficult to see any situation where it would be an RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with Compassionate. This should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Allsides is great, using thorough fact checking methods, while other times it's a bit more of an online survey. For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Allsides

• Coverage of Misplaced Pages aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the links. I'm not sure how much any of them demonstrate the necessary reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm not sure if we should even consider any of them other than the Poynter piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      Well, Global News describes it as a fact-checking website that is recommended by the experts they interviewed. As I note in my !vote in the discussion section above, AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which has a stellar reputation for its reporting. USA Today also uses the website as a source in its own fact checks (1 2) for the explicit purpose of labeling the political lean of media outlets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Common Sense Media a paternalistic content rating agency? I don't think they're a WP:RS. Likewise CSM *used* to have a stellar reputation, they're so-so these days like with Deseret their links to a fringe religious sect have gotten more problematic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Common Sense Media is generally reliable in the area of its reviews for entertainment sources. Its applicability to other areas has not been the subject of significant discussion, but it looks like a situational source. Christian Science Monitor is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news and, as far as I am aware, has not seen its reputation change in recent years. Is there reporting from reliable sources that suggest this? Also, Deseret News is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a review of an entertainment source. Something can be less than stellar and still generally reliable. CSM's commentary has been getting increasingly extreme, for instance these pieces. As Hipal pointed out the only thing we can actually use from what you presented is Poynter and they explicitly endorse All Sides as a *tool* not as a source so that has nothing to do with our discussion here. You also seem to have misstated the consensus on Deseret "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news." not "news" as you said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Poynter, the only caution that they give is not to use the bias charts that they are discussing as a measure of reliability (centrist news sources are not always higher quality), and state that Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases and that such charts offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. I don't really know what to conclude from that except taht they are well-researched and useful when their methodologies are transparent and rigorous; again, that's what a WP:RS is. With respect to Deseret, I don't think that anybody in the previous discussions made a distinction between local news and its news more broadly; it's a regional newspaper that tends to focus on LDS issues and regional topics, but I think that the word "local" in RSP is simply a mis-reading of the three discussions linked that unduly restricts the scope of its reliability. With respect to CS Monitor's opinions being published, I really don't think that we should consider its WP:RSOPINION pieces to be similar to its news coverage. In fact, all of those pieces you've linked are labeled as A Christian Science perspective, which plainly indicates that the perspective pieces are written from the viewpoint of a particular religious affiliation. The use of the source I linked is to establish that AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor the magazine—I think it would be silly to paint it as if the partnership were involved in one particular type of clearly labeled religious opinion column. You've also not addressed the coverage in Global News and the WP:USEBYOTHERS by USA Today's fact-checkers. If USA Today's fact-checkers are using the source in a particular way, is that not evidence of reliability for facts? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When you're at the point down the rabbit hole were you're accusing someone of having made a mistaken RSP entry you should probably take a step back. USEBYOTHERS is not a trump card and alone isn't even enough, its just one piece of the puzzle and most of the pieces seem to be missing here. I would also note that for many sources AllSides separates out opinion and news in their rating, they do not do so for CSM. Also AllSides methodology is *not rigorous* its actually rather shit, if you tried to submit a paper to a polisci or media studies journal using their methodology you would be laughed out of academia. We aren't comparing them to other media bias groups (which are mostly unreliable) we're comparing them to actual reliable sources like journal articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may think this, but a Routledge-published scholarly book notes that Allsides' use of multiple modes of analysis strengthens our overall confidence in their ratings. Hardly seems like this gets you laughed out of academia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that related? They aren't using their methodology and they don't even say its reliable they just say they have some level of confidence in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

