Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:42, 11 August 2010

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

A Washington Post Article...

A high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant. How does this affect the reliability of this Post article?

Washington Post article http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07

Article where Washington Post Article is stated to have been an FBI plant http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/print.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that affects our understanding of the Post article at all, but a decision could be made to note the comment on it in our article. Unomi (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't make head or tails of this section. WTF are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon article stated that the post article was a plant so I'm questioning if the post article is still considered a reliable source.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, this is about the Art student scam. A DEA report said that reports of Israeli students selling art in the US in the early 2000s might be espionage, and the report was leaked to the press. A Washington Post story stated that the DEA agent who leaked it was disgruntled and the spying was an urban myth. Salon later reported the comments of a "Washington insider" that the Washington Post story was a plant by the security services to kill the story. I think we just have to state what the sources say. Both have a reputation for fact checking. Not all sources will agree in all cases, so it then becomes a matter of balancing their views. Fences&Windows 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed government sources attempt to spin a story.... how shocking and unusual. Dlabtot (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, both views should be noted.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been chewing this over. There really should be an article on this incident, but it should be refocused to something like DEA art student inquiry. It's debatable whether this was something unusual or whether it was just some kids selling paintings at office buildings. But the investigation into it and the media reaction, that's what's notable. We have to adhere to NPOV and say what the sources say. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just dea, "Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of "art student" encounters" or maybe Allegations of Israel spying on the United States (1999-2001) Some other articles point to some other instances of alleged spying that don't involve just the art students. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

An article like that needs a focal point. Otherwise, since we don't have a set of articles like that for other countries, it could be construed as an original essay. The DEA inquiry makes a good center for the article. The news articles about alleged espionage during that time period will all mention the DEA angle at some point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, some of the spying allegations came before the release of the dea document. There are broader allegations that don't just include the art students. I suggest that you watch the 20 minute four part fox special on Israel spying on America with carl cameron on youtube to get a better idea.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But if the article article is to focus on just the art student spying allegations, I agree that the 60 pg. Dea document would be a good focus. I do think that espionage or spying should be mentioned in the title. Inquiry is definitely a good description. How about DEA Israeli "art student" espionage Inquiry or maybe DEA "art student" Espionage Inquiry. What do you think?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Misplaced Pages editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Misplaced Pages's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Akins coat of arms

Recently in the process of editing the article for the surname Akins, I added an image of the Akins coat of Arms from the Wikimedia commons image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Akins_coat_of_arms_complete.jpg along with the caption "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which can be found on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina". The source I cited for this was the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 by The Historical Comittee of 1976, Craftsman Publishing, Charlotte, 1978, which contains an identified image of the coat of arms along with details of the location of Thomas Akins' grave, his dates of birth and death from the tombstone inscription, etc.

The image was shortly thereafter taken down by a group of other editors: HelloAnnyong, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Dougweller who seemed to be of the opinion that the source I provided was "unreliable" and that the coat of arms was "dubious" (even though it has been used by the Akins family for more than 200 years) See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&df=all&. The other editors argued that the coat of arms was "dubious" because they could find no reference to it being registered outside of the United States. Since the Akins family is Scottish they expected the coat of arms to be recorded in the Lord Lyon's New Register of All Arms and Bearings of Scotland - a register that was not established until 1672, several decades after the Akins family (to whom the coat of arms belongs) had emigrated from Scotland to the Ulster Plantation, and then to America by the 1660's. Earlier examples of the Akins coat of arms can be found on other family gravestones, the earliest being that of Alexander Akins who died in 1669 and is buried in Harford Co., Maryland. Images of this and other gravestones bearing the same Akins coat of arms can be found at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all& and at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677681&df=all& however the editors who objected to the inclusion of the image of the Akins coat of arms in the Akins surname article felt that the aforementioned references were "unreliable" because they were submitted to the Find a Grave website by users.

I feel that there is a double-standard in all of this, as there are numerous other articles dealing with family surnames which include images of coats of arms, crest badges and other images of a similar nature. The fact that the Akins coat of arms has been in use by the Akins family for well over two hundred years, irrespective of what country it was used in, gives a great deal of credence to its legitimacy, and I feel warrants its inclusion in the Misplaced Pages Akins surname article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give what the five of us (two other editors, Czar Brodie and MarmadukePercy, were in agreement with us) who opposed the inclusion thought. Like Wyvren said, the coat of arms isn't registered in Scotland, so there's no way to tell if it was the actual coat of arms of the family, or if it was just someone who came up with the coat of arms on their own. MarmadukePercy actually pointed us to another page that spotlights how most of the tombstones in Steele Creek are considered to be forgeries, so for all we know, the coat of arms was just invented at some point.

In full disclosure - and one that Wyvren has admitted to - is that he is Steven Akins, who is the focus of the text on the previous link. And he's also mentioned on one of those findagrave links as the original creator, whatever that means in the site's context. This is a family thing we're talking about, and one that's based on a lot of research that he did on his own.

Overall, though, I think that we all just thought that there was a great deal of OR being done here, cobbling together images from (dubious?) tombstones and adding a bunch of colors and embellishments to the arms. And we found that the sources - the tombstones, and the book based on the tombstones - were not reliable. Hopefully some of the other editors can expound on my poor explanation. — HelloAnnyong 14:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I won't change my original post although it duplicates most or all of the above)

Details of the discussion are at Talk:Akins, the last section but also some of the edits above that. There are at least 5 editors objecting to the use of the coat of arms and none other than Wyvern supporting it. There's a huge COI issue here also, as well as original research. Then there is this ":::::A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:56, August 1, 2010

Some of the points that HelloAnnyong has brought up are not true - the Bighams did not "forge" tombstones, they were a family in the tombstone making business in the 1700's - 1800's; to suggest that they "forged" the tombstones in Steele Creek cemetery is misleading to say the least.

Yes, I am Steven Akins, and yes I did file a petition with the court of Lord Lyon some ten odd years ago to have the Akins coat of arms confirmed as "ancient arms" (meaning that they would be recognised by Lord Lyon as having existed before the establishment of Lyon Register in 1672). Lord Lyon found that because I could not proove use of the arms in Scotland itself (they were in use in the Colony of Maryland at the time) that he could not find in favor of having the coat of arms recognized as "ancient arms" in Scotland - and that is all that there is to that story despite whatever excessive embellishment others may have made up about it in order to sensationalize it.