They are saying that they have enough confidence that the bias ratings are correct to use it as a variable in their analysis. In other words, they're saying that it's reliable enough for bias ratings that they have confidence using it in their analysis, with the confidence being bolstered by the multi-mode analysis that involves editorial oversight, surveying, etc. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean for us though? We do not do analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You keep claiming that AllSides's methodology is awful, but you have neither explained why in any particular detail nor cited anyone who makes this claim. Do you have anything you can point to in support of your position? —Compassionate727  19:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings. AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings." So just to sum up they take bad data, run it through some opaque normalization algorithm, and then might or might not disregard it based on editorial preferences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you consider the data "bad"; it is entirely normal for survey organizers to solicit participants through their own networks of contacts in addition to the standard "other marketing tools"; in general, participants who are solicited through direct contacts are better than ones solicited via random survey distributors because many of those people are professional survey-takers clicking random responses as quickly as possible because they are being awarded per survey. There is no reason to expect AllSides's contacts to be unusually biased; even if there was, they normalize the results so that the personal bias of, e.g., some right-wing nut who thinks that all media that disagrees with him is far-left propaganda because Ben Shapiro says so doesn't skew the results. As for their "editorial reviews," it has already been noted that AllSides considers a number of other factors, including research by scholars and organizations like Pew as well as their own editors impressions of the source after reading its articles (see the Fox News bias rating for an example of this process), which of course will (and should) affect the final rating. On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source. —Compassionate727  16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source." if someone ever makes that argument I'l be sure to let them know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• How would this information be used by Misplaced Pages? Sources like this I think are useful for RSN discussions but the discussion here suggests we would want to use the ratings of this company in article space. If a RS says "Allsides said X" well fine but if we are editing an article about the WSJ we shouldn't include a sentence like, "Allsides rates the WSJ as X ". Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the past RSN and other discussions, I added it to my list of problematic references in Dec'19, and started actively been removing them around Sep'20. I've found a lot of discussion, but very little attempted use. Generally better sources have been favored. My impression is that where it has been attempted to be used, it is to counter reputable, historic viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In articles like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Irish Times, Newsmax, Jacobin (magazine), AlterNet, The Grayzone, etc. we already state the political affiliation of the source in the lead or infobox. This would serve as one reliable source among others that could be used in describing the political leans of publications. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides uses an American political spectrum, it would not be possible to use them as a source for the general leaning of outlets in other countries. You will note that for the foreign sources they do rate they only review their US coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10, do you agree that CNN and Jacobin occupy the same position in the political spectrum or that CNN is more left-wing than The Guardian? TFD (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CNN and Jacobin don't occupy the same political ideology; Jacobin is generally to the left of CNN's online news coverage. There is tremendous diversity of thought in the left-wing to far-left; Maoists are not politically the same as Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists are not the same as hardcore left-liberals, and are Stalinists are not the same as La France Insoumise, which are each rather different that Juche practitioners and the anarcho-syndicalists of the Regional Defense Council of Aragon. Generally, however, the left-right framework would put all of those groups on the left, even though they tend to vociferously disagree. CNN's online U.S. political coverage follows a left-liberal line, while Jacobin follows a (democratic) socialist approach. The two are not the same, but in the context of AMPOL they get thrown in on the left side of the political divide. As for the news coverage, I haven't conducted a systemic review of CNN and The Guardian, but my inclination is that the two share a common left-liberal approach in the types of stories they choose to cover; they're both fairly comparable to Vox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Robert E. Gutsche, Jr., ed. (2022). The Future of the Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy: After Trump. Routledge.

Museum's online website

Keeping in mind the rarity of early 19th century sources about bona fide dog breeds in general, much less their ancestry (there were no breed registries or verifiable pedigrees back then), would this museum's website be an acceptable source to cite as an historic reference for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and other purebreds that share the same ancestry? The museum has historic documentation and images that have also been used in various books & magazines. Atsme 💬 📧 13:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a very small one room museum, looks like very minimal staff. It is effectively someone's personal website. I would say not reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• At a glance I'd say definitely not - it looks to me like a personal website with no reputation, and the geocities-level design certainly does not inspire confidence that they are fastidious about fact-checking and accuracy. If they have historic documentation and images that have been used in various books and magazines, it might be better just to cite those sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Alexa Internet

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles? -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Internet will be shutting down in May. We have 811 citations. They are used almost exclusively for site rankings (maybe some exceptions?). With Alexa offline the rankings are useless even misleading (maybe some exceptions?). Rather than archiving, the entire citation should be deleted along with the sentence that mentions the ranking.

A previous RfC removed Alexa rankings from infoboxes. Editors expressed concern about the accuracy and viability of site ranking generally, the reliability of Alexa, appropriateness for Misplaced Pages.