HelloAnnyong complains that the arms are "just made up" - all coats of arms are "made up" by someone, somewhere, at some point in time. No coat of arms ever dropped down out of the sky made by some divine hand - they are all human inventions, their purpose being to identify an individual or a family by means of the distinctive symbols that the coat of arms consists of - the charges on the shield, the crest, the motto and the supporters. There is very little restriction on the style in which the coat of arms is drawn and there is leeway in the manner in which the generic elements (shape of the shield, shape of the scroll, helmet, etc.) are rendered according to the individual skill and/or taste of the artist, as long as the crucial elements (charges, crest, motto, supporters, etc.) comply with the blazon.

The Akins coat of arms has a verifiable history of use by the Akins family dating back for more than two centuries. It is a part of the history of the Akins family, and part of the history of heraldic tradition in America, which exists independant of its origins in Scotland and whatever laws or limitations may be associated with heraldry in other countries outside of the United States. --Wyvren (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: ":::::A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." - This is speculation by members of an internet newsgroup, nothing more. Speculation by members of an internet newsgroup cannot in any way be considered reliable information. --Wyvren (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as full clarification, three of us had come to the conclusion that it was not reliable before even being notified of the newsgroup post. There are still the core issues of the coat of arms not being registered, your original research based on pictures of two tombstones, and a dubious book. Also, isn't there the slightest chance that you're repeatedly trying to downplay that link because it doesn't speak well of you? — HelloAnnyong 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 is "dubious" - please explain how a book on the history of its church and the adjoining cemetery published by the church's Historical Committee is "dubious" Do you really think they are lying? The link you keep trying to bring up is a lovely example of internet gossip. I have no problem with my political views, if you have a problem with them, Misplaced Pages is not the place to air your grievances about them. And the Akins coat of arms is actually registed with a branch of the United States government through the U.S. Copyright office. I have held the copyright for the Akins coat of arms since 10 March, 1997, they are recorded with the Copyright Office under the title "The full heraldic achievement of the armorial bearings of Steven Lewis Akins of that Ilk, chief of the arms and name of the clan Akins" Registration Number: VAu000394816 --Wyvren (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with American colonial-era graveyards has seen some carvings on headstones that purport to show a family's coat-of-arms. Some such carvings actually bear a grain of truth, and the arms were borne by the family in the Old World. But many times such carvings were simply a way for a talented stonecarver – and the Bigham family who carved the Akins stone at Steele Creek Presbyterian Church was certainly that – to show off their skills. It would be one thing to simply display a photograph of a well-carved stone and let it go at that. But if one were to judge from that particular cemetery, we have half of titled Scotland buried there! You have attached a fanciful stone etching to a purported lineage that you have, to judge from other sources on the web, created out of whole cloth. The link I posted – which you deleted – alleges a pattern of deception and obfuscation by you dating back years. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of what link you are talking about, I don't recall having deleted any, at least not on purpose. To my knowledge there is only one tombstone in the Steele Creek cemetery that displays a coat of arms belonging to a titled noble in Scotland, which is found on the gravestone of Robert Campbell and it displays the Campbell coat of arms as recorded in Lyon Register. As for anything being "made up out of whole cloth", Thomas Akins was the younger brother of my great-great-great-great grandfather William Akins Sr. (1756-1841), a Revolutionary War veteran (see pension application: http://www.southerncampaign.org/pen/w5600.pdf). You can find a record of his appointment as the executor of Thomas Akins' estate in the Court Minutes book of Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina, which reads as follows: "1785. September Session - Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."--Wyvren (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem here may be one of definition. If my great granny painted a daisy over her door, and my granny did the same at her house, and my mum did the same at her house, and I do the same at my house, and my daughter does the same at her house, you could say that it is a tradition for the women of my family to mark their houses with a daisy. What I can't do is claim that it is an English coat of arms, because they have to be granted by the Queen. Wyvren may have sound evidence that his US ancestors used this set of symbols to identify themselves. What he can't demonstrate is that it is in any way connected to a Scots clan armorial bearing. The Charlotte source and the others should be good enough to show that the Akins family used these symbols, but it would have to be made very clear that it's NOT a Scots clan armorial bearing, not recognised by the Lord Lyon etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on it. Wyvren actually uploaded the relevant pages from the book - one, two. In your example you have a demonstrable line of usage; but in the book, the coat of arms only comes up once (as far as I know). So can it really be that one page in a book that mentions one person like that is sufficient to say, "this is the symbol used by the family from then until now"? — HelloAnnyong 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not stated anywhere in the Misplaced Pages Akins article that the Akins Coat of Arms pertains to Scotland. I have made it apparent that it pertains to the Akins family who are incidentally of Scottish origin (as indicated by the Scottish thistle carved on the back of Thomas Akins' tombstone below the epitaph). Even as Scots the Akinses are not bound by the laws, customs or traditions that are enforced or otherwise observed in Scotland (unless of course they live there); that was (after all) what the Revolutionary War was fought for, to establish independence from British rule and British laws, a cause that the Akins family supported here in America --Wyvren (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought he had two incidents in the same cemetery, but the other is just a photograph uploaded to findagrave, which can't be considered a WP:RS. So the most he could say is "this is what Thomas Akins grave looks like." If he wants to illustrate the article, he can certainly use the photos of the two graves (I presume he took them). Taking photos is never WP:OR. He could also say that the current Akins (him) has registered a coat of arms in the US (which I believe means in US law that he holds the copyright of it, incidentally something that can never be done for a European coat of arms which is defined by the blazon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he could post a photograph of that single gravestone. (Although it appears that other photographs this individual has posted have been photoshopped.) Keep in mind that despite his protestations of American equality, he petitioned the Lord Lyon of Scotland for clanship status and was rejected. That hasn't prevented his featuring this photograph of himself on his website, showing "Steven Akins of that Ilk, Chief of the Clan Akins." While I recognize that this chiefdom business is all in his head, I think he's taken one gravestone, fancifully carved by a family known for 'borrowing sources,' and turned that piece of stone into a going clanship concern. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I more or less agree with this. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, it seems that Wyvren is using this article as a coatrack to validate himself and his family as a clan. I'd like to leave such grandstanding out of the article, though. Assuming that Wyvren originally took that picture of the gravestone and he is the copyright holder of the image, I'd be okay with him uploading it and putting a caption on it that says like, "Grave of (person)" or whatever. — HelloAnnyong 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I noted the "...of that Ilk" (which doesn't mean whatever he thinks it means). Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "of that Ilk" see: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands, pgs. 401-402User:Wyvren|Wyvren]] (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands pg. 404

Re 'of that Ilk'. Don't you come from Montgomery, Alabama? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not from Montgomery.

You've no idea what it means, do you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Whilst the heads of Highland tribes and clans were, briefly, or simply known at home as "Maclachlan," "Mackintosh," etc., the chiefs of Lowland families took their surnames from their lands, e.g., "Sir Andrew de Leslie", or "Lord Leslie," but were subsequently designated "of" the same, hence titles such as "Udny of that Ilk," whilst cadets were designated, e.g. "Dundas of Duddingston," or "Udny of Auchterellon".....Therefore, in order to make their status clear at Court and amongst the Lowland lairds "of that Ilk"- a style which had come to be recognised as an "honorific title indicating that the man is the head of his family," and which "might or might not imply ownership of the land," many Highland chiefs adopted the same style ("MacLachlan of that Ilk" in 1573 is probably the earliest), were, like "M'Corquodale of that Ilk," so recorded in Lyon Register - and were alike in Crown charters and Acts of Parliament referred to as "The Laird of Mackintosh," or "The Laird of Macfarlane," although no such place existed." - Clans, Septs, Regiments

So, yes, I have a very clear idea of what the term means - it implies "of the same" and can be used either when the name of one's estate is the same as one's surname,, or in instances where the estate is not a geographical piece of property but is the clan itself as a community.

--Wyvren (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

from before the outdent:

In the United States a coat of arms can be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as both a work of visual art as well as a literary work (in respect to the blazon which is the written descripton). BTW MarmadukePercy, I only petitioned Lord Lyon for confirmation of the Akins coat of Arms as "ancient arms" Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction over clan chiefships, this is a legally recognized fact that the area of clan chiefships and the determination of clan chiefs is outside of Lord Lyons legal jurisdiction, as proven in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:

Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:

"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan....The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law."

Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:

"From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally"--Wyvren (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Clans"

Evidence in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:

P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim....(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.

Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie's "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."--Wyvren (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So following this conversation, Wyvren added a picture of the tombstone with the caption "Early heraldic gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785) a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina." and listed the book as a reference. Aside from the fact that the book doesn't actually say "heraldic", is it appropriate to use that term in the caption? Seems to me that it isn't, since appending 'heraldic' seems to be giving it more credibility than is due. — HelloAnnyong 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend on how the source describes the stone. I just wonder how many other surname articles have pictures of 18th century tombstones in them.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd how the images Wyvren posts bear little or no resemblance to other photographs of the same gravestone. Here are two taken by different folks and posted to Find-A-Grave for the Thomas Akins headstone. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that whoever took that picture rubbed it with shaving cream, which is a common technique to bring out the detail on old gravestones. No matter how I adjust the contrast on the other images, I can't bring out the detail. Someone needs to take a black-and-white picture with the sun low in the sky; most straight-on pictures of old gravestones are useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That was indeed the case, as the details of the carving on the tombstone are difficult to make out in photographs where the carving itself has not been highlighted as the carvings have weathered along with the rest of the stone and it is all a dull grey color.--Wyvren (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvren's image (File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg) is not supported by the booklet, as has been noted (and buried) several times on Talk:Akins. I think it is as simple as that. Any American can change their forename, or surname to "xxx of that Ilk"; it means nothing when someone does it themselves, and has no bearing on the status of that person in Scotland or America . Any American can copyright a drawing of a coat of arms (especially if they just made it up). The assumed-name, the copyrighted image, and Wyvren's beef with the heraldic authority in Scotland, has nothing to do with what he is appealing here - that the consensus on Talk:Akins is that the source does not support the image. Also, it should be made clear that Wyvren's scanned pages () do not show that the Steele Creek engraving was the 'symbol of a family' for the last two hundred years. The pages only show a simple sketch, and the man's birth/death dates. That's it.

Outside of the Wikisphere, numerous webpages/newgroup-threads show that Wyvren (aka Steven L. Akins) is considered to have forged a will, and is suspected of faking tombstone photos ; he is reported to have attempted to plant a faked tombstone ; and he is said to have fudged genealogical records on the web . The findagrave photo that he linked above, of what he claims is a 17th century tombstone, has clearly been manipulated in some way. I think that this case is an example of why original images, all by themselves, are not considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages; and why, in some cases, conflicts of interest are a danger to the integrity of an article. The Misplaced Pages articles on Scottish clans are made up of content from numerous independent sources. The clans themselves, and their lines of chiefs, are specifically dealt with in numerous independent sources. Not so with "Clan Akins", all we get are: Wyvren/Steven's various webpages; 'bucket shop'-type websites that he submits his info to; user submitted documents and photos; and roundabout arguments concerning the validity of Scottish heraldic practice and Americans. The clan articles rely on more than the authority of disgruntled Wikipedians who have spent thousands of dollars on: failed attempts at petitioning heraldic authorities for coats of arms; on name changes; and on registering copyrights for drawings. That's why this editor's COI, and questions of his reliability, are an issue in regards to his edits to this article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The only RS is a book saying that there is a grave with that coat of arms. And it seems that the coat doesn't appear at the places that this type of coats is expected to appear. Given this, and given the doubts raised, including a picture of the gravestone is giving it undue weight. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've hit on the consensus: that including any images with the coat of arms is putting undue weight on it, if only because it's implicitly validating the coat of arms. Certainly the majority of people involved in this discussion agree that it doesn't belong, with only Wyvren being the odd man out. — HelloAnnyong 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to disparage his particular research, but my experience with genealogical research some time ago convinced me that most American family research going back before 1820 or so is inaccurate. Perhaps (and hopefully) the standards have changed in the intervening 20 years, but a lot of it is based on wishful thinking and hearsay. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does tend to help a great deal in doing genealogical research when one's ancestors applied for military service pensions, the applications for which required the applicant to reveal their place and date of birth, information on their places of residence and associated dates, etc. It helps even more when their widows likewise applied for widows' pensions and revealed similar information, such as can be found here: Revolutionary War pension application of William Akins see also: Summary of William Akins' pension records. However, the real clincher is this entry in the Minutes Book of the Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: 1785 September Session - "Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."-- --Wyvren (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All of which is no doubt very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I don't see the reliability of any source being discussed here, just a continuation of an argument which properly belongs at Talk:Akins. Groomtech (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Book shop section of a Dutch popular science magazine