Proposal: Delete all citations and cited facts when related to Alexa site rankings. Use common sense to maintain an Alexa ranking score indefinitely if required by the text. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

• OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Misplaced Pages is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per WP:RFCBEFORE (this seems like the sort of situation where we'd want to have a proper discussion to figure out options.) But honestly I don't think we should have been directly citing Alexa numbers directly in the first place for the reasons mentioned above - they are vague about their methodology and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of the free data they provide. The one value that they (debatably) provided was up-to-date data; now even that will be gone. The only alternative to removing them seems to be using archive links, which I definitely don't think we should do. "This site had an Alexa rating of X in June 2019" seems to me to be using specific data to the point of basically being WP:OR - ie. why that date? As time passes it will come to carry a specific meaning not in the source - though really any Adlexa ratings do, because they're almost always used to imply something about the source that Alexa itself doesn't actually attest to given their vagueness about what those numbers mean. In my experience Alexa was almost always used to make an implicit argument of "this site is popular, and therefore important and noteworthy", which it shouldn't be used for given its limitations and the WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

We did discuss it 1.5 years ago at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes where there was near-unanimous RfC consensus against these links existing on Misplaced Pages Infoboxes, but also against the links generally. This RfC is required because the first RfC was limited to infoboxes which is an arbitrary criteria in most cases. -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Thanks for raising this issue. Could you please rephrase the RfC statement as a neutral and brief question per WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course dead links are saved automatically anyway. The question is why are we keeping these links? To know that on June 12, 2010, XYZ.com was ranked #34 by alexa.com and this statistic will never be updated again but frozen forever on Misplaced Pages? If there was some reason this stat was important, great, but in most cases there is no reason. It's unencyclopedic trivia, arguably inaccurate and unreliable, outdated and outmoded. If someone wants historical Alexa data for a future project, they can get it from the Wayback Machine in more complete form. -- GreenC 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete it. I was wondering this. Things can get replaced by Netcraft.com website indexing services (from the same era as before Amazon bought Alexa). Most old internet site rankings after a few years may not matter all that much, and Amazon could disable it if they put no-index in the header record as that purges it from Internet Archive. CaribDigita (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Fine to remove them when found, although I wouldn't go out of my way searching them out. I would keep them, however, if they are used to show the ranking at a specific notable time frame, e.g. Website A was had an Alexa rank of Graham's number, but after it's breaking of the story that Cold fusion and the EM Drive both work, it's Alexa rank rose to 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Decider.com / Jimmy DiResta / Naomi Wu

Please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.

Background: Social media has been blowing up about Jimmy DiResta's Netflix show "Making Fun" teaching children to use power tools in an unsafe matter. Of course we ignore all of that -- what someone writes on Reddit or Twitter is not an acceptable source for adding negative information to a BLP.

But what about Are Jimmy DiResta’s Builds On Netflix’s ‘Making Fun’ Safe? This Self-Proclaimed “Sexy Cyborg” Doesn’t Think So?

Would that be an acceptable source for something along the lines of "Naomi Wu has criticized the show's misuse of power tools."?

06:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CAE:6306:8B34:1600 (talk)

• Decider is a website operated by the New York Post (RSP entry), which was determined to be generally unreliable in a 2020 RfC. The claim in question concerns living persons, so Decider is not reliable for the purpose of inserting this claim into a Misplaced Pages article.Decider does quote Naomi Wu's Twitter posts, but these tweets are also not reliable in the context of the Jimmy DiResta article, since WP:ABOUTSELF does not allow self-published claims regarding third parties. — Newslinger talk 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I did a search and no other source has covered this, so unsourced and not usable it is. Good call. Maybe we should create a TwitterFightPedia where we can cover things like the president of the united states picking a twitter fight with a 16-year-old girl and losing badly (smile). 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:2D70:A1E3:9521:34F5 (talk)
    • Just to clarify, BLP is not an issue in this as almost all of the tweets concerned are about the technique and safety protocols. Not the person. Its fairly common for shows that are centered around a single personality to fall into this trap, as any criticism of the show ends up being levied at the personality and will often bleed into their biography article. The only real question here is 'Is Naomi Wu a significant enough expert on workshop safety that her criticism isnt undue weight?'. I would say probably not. And absent any other experts taking public offense.... She would be worth including as part of a body of criticism should other reliable sources take issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree. If it's in the Jimmy DiResta article then not acceptable to include it if it's SPS. If we had an article on the show perhaps we could, but not when it's in the Jimmy DiResta article since it has no relevance to the Jimmy DiResta article if it isn't a commentary on Jimmy DiResta in some way. If this is ever added with SPS, I'm taking it to BLPN and strongly fighting to keep it out. We have the same problem where people try to add nonsense about someone's book or something based on SPS, it's not any acceptable there either. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian news outlet “Interfax” is not rated for reliability on Misplaced Pages (or WP) and should be. Help needed