There is a disagreement at The Hockey Stick Illusion article over the use of this source in the "Reception" section of the article. The source is from the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap en Techniek (Dutch Misplaced Pages entry). Those advocating its removal point out that the post is from the book shop section of the magazine's website, not from its print edition and appears to be simply trying to sell the book, not formally reviewing it. The contrary opinion is that the person who wrote the post is identifying himself by name and is one of the magazine's editors, thus giving the book a neutral review under the name of the magazine. Opinions on the quality of the source, especially from uninvolved editors, are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as being very much like the Amazon.com "editorial reviews" that have been discussed on this page on a number of occasions. Does anyone know what the current thinking is on the use of such reviews as reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Chris, let the participants here give their opinion without an AGW regular trying to influence it. I believe I presented a fair and balanced portrayal of the nature of the dispute. Please let this board take it from there. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular on this board too, and I don't appreciate (a) the assumption of bad faith and (b) the attempt to segregate my comments. Neither is helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you're a regular, to say the least, in the AGW area. Please back off and let uninvolved editors here give an opinion. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not a regular on this board other than disputes that you're involved in, and even then, you're still involved in this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, please stop edit warring on this page. It's quite unsightly and not conducive to solving problems here. — HelloAnnyong 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN/I#Malicious sabotage of RSN comments by Cla68. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note...I started the "involved" and "uninvolved" sections per a suggestion at ANI after ChrisO complained there about the bickering that was taking place above. I am an involved editor, which is why I'm not giving my opinion on the source here, because I was looking for outside, uninvolved opinions. As the regulars here have probably noticed before, questions about sources related to the the AGW articles often degenerate into bickering by involved editors which I think gets in the way of gaining opinions from uninvolved editors, which is what is being sought when a question is brought here. Thus, I plan to continue using this format in the future with regards to any AGW-related sourcing questions. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, thank you in advance for the uninvolved editors who have given opinions, it is much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

The section header doesn't state the issue very precisely, as we are talking about a web only feature, not the magazine proper. I can't read Dutch, and only reading the entire publication, in context in its original language, can provide one with a proper perspective on whether this is usable. See comment by a Dutch speaker at the article talk page, here and note also previous discussion here. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The review in question was written by the magazines editor so it is not really a promotional blurb, it strikes me as a real review. mark nutley (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

These subheadings are unnecessary and misleading since the originator of the question appears to be involved him/herself. How about if there is going to be so much drama the involved editors agree not to comment anymore and we leave it at that? From what I gathered here and on the talk page where this is being discussed the source appears not to be reliable. At best, this sounds akin to solicited reviews that might not ever appear in any publications but end up on a book dust jacket in order to promote the book. It would be nice to get some more Dutch language readers to verify the story here, but unless we've been fed false information this is just marketing material. It is clearly not akin to anything else actually published in the magazine, since it was not actually published in the magazine. If the editors opinion is notable enough as an individual opinion, then it would be possible to attribute it to him only, but not to the magazine as such.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this subheading. We don't break down RSN questions like that, but I guess I'll leave it there. Anyways, according to the person who can read dutch, it's a promotional sounding blurb. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable, at least for the opinion of the author, but it raises bias issues. I would say something like "In a promotional blurb in the books for sale section of the Science magazine website, Science mag editor said "....". If you really want to keep it that bad, that is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who made the suggestion about the subheads, because the alternative was conflict about who was involved and who counted as fresh eyes. It might be the best way to deal with requests when there's a very contentious background. SlimVirgin 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The subheads should be used on all or none, and at this stage should not be imposed unilaterally by someone seeking an opinion. I don't care; I placed my input in the "involved" section, even though I've posted only in the article talk page and have not edited the article. That should not be construed as endorsing the way this was done. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just don't like to start weird precedents here without discussion. In this case, what if an involved editor had a question for an uninvolved editor. Where do they post? It's weird. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty common in active disputes, for example in RfCs, to follow this format. Since the purpose of Noticeboards and RfCs is to garner outside input. It's also suggested as a possible norm at this Noticeboard in an active discussion on the talk page. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in there. Dlabtot (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. Can you give me a section link? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AQFK talks about it in this section . Dlabtot (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is CNN a reliable source?

In This article a dispute is taking place over weather or not CNN is a valid and reliable source. Source: CNN Article: Charles County, Maryland

Qoute:

It later became the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland.

Talk page: Talk:Charles County, Maryland

Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CNN is a reliable source for citing that this was the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland. Dlabtot (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable. You can tell TEDickey: "Verifiability, not truth." Fences&Windows 02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

European Universities Debating Championship and it's sources.

Can some one have some opinion on the following University debate related sources please:

• globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
• flynn.debating.net
• www.debating.ie
• eudc.wikidot.com

They are all used in the European Universities Debating Championship article and all (with the exception of the eudc.wikidot.com) appear to be websites or blogs of Colm Flynn. The eudc.wikidot.com appears to be relatively new and it is unclear where they are sourcing there information from given the request for information on the main page. I have asked before about these sources before (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#www.debating.net) without a clear consensus.

I have looked for more sources for results on European Universities Debating Championship for example here but with out any luck.

Any comments please Codf1977 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the content of the blogs, they appear to be open to contributions. For example, the second item on http://flynn.debating.net/ at the moment is "On behalf of the Hart House Debates Committee, it is my pleasure to formally invite you to the Hart House IV...". I don't think this kind of blog can be accepted as a reliable source for our purposes. Blogs of course can be reliable but they need to have standards of fact-checking and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else ? Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Source.

Hey guys. Wouldthis paper be considered a reliable source? It was used here. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 |  18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It only seems to support the link to Griet Reyniers I can find no reference to the others, though I might have missed them. This si also SPS, so not I would say its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Fox News Channel