Interfax is a widely known news outlet in Russia, yet it is not rated for reliability on WP.

There is also an “Interfax - Ukraine” but I don’t if it is connected to the Russian Interfax or not.

Both should be rated for reliability.

I have NO experience (or time for this). Help from experienced editors is requested.

Thanks in advance.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no pressing need mentioned, and it has not needed a RSP listing as a ‘perennial’ RSN topic, possibly because WP-English favors English-language sources. When I used the search at top of this page, I did get a few hits for it. Saying in part “reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021)”. Also seemed reputation better than Interfax-Ukraine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

lostarmour.info

Previous discussions: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285 and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313

Source:

Background: lostarmour.info is a Russian-language intelligence project to catalogue the loss of various types of military equipment.

Articles: OTR-21 Tochka

Content: "The Ukrainian Army continued to use ballistic missiles throughout the conflict, until February 2015 when the second Minsk Accords were signed. In total, no less than 43 missiles were launched, with both fragmentation and cluster warheads, only two of the latter achieving hits on military targets."

Discussion: I am hoping to create a consensus as to whether lostarmour.info is a reliable source or not.

I will argue it is not, as it is clearly biased with a pro-Russian slant. For example, there is this line in the article:

"Думаю, не слукавлю, если скажу, что она даже не стремиться, а просто-напросто РАВНА нулю. В молоко запустили, как говорятся. Никакого ущерба не нанесено, даже по домам гражданских не попали (что ВСУ умеет делать лучше всего), а с точки зрения пропаганды, польза явно отрицательная."

Machine translated as I don't read Russian:

"I think I’m not lying if I say that it doesn’t even strive, but simply IS equal to zero. They launched into milk, as they say. No damage was done, not even civilian homes were hit (which the Armed Forces of Ukraine can do best), and from the point of view of propaganda, the benefit is clearly negative."

Emphasis added is mine.

I shouldn't need to explain that a Russian source that claims that the Ukrainians are only good for killing civilians is not a reliable source, particularly where it pertains to the Russian-Ukraine conflict.

For the record, this section has been removed by myself and another user several times, before being added back in.Kylesenior (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please. Obviously this is not WP:RS. I dislike deprecating sources. Not sure if that's needed here or not. Users should know better than to try to use this. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, someone feels the need to keep undoing the removals.Kylesenior (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy

There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#RS which may interest some people here. All input welcome! Fram (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal

I would like to propose that Thomas de Waal be regarded as a pro-Azerbaijani source for Armenian-Azerbaijani topics. De Waal has been criticized many times for promoting a pro-Azerbaijani narrative in subtle ways that someone unfamiliar with the conflict will not recognize, and for creating false balances that are to the benefit of Azerbaijan.

Professor Alexander Manasyan of Yerevan State University: " supports the point of view which is steered by the propaganda machine of Baku... carries out Azerbaijani position by distorting the essence of the problem, masterfully going around all the unfavorable to Azerbaijani position facts and events, skillfully offering lie as believable truth".

Karen Vrtanesyan, an Armenian expert for the Ararat Center for Strategic Research, on de Waal's book Black Garden: "a banal propaganda but not an objective research on Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict." "Black Garden is not an unbiased work, neither can its author be considered a neutral observer."

Armenian analyst and journalist Tatul Hakobyan accused De Waal of quoting Serzh Sargsyan out of context in the Black Garden regarding the latter's comments about the Khojaly Massacre, making it appear as if Sargsyan was boasting about killing civilians when he was actually criticizing Azerbaijan for using its own civilians as shields.