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I am starting a Request for Comment on the specific issue of whether, due to the recent missteps of Fox News, (like the Shirley Sherrod case), in combination with the other longstanding bias evident in the programming, Fox News can be treated as a prima facie source. By prima facie reliable, I mean presumed reliable, needing no verification. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to go anywhere with this. If the above discussion with sources widely viewed as partisan is turning into this much of a shit storm, than you are going to have a helluva time trying to get FNC listed as unreliable. Soxwon (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir, please relax and feel the love, man. Just chillax and let mother nature take her course. Peace, Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm relaxed, in fact, I am quite happy with a cup of tea and some Bruce Springsteen on. However, I am simply stating my opinion, you are going to get a mountainous headache and accomplish nothing with this RFC. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sox, you were the one that originally suggested an RFC below. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested Fox News, I've said from the beginning it will be a disaster, and this is as much as I will comment on this until the actual RFC is underway. Soxwon (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. This RfC is without merit, pushed by an editor who (as the above exchange shows) clearly just wants to push some buttons. FNC is no less reliable than other mainstream sources that have similarly embarrassing stains. The other discussions on this page showed multiple editors opposing this review, with replies by two editors who post so frequently that it seems like there is a discussion going on. RJC _Contribs 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fox not a RS: Fox News Channel (Fox News) is clearly an unreliable source. It's not about "embarrassing stains" as isolated events which I assume many, if not most, news organizations have had, Even the NYT had Jayson Blair, as an example. However, Fox made a legal argument in court in the Jane Akre affair on BGH, that ".. the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves." In 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." Fox News is admitting in legal documents to a lack of neutrality, and that violates the core value of WP:RS to such a gross extent that there can be no consideration of them as a reliable source. Nor can any other news source that openly claims the right to be a disinformation source. Most news sources claim to be neutral and truthful. Despite Fox's trademark "Fair & Balanced" tagline, it so clearly isn't. — Becksguy (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As the source for what Fox's legal argument was, are you actually using a blog which has had eight posts in the last two years, four of which were devoted to criticism of Fox News? Do you consider Ceasespin.org a reliable source? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • More info on the pages Jane Akre and WTVT; they also need more reliable sources. John Vandenberg 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) See also Talk:FOX_News/Allegations of Bias#Whistleblowing case, Talk:Bovine_somatotropin#FoxBHGsuit.com and to be fair and balanced I will point out “WHISTLEBLOWING” AND THE INTENTIONAL DISTORTION OF NEWS p. 745-779, esp 769- (however bear in mind it references http://www.foxbghsuit.com and , and Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy is a student run journal). --John Vandenberg 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not an RS per Becksguy, even though 5 other networks did submit amicus curiae to support FOX's position that it had a right to lie or distort news reports - that is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. FOX went through considerable legal trouble to defend what it considers its right to lie and distort, when it could have pulled the story in question instead. This Salon piece by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a bit more detail, as does Censored 2005. Unomi (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not an RS UK perspective here. We have some terrible newspapers, and even the good ones will sometimes use deception to get a story, but even the worst of them has always claimed to be telling the truth, and has never used a defence of that type when caught out in a lie. Sueing the papers for libel is a popular UK sport, as is complaining to our (not very effective) Press Complaints, and even to the latter, I've never come across a paper advancing a defence that it has a right to lie.In Fox's case, another source should always be found that verifies not only their version of events but in some cases even that the event happened at all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• This should be closed as a Snowball case... Fox news is Clearly RS. The legal argument that Fox made is being taken out of context. Someone arguing in court that they have the right to falsify or distort the news is not an admission that they have actually done so, or did so in any particular report. If it can be established that Fox falsified a specific report, then that specific report can certainly be considered unreliable (this is true for all news outlets)... but the entire network?... no. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Where there should be arguments I hear only Appeal to tradition, no offence Blueboar, I have great respect for your opinion and insight, but in this case I have to disagree, I am pretty sure that you have read the sources pertaining to those lawsuits so you would know that the jury unanimously agreed that FOX 'acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiff's news reporting' and that FOX successfully appealed that with what amounts to 'so what'? It sounds like at some point there was a presumption of FOX being an RS, that presumption is now being challenged, Clearly RS is at this point unsubstantiated. Unomi (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not an RS by default – So, Blueboar, you don't think a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is required? Given these well publicised instances, you seem to be claiming that they've only lied a little bit, and your default assumption is that they don't lie. What evidence have you to support that? They clearly appear to be questionable, and each report should be cross checked and considered on its merits, not blindly accepted. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly do think a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is required. What I don't agree with is the idea that simply because Fox's lawyer has made an argument that a news outlet has the right to distort of falsify reporting, this means that Fox has now suddenly lost its reputation for fact checking and accuracy. For that, I would need evidence that they routinely falsify or distort their reporting.