A petition signed by several academics and human rights lawyers was made against both De Waal and Carnegie Europe (De Waal's think-tank employer), accusing both of tribalism, historical revisionism, and promoting Armenian Genocide denial.

De Waal making a tweet in support of Ilham Aliyev during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war that is also passive aggressive against Armenia: "Gives insights into what Pres. Aliyev is thinking. At least he wants to talk about negotiations, although of course the Armenian side sees things totally differently..."

In Black Garden, De Waal refers to Agdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus". He is evidently feels very proud of the nickname, and openly admits to inventing it. It occasionally is mentioned by journalists, often erroneously being attributed to the locals. The nickname has been heavily criticized because Agdam and Hiroshima have nothing in common. Agdam wasn’t hit with an atomic bomb or radiation weapon. On the contrary, Agdam hosted a large military base that was firing rockets at Stepanakert up until its capture.

While De Waal sensationalizes a legitimate Azerbaijani military target into being a war crime, he often trivializes crimes against humanity committed against Armenians. In the 2003 edition of Black Garden, De Waal refuses to call the Armenian Genocide and genocide and refers to it in scare quotes:

I use the term "Genocide" without wishing to enter the historical debate as to whether it is the appropriate term for the mass slaughter of the Armenians. (page 306)
The comparison was immediately felt and expressed with the massacres of 1915, the "Genocide." Memorials were set up to the Sumgait victims. (page 44)

De Waal has called for France to leave its co-chair position in the OSCE Minsk Group in favour of another European country with "more balanced relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan", and suggests Germany as an example. It is a Turkish/Azerbaijani nationalist position to accuse France of having an Armenian bias just because there are about half a million Armenians in France (yet there are over one million Turks). This same criticism of France being pro-Armenian was also made by Didier Billion, a fervently pro-Turkish French politician who promotes Turkish interests within the French Senate and is an Armenian Genocide denier. It is also very telling that De Waal considers Germany, a country with 7 million Turks and Turkey's largest trading partner, to be a "neutral" country.

De Waal makes a biased accusation against Armenians in Black Garden, by claiming Armenians are trying to have the "Azerbaijanis of Armenia...written out of history" (page 80) by referring to the Blue Mosque in Yerevan as "Persian". However, the majority of neutral sources also refer to the mosque as Persian. Yet another pro-Azerbaijani biased and undue position that De Waal has.

References

1. Manasyan, Alexander (19 February 2007). "Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: on the Frontlines of the Information War, or the Last "Accord" of the Year". International Center for Human Development. Retrieved 30 September 2007.
2. "Studies on Strategy and Security", compiled and edited, with an introduction and commentary by Dr Armen Ayvazyan, Yerevan, Lusakn, 2007, 684 pp. , p. 657
3. Vrtanesyan, Karen. ""The Black Garden": In Search of Imagined Balance". Ararat Center for Strategic Research. Retrieved 29 September 2007..
4. Hakobyan, Tatul (26 February 2018). "Խոջալուի մասին Սերժ Սարգսյանի խոսքերը Թոմաս դե Վաալը ենթատեքստից դուրս է մեջբերել". aniarc.am (in Armenian).
5. Kaeter, Margaret (2004). The Caucasian Republics. Facts on File. p. 12. ISBN 9780816052684. The Blue Mosque is the only Persian mosque in Yerevan still preserved.
6. Carpenter, C. (2006). "Yerevan". World and Its Peoples, Volume 1. Marshall Cavendish. p. 775. ISBN 9780761475712. ...only one large Persian mosque, the eighteenth-century Blue Mosque, is still open, now renovated as a cultural center.
7. Brooke, James (12 March 2013). "Iran, Armenia Find Solidarity in Isolation". Voice of America. In all of Christian Armenia, there is only one mosque: "The Iranian Mosque," restored 15 years ago by Iran.
8. Ritter, Markus (2009). "The Lost Mosque(s) in the Citadel of Qajar Yerevan: Architecture and Identity, Iranian and Local Traditions in the Early 19th Century" (PDF). Iran and the Caucasus. 13 (2). Brill Publishers: 252–253. doi:10.1163/157338410X12625876281109. JSTOR 25703805.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas B. Costain

A cursory search of the archives brought back nothing. This particular book is used in Eleanor of Provence. Any thoughts?