I totally agree that news reports should be cross checked and considered on their merits, and not blindly accepted. However, I think this is true for all news reports, not just those by Fox. As the amicus briefs demonstrate, Fox is hardly alone. It can not (and should not) be singled out from the practices of the other major news outlets. All news reporting should be questioned, and checked... not just that by Fox. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it applies to 'all news reports, and as WP:NOTNEWS why rush to get something in on only one questionable source? Having said that, if it publishes prompt retractions of misinformation it's doing a lot better than Murdoch's UK newspapers. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Today FoxNews reported that the the US Military does have plans for an attack on Iran if the option is necessary. Are we really taking seriously the idea that because it is Fox that this lacks prima facie reliability or that we should comb the New York Times for the same story instead (it doesn't currently have one)? Or that any quotations from the Arizona governor that appear in this story but not other sources must be removed? RJC _Contribs 16:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I am pretty sure that the US has plans for attack lying around for a number of countries, like fx. Canada, and 'US has plans with to strike Iran' stories broke in 2005, 2007 and 2008 and likely before that as well. This round sees The Telegraph, AP, The Guardian and many others reporting the same story, so it doesn't really seem like there is that much combing which would have to be done. Then consider the foxnews story compared with the Guardian article and Telegraph article- even if FOX has not gone to court to defend it right to lie and distort, the lack of nuance and context in the FOX piece does not really inspire the greatest of confidence. As for the AZ Governor, which quote would that be RJC? Unomi (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest that there was one. I was merely pointing to the absurdity of what this RfC is attempting to accomplish. RJC _Contribs 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Fox News is the only news organization I'm aware of that claims a First Amendment based legal right to lie and distort news, yes, I seriously doubt any claimed reputation for reliability, neutrality, and fact checking. At least on stories that they have a political or cultural POV about. I don't think that particular news blurb about Iran is suspect, but I would very carefully examine the Arizona story. — Becksguy (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• RS Clearly so by WP precedent and policy - this RfC has no bearing on what the policy is. BTW, it has been made clear that Fox "broke" the Sherrod case after the adminstration forced her resignation. Opinion shows can be cited for opinions (just like the MSNBC opinion shows), but the news reports meet WP:RS. Even the NYT cites Fox! Collect (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a RfC on whether Fox meets the criteria specified in policy, not what the policy is. No one questions the RS policy or guidelines. The policy on reliable sources, WP:SOURCES, says that RS publishers are: ... reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and also says In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. There is a four pronged test (short version): Is a particular source (1) reliable, (2) independent, (3) with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and (4) with editorial oversight. So the question at hand is: Does Fox News clear the bar as set by policy and guidelines for reliable sources, or not? Or does it depend? — Becksguy (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say: Yes, FNC clears the bar. That said, I do think there is a valid argument for saying that it does not clear the bar when it comes specifically to the Jane Akre story. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Requires additional scrutiny I agree with the other editors here that Fox News articles need to be looked at more closely than the average article, even though I used a Fox News article just a few days ago on the financial reform bill, but when I did so I did some additional research to confirm the article. Fox News recently ran an article on how "pedophilic" Misplaced Pages is, in the process naming a Misplaced Pages editor as pro-pedophile who was actually the exact opposite. They consistently deny that global warming is a problem. This is an organization which goes beyond most news organizations in drawing attention and pursuing its political agenda. I would be interested in hearing more explanation from RJC and Blueboar as to why a question like this is somehow unapproachable. II | (t - c) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was unapproachable... my argument is that Fox is no different than other major news outlet, so it should be treated the same as the others. I don't think we should blindly accept any news outlet. All news outlets should be scrutinized and checked. And I firmly believe that when we do use a news outlet as a source, we should attribute the statement to that source in text ("According to a Fox news report, blah blah blah"... "According to a report in the New York Times, foo foo foo") so readers know who says what, and will take the reporting with the grain of salt that all news sources deserve. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Such requirements of attribution across the board is something that I would wholeheartedly support. Unomi (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that one source might be reporting something not reported elsewhere or wherein all of the other media outlets are reporting, "According to FNC/CBS/NBC/ABC", I would have no problem with that. To the extent that all of the media outlets are reporting the same thing, then no, specific attribution would not be required. E.G. you would need a source to mention Mel Gibson's recent tirade in an article, but it would not matter if it was Fox/ABC/CBS/TMZ/NY Times/etc. In those cases specific attribution would make articles unbearable to read.---Balloonman 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Silly - This is silly. Lots of news sources get things wrong. Some even have journalists caught plagiarizing, etc. Some, like some of those in Journolist, are actually pulling for one side and making up stories to attack the other. It is wrong to single out FoxNews for something innocuous as a means to use Misplaced Pages for further the political goals of a number of Misplaced Pages editors, and it is silly that anyone would waste good editing time writing here. I'll comment here no further (unless attacked). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It would be hard to argue that Fox News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - in reality,isn't their reputation exactly the opposite? I can't think of another source that claims to be a straight news source that is so roundly denounced as partisan, biased and inaccurate. I don't watch TV but I myself can clearly remember being in a "Taco John's" a few years ago that had their TVs tuned to Fox and the chyron clearly and unambiguously declared: "WMDs found in Iraq". That said I think they could be an acceptable source for unvarnished facts in limited circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • CBS and NY Times both have such stirling reputations... they would NEVER be accused of bias in their news reporting.---Balloonman 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what your mention of CBS and the NY Times has to do with my comment. Do you have any comment to make about what I actually did say? Dlabtot (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding me aren't you? CBS and NY Times are two of the more biased (to the left) media outlets. Both are known for interjecting opinion into their news articles, but you do not see people clamouring about removing them as reliable sources. Their integrity may be questioned, but that does not make them any less reliable source than FNC.---Balloonman 01:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you don't actually have anything to say apropos of my comment, but rather just chose this place to make an off-topic rant. Thank you for clearing that up. Dlabtot (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment See New York Times arguing that foreign libel judgements should not be considered in the US. Specifically "public figures have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making a false statement." And that false statements without malice are therefore quite acceptable -- and "But these protections, rooted in the First Amendment, do not exist in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore, where the burden is often on the author, once accused of libel, to show that a statement is true." " No one in either country wins if writers cannot express themselves freely. " Actual example at where the NYT falsely accused a person in the anthrax scare, but no actual malice was shown. I guess the NYT is therefore no longer RS at that point (a number of suits have been lodged, for which "malice" is the NYT defense, and not truth). Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I am sure that you can perceive a distinction between defending your ability to be unintentionally wrong about something, and defending your ability to deliberately lie and distort. In this case I support you in the former and find you toeing the line in the latter. Unomi (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• RS but requires additional scrutiny. As media sources go, Fox News is not as reliable as some (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post), but still qualifies as a 'reliable source' according to our guidelines. Fox News sources should be subject to more scrutiny than normal news networks, as they do allow their political bias to bias their news coverage. LK (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable Keep in mind that this is a general purpose news source that's used for a wide variety of topic areas from health to sports to current events. Are editors seriously claiming that we can't use Fox News as a source, for example, that the Chicago Cubs traded left-hander Ted Lilly to the Los Angeles Dodgers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it could probably be accepted as a source for that, though, what are the chances that it is the only source available? This seems a like a bit of a red herring. Unomi (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is being used for roughly 10,000 articles. Do you want to re-source all those articles? Have fun. I agree with Blueboar's suggestion this be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. This isn't going anywhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable At first I thought I'd leave any judgment on Fox to others, but after a couple of days of review, I've changed my mind. As RJC pointed out above, Fox has a few blemishes, but they're of the sort that any large scale news operation experiences now and then. Fox is a partisan source, no doubt about it; but so are The Guardian and The Independent, and both are used regularly here. It needs to be used with some degree of care, but it can be used (particularly in cases where there are no political overtones, such as the trade of Ted Lilly to the Dodgers). My issue is with hyperpartisan sources, that deal with almost nothing except politically "hot" stories, and inject their partisan distortions and spin without exception, such as World Net Daily. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the arguments which speak against the presumption of RS in the case of FOX is that a jury unanimously agreed that FOX 'acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiff's news reporting' and that FOX successfully appealed that with what amounts to 'so what'? I think you may be continuing a discussion which is disconnected from this one. Unomi (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I've read this and this. That's "CeaseSpin.org" and an op-ed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Salon. Do you have anything published in a mainstream newspaper, or on a mainstream news site about this? Furthermore, the events that are complained of occurred more than 13 years ago. Do you have any proof of anything more recent than that? (Besides the Shirley Sherrod episode, which was the fault of Andrew Breitbart rather than Fox News?) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable This could easily develop into a witch hunt of which sources are liberal enough for Misplaced Pages editors. For example just because a news organisation harbours a writer who doesn't accept artificial global warming is not a reason to treat them as unreliable, as this would rule out a good proportion of the right of centre press. JASpencer (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Slightly Unreliable for political topics with exceptions if passing heavy scrutiny. On political topics, the tenuous reputation for fact-checking and accuracy requires scrutiny if an FNC publication is to be used. BigK HeX (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Dumb dumb da Dumb. Fox is as reliable as any of the other mainstream media outlets. None are perfect and all have their biases. Each has had their blunders, but that is part and partial of an age where everybody wants to get the scoop and the Internet often beats out the networks. If you are going to challenge Fox, then you have to challenge the other major networks as well.---Balloonman 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, all news organizations (in fact everyone) makes blunders and has biases. But Fox News has a reputation for systemic, intentional, and continued bias, distortion, and unreliable fact checking. That makes it stand out and as such it violates the requirements to be considered a RS, prima facie. And has the balls to claim the legal right to lie and distort news. — Becksguy (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • And the others don't? Come on give me a break. They have all fabricated stories and deliberately twisted facts? Do you recall the story a few months ago about "white supremecists" at obama rally's carrying AK-47s AR-15s that MSNBC did? Ooops, the guy who was carrying the guy was an African American, but that didn't fit in with the MSNBC story. As for reputations... CBS and NY Times have abysmal reputations when it comes to allowing opinion enter into the news reporting. If we are going to look at one, then we have to look at all, because they all suck.---Balloonman 05:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Note, if you haven't seen the video, goto youtube and look up "MSNBC Crops Video to Incite Racial Tension over AR-15 at Obama Rally".---Balloonman 06:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As for "legal right to lie and distort news"... guess what, they have the legal right to do so... and if you were being sued, you would make the same case---which is why the other media networks sided with Fox. They knew that if that right were taken away, then the law suits would be coming out of the closet. We may not believe that it is morally acceptable/reponsible, but that wasn't the question---it was is it legal and guess what, in the USA it is legal to lie/distort facts... and all of the major news networks have done it via their selective coverage of events. News networks regularly feature stories that fit their objectives and fill the void as they deem fit. It is part and parcel of the industry, there have been numerous exposes and books written on this subject going back decades---before FoxNews was even a sparkle in Murdoch's eyes. The Media lies and distorts news... that isn't news.---Balloonman 07:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Let's get some facts into this discussion. Let's assume that this RfC comes back with a super majority showing FoxNews to be an unreliable source, will that show FoxNews to be unreliable? No, it will show problems with sampling methodology utilized here and the fallacies with a consensology. A consensus, which I doubt you will ever be able to achieve, based upon a limited sample of Wikipedians will never make a fact out of an opinion. Heck, even if a few hundred people chime in here, the self selection of the sampled population will not make for a scientific or reliable results. Luckily, we do have scientific studies who have studied the perception of FoxNews, and guess what, they regularly show that FoxNews is the most trusted news of the major networks. A 2008 Zogby poll showed that Fox was "the most trusted" by 39.3% of the country, while CNN had 16% and MSNBC had 15%. A January 2010 poll by Public Policy Polling (a liberal leaning polling group) found that Fox was the most trusted station with 49% trusting it and 37% distrusting it (a 12% net favorability.) CNN came in second with a negative 2 net favorability rating (39% fav/41% unfav). NBC is third at minus 9% (35/44), followed by CBS at minus 14% (32/46), and ABC at minus 15% (31/46). A separate poll in January by McLaughlin & Associates again showed Fox to be the most trusted. "Thirty-six percent of respondents picked Fox News, compared to 20 percent who picked CNN and 6 percent who picked MSNBC. NBC and ABC each got 6 percent, too, and CBS 5." A 2009 poll by Sacred Heart University found Fox News to be the most and least respected news agency. So polls don't determine what a reliable source is... that is true. But those polls are much more reliable with a larger base than what we might have here on WP. FoxNews is consistantly picked as the most trusted news source for a reason---because it is a reliable source that people trust. Depending on the poll, FoxNews is also the least trusted news source, but it is worth noting that it is not regularly picked as the least trustworthy source. The various news agencies each have negatives... in fact, the most notable fact of several of these surveys is that the public doesn't trust the mainstream media much at all. Is FoxNews the most reliable of sources? No. But is it notably worse than any of the others? No. They are all biased and all have histories/records of fabricating stories to fit their agenda, if we are going to declare foxnews as unreliable, then we would have to do so with each of the other major US media outlets. One of the conclusions at the PPP was that people are no longer looking for "neutral" reporting, but are looking for news agencies that mirror their positions. Not only is FoxNews the most trusted news source, but it is also the most watched one. FoxNews is does have its biases... but so to do the other media outlets. If we are going to explore whether or not news reporting is a reliable source, that is a different subject, but Fox News is not marketedly and demonstratably worse than any of the others. They are all bad, but we cannot single one out because it does not mirror our political biases.---Balloonman 06:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The facts that you present have no bearing on the discussion. Here is what I read your post as:

Lets get some facts into this discussion. Let's assume that this RfC comes back with a super majority showing FoxNews to be an unreliable source, will that show FoxNews to be unreliable? No, Special pleading. A consensus, Moving the goalpost. Luckily, we do have Red herring. So, polls are a red herring, that is true. But those polls are Red herring. Is FoxNews the most reliable of sources? No. But WP:OTHERSTUFF, Appeal to consequences and False dilemma.

I hate to be glib, but I couldn't find enough face to palm while reading the numbers from those polls.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to assume that people who do not regards FOX as an RS are doing so on grounds of not matching their political bias, this seems to completely ignore the arguments presented against the presumption of RS in their case. Presenting polls of the general populations perception of FOX or what they are looking for in their TV experience is not relevant. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess facts do not matter then? The fact is that of the network news agencies it is the most trusted news network and if by some abomination a super majority on WP says otherwise, it will not change that fact. Other news agencies are just as dubious, but you don't see people pushing to have the NY Times or CBS delisted as a reliable source. Sorry, but this notion is simply a dumb idea. Newsflash--- the media can not be trusted to give objective facts! This is well documented and numerous books and expose's have been written on each of the major networks. None of the networks is reliable---it is the nature of the beast. But within the framework of news, Fox News is consistently seen (by a larger population than just the people whom have commented here) as being the most trustworthy (eg reliable) of the lot. Because all I see in your poll is "Fox got it wrong, and I don't like it, therefore I think it should be viewed as unreliable." Without any consideration for the fact that Fox CONSISTENTLY outpaces the other media outlets for trust.---Balloonman 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a poll for you:

Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions — and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.