• Costain, Thomas B. (1959). The Magnificent Century. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

60+ year old popular history by a non-historian. Not utterly inaccurate, but way out of date and not academic. We don't have to only use academic sources, but when the non-academic sources are this old, we shouldn't. We can have much better sources and should use those. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Margaret Howell's Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth Century England is cited in the article and is both forty years more recent than Costain and academic. In the world of popular history, Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone is from this millenium and at least is by someone with undergraduate-level history training; The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort by Darren Baker is from 2019. I'm not a medievalist, so I defer to Ealdgyth's expertise on the specifics, but I would imagine either of those would at least be more up-to-date than Costain. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks to both of you for this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And I said the above even though Costain was one of the influences on me in getting interested in history - my parents had copies of his paperbacks and I read them while still in grade school and loved his style and engaging way of making history interesting. They are probably still good reads even now, but they aren't going to be as good for our purposes as Goldstone or Baker's works. (Eleanor of Provence is a bit later interest than I normally edit here, but I've read some of Goldstone's book and it's at least aligning with what I've read of the academic sources for the period. Haven't run across Baker's book yet.) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Global Firepower Index

I think this is unreliable because

1) A one dimensional index is not sufficient to measure firepower. For example the military are generally far more powerful when defending their own country.

2) User:Femkemilene/crime against significant digits - for example 0.1382 for UK is different from 0.138 or 0.14?

3) January 2022 is out of date in showing Russia second most powerful as they have lost significant power since then.

Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Misplaced Pages). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Houseofnames.com

The discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#RS hasn't had much success, so it's time to have a discussion about a few sources which are used regularly in "name" articles, but which I believe are not reliable. I'll start with one specific example:

Houseofnames.com is used in some 500 pages. The site is a completely unreliable vehicle to sell stuff by giving people the false impression that they descend from a major family, no matter what their name is. Compare e.g. this to this and this. An attempt to get rid of some instances was reverted, so I'll let other editors decide if the source is acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable book sources on this topic such as The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, but WP:SOURCEACCESS means there is some work required to get hold of them. I had a look at houseofnames.com and it seems very obvious its primary purpose is to sell merchandise, not to be a trustworthy repository of knowledge. They do cite some sources occasionally, such as the entry for Schiltz, which cites Passenger and immigration lists index : a guide to published arrival records of about 500,000 passengers who came to the United States and Canada in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. 1982-1985 Cumulated Supplements in Four Volumes, but that only cites that a person with that name emigrated to the US, nothing more. So, as a general rule of thumb I would say it is unreliable because there's no possible way of knowing where the information came from. Ritchie333 11:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, houseofnames.com is utter garbage, I suspect the content is generated by AI. At least, I can't think of a better explanation for this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh my... I thought it was bad enough with Flemish names, but indeed, such ones are even worse. Similar examples are e.g. Shankar or Tolkien which turns out not to be German/Prussian as always thought, but from Normandy... Fram (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See also 'Smurf'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that made me smile :-) Fram (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else, unreliable on it's face. A great place, however, to get a coffee mug with a made-up family crest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's weird, I remember these types of sites in like 2005? They still have the same design team for their products (with the whole parchment aesthetic) but their web design is seriously good. Anyways, I agree with above the source does not seem reliable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Originally, the Spanish people were known only by a single name. The process by which hereditary surnames were adopted in Spain is extremely interesting. Surnames evolved during the Middle Ages when people began to assume an extra name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Very interesting, indeed. People used a second name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Also, Santacruz Settlers in United States in the 19th Century Francisco Santacruz, who landed in Peru in 1853. Peru, the secret United State. Although it's nice to see that Jon Radish made it to Virginia in 1633. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was briefly mentioned here, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Family_website_and_geneology_sites and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Miscellaneous_name_sites_as_sources. Doesn't appear reliable. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone tell me what the policy is to creating namelists. I have been working on {{Anthony}}, {{Charles}}, {{Nicholas}}, {{Anastasia (name)}}. Most name list do not have WP:RS to support WP:V. Is it better to create such list articles with no sources, create these articles with weak sources, or not create the articles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Best not to create the articles. WP:V is policy, and if there are no reliable sources to be found for something it shouldn't be included. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL (which I'd imagine the name articles qualify as) says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." That kind of implies multiple reliable sources to start with. And as User:Uncle G/On notability put it, if you didn't do this, you would end up with an article of every last name in the world, which would result in a directory instead of an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 23:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Most name "articles" don't provide encyclopedic content, but merely serve a navigational purpose: WP:NAMELIST. You don't need sources or notability for those any more than you need sources and notability for disambiguation pages. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech Xplore and Self-Published College report reliability?

Two related questions for comment:

• Is Tech Xplore a reliable source, or a non-reliable "news aggregator" that re-publishes press releases or similar, as suggested in a comment here?

Where wiki-used several times:

• Is a study report (self-) published on a professor's web page at Trinity College Dublin a reliable source, or a non-reliable self-published source?

Where wiki-used several times:

More context:

They are being used to support statements such as "Analysis of data traffic by popular smartphones running variants of Android found substantial by-default data collection and sharing with no opt-out by this pre-installed software. Both of these issues are not addressed or cannot be addressed by security patches." at Android_(operating_system)

As explained in a talk page here, IMO the self-published report is unreliable; this is partly based on the fact The Register published a correction, and partly on additional information which is probably "original research" by wiki-standards. Therefore, IMO, Tech Xplore demonstrates itself to also be unreliable by uncritically re-publishing excerpts or press releases from a university that published a flawed report. As there were no responses at that talk page, and the report results have been added (uncritically) to several articles (above insource search links), comments or consensus on these questions would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

About Fandom wikis

After all this controversy, should we add Fandom wikis like amazing-everything.fandom.com, gerontology.fandom.com and archicentenarians.fandom.com to spam blacklist?SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPEEDYBEAVER: I see no reason why Fandom wikis should be added to the blacklist. They haven't been used for spam or promotional purposes (and if they have I haven't seen it) which is the reason the spam blacklist exists. ― Blaze Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPEEDYBEAVER: I concur with Blaze wolf. Please read the relevant guideline for blacklisting sources. Do you have a valid rationale for adding Fandom to the blacklist with compelling evidence that their wikis are being abused in such a manner on Misplaced Pages and that no other action is sufficient? Keep in mind, The Daily Mail and National Enquirer are both controversial, but that doesn't mean we have to blacklist them. Deprecation has proven to be sufficient. Even then, this should not apply to Fandom wikis. The policy for external links allows wikis if they are stable and have a significant number of editors (e.g. Minecraft Wiki), making either blacklisting or deprecating Fandom problematic. Marking it as unreliable, which we already have done, should be enough. Lazman321 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I would say that the Minecraft Wiki is sort of an outlier since it used to be the official Minecraft Wiki so of course it would have fairly high standards. I don't know of any other Wiki that wasn't considered an "official" Wiki that is still stable and has a significant number of editors, but the same principle still applies. ― Blaze Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Memory Alpha perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Plenty of fan-wikis are reliable (in the small r sense) because they have a community dedicated to keeping the information up-to-date. The issue is that all of their information is from the primary source itself. The good fan-wikis note where this is information is from (referenced) the bad ones dont. Ultimately there should never be any need to reference a fan wiki because if we wanted to use information contained on one in an article here, we would use the primary source as we use primary sources generally for creative works. However plenty of the good wikis (MA, Bulbapedia etc) are absolutely useful external links as they contain far more detailed and correct information than we would ever include in an article here, so blacklisting would be inappropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected Webhost-based "Gerontology" sites

I discovered some gerontology-related sites on the internet that are suspected of being webhost-based.

• Supercentenari d’Italia: https://www.supercentenariditalia.it/
• Oldest of Ireland : https://finbarrconnolly.com/chronicle/
• Najstarsi Polacy: http://www.najstarsipolacy.pl/
• Oldest people in Britain: http://oldestinbritain.nfshost.com/chronology.php

If any of these websites use webhost, please tell me down in the comments and tell which one (s) is/are it/them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPEEDYBEAVER (talk • contribs)

Well, for an easy no-brainer, that last one is at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a seller of webhosting services. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is this an issue for this noticeboard? None of the websites listed are cited on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't clutter the noticeboard with hypothetical questions. That isn't its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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