Empirical evidence > uninformed public perception BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Network news agencies"? Do they still matter in present-day U.S.? How many people still rely on TV as their primary info source? (I don't know, I don't watch TV of any kind. The whole affair seems to be glorified beyond any reason.) East of Borschov 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A smaller and smaller percentage of mostly older Americans rely on tv news. That being said, when it comes to online news sources, I suspect that most Americans will check out CNN or Fox News or MSNBC or ESPN for their news coverage as the more objective sources. And I suspect that the vast majority of sourcings in WP are not to specific episodes that were broadcast on specific dates, but rather to the accompanying online source.---Balloonman 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am absolutely fascinated to discover that in the US, news sources have a constitutionally enshrined right to lie. I guess this does make all US sources less reliable than European sources, particularly in BLP issues where - as others have pointed out - the burden of proof in libel cases is on the defendant to show that the statement was true. This does not make European papers any less weaselly, biased or given to spin, but it does make them much more careful with who they tell lies about, and what they say. If a UK paper alleges that a politicial has committed a criminal offense, they would have to be very sure of their ground before they did so, as with the Telegraph and the MPs expenses. Every one of those allegations had to be accurate, because if they were wrong the paper would pretty much automatically lose the libel case (or their insurers would have settled way before the paper even got to present its side of the story) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the US, and I'm not a lawyer, in order to prove libel/slander, you have to show that the person making the statement did so knowing that the statement was not true. (So using the recent Dept of Ag case, Fox didn't realize that the original source had distorted the facts) AND show that the person making the statement is doing so with malicious intent. The original source will argue that it's intent was not malious to the Dept of Ag worker, but wanted to make a tangental observation wherein the ag worker got caught in the cross fire.
  • You also have to make the statement one of fact and not opinion, which is why talk radio/opinion pieces are blooming. They can say, "X is a dirty snake" and that they "believe X to have committed certain sins/crimes/etc" because they do so under the umbrella of "opinion." An opinion editor could say, "it would not surprise me if senator so-n-so raped little boys" and get away with it, because they are not making it a statement of fact. A news anchor has to be careful because if they are "reporting the news" the same exact statement that an opinion reporter can make as an "opinion" might become a statement of "fact". What this means is that various shows on FOX/NBC/CBS/ETC can legally make statements that are "opinions" and not get in trouble. The news shows, however, are held to a higher standard....but it has long been known that the fail to achieve that standard which is why nobody trusts them. Less than 1 in 4 people (OMG a poll result) trusts the media reporting.`---Balloonman 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• RS It's laughable that this is even being discussed coinciding with Fox being moved into the front row at the white house briefing room..--Cube lurker (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• While Fox isn't perfectly reliable, they are reliable enough that I trust that they've at least attempted to check the facts. Fox's problem, in my opinion, is what Misplaced Pages policy calls WP:UNDUE. It's not false, it's just not the whole story, and a wikipedia article is likely to be citing specific facts, not the "spin" of the coverage. To be clear, I'm talking about news reports, not other content such as opinion pieces. That line is somewhat blurry, and opinion programming or content is almost never appropriate as a reliable source. If it cannot be determined whether the reference is opinion (e.g. O'Reilly) it's probably best to find a different source. SDY (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Handle with care. Strictly speaking, for our purposes, we cannot rule out Fox as an RS across the board, as there are some uses where they may be appropriate. I also think that Fox is absolutely disgusting and sleazy. But I'm not an RS either, and neither are any of the rest of us. So, allow it to be used, sometimes, as a source, but also scrutinize it very carefully on a case-by-case basis, to make sure that it is reliable for the particular use. I think that most of the time it will turn out that there are better sources that can be used in its place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• • As I understand it, the whole point of an RS is that editors can assume the facts are true, unless there is a particular reason to suspect otherwise. Your proposal seems to me somewhat self-contradictory. If Wiki editors are required to scrutinize every FNC report, they must rely upon their own judgment to determine if the news is true, which is definitely not a sound policy. Or they must confirm the FNC's reports with other sources. But then the FNC ceases to be an RS, since information found there must be verified using a separate, more trusted source.Dontnod (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "my proposal". But anyway, I'm not aware of any place where there's a list of "approved" reliable sources that editors can use without exerting any judgment. This RfC is about declaring that Fox is never to be used as an RS. Seems to me that editors who are being careful will look for all available sources, and, yes, I think there will usually be better ones than Fox. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question: has anybody compared academic studies on the subject? For instance, on Fox there is a study like this. Do other major news outlets have an equivalent of the "Fox News Effect"? Rd232 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, claims should be examined, and should be used along with other sources confirming said claims. Voice of America probably shouldn't be those "other sources", though. Just saying. —fetch·comms 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The obsession with "reliable sources" amuses me. Every assertion of fact by every source needs to be weighed for veracity — something that the vast majority of Wikipedians do without being conscious of it. In terms of our lingo, Fox News regularly engages in POV reporting, as do other news sources. It is our duty to separate the wheat from the chaff in a factual and neutral manner. VERACITY + VERIFIABILITY + NPOV. —Carrite (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fox News is as much of an RS as any other cable news channel in the US. They're all infotainment. Fox isn't signficantly worse than the others, its just slanted in the other direction. Mr.Z-man 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not an RS. The FNC's record of numerous errors may or may not be egregious for a news outlet, but I think their argument in court is the crucial point here. The argument was presented in order to demonstrate that they had done nothing illegal, but there is an implicit acknowledgment by the FNC that it is not in the business of presenting the most factually accurate report of events it can. Of course, no news outlet is - they all spin their stories to suit their intended readership. But the FNC's legal argument amounts to admitting that their are no limits to the extent to which they will distort facts to further their agenda, even to the point of flatly making things up. Therefore their news should not be trusted to be anything other than made up, and the FNC should not constitute an RS. The same holds for any other news outlet that defends its right to lie, of course. For all others, out of reasons of pragmatism, we should assume good faith, and that they aren't distorting the news too badly. One should, of course, always use more than one news outlet as a source wherever possible.Dontnod (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Probably on general topics, definitely not on political topics - I'm sorry, but saying that the Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association is a Democrat is either evidence of negligent fact-checking, or a political bias against the Democrats. (It's not the first time this has happened; I remember them doing the same to Mark Foley a few years ago). In the first case, it'd be unreliable across the board, in the second, it'd be unreliable on political topics. Sceptre 02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Although, admittedly, I'd allow Sky News to stay as reliable. While a little sensationalist at times, it generally gets things right. And speaking from experience with news sources from the UK: BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, FT, Times, Indy, Guardian reliable; Mail, Express, Star, Sport, Sun unreliable. Murdoch-owned sources bolded. Sceptre 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reliable as any mass-media news outlet; even the New York Times makes mistakes. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think the issue is whether the FNC makes mistakes in its reporting. You're right that all news outlets do make mistakes. The issue is whether, when something is reported on Fox News, you can then be reasonably confident that it's true. The point surely is that, as Fox has openly admitted that they see no problem with simply lying to you outright, and therefore you shouldn't trust what they say, and need to check with other sources that you consider more reliable.Dontnod (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • A legal defense from 13 years ago does not make official policy. Lawyers will take any stance, including those that are arguing in grey areas to win cases, which is what the lawyers did... and guess what, they won. Again, it is not as if the other media outlets have any better record. Read the Salon article that is being touted in this RfC. The Salon article lists FoxNews as one of many organizations that let corporate policy mongers dictate the content and spin of their media outlets. Read any number of books on the subject. The people who are focusing on Fox are failing to see the forest through the trees... this is common practice in the news media! Truth be damned, sensationalism is where it is at. Can Fox News be trusted? Just about as far as any of the other media outlets, the big difference is that Fox News is at least somewhat honest about their bias.---Balloonman 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable, bad RFC. Fox news is clearly as RS as any other mainstream news source. Now RS doesn't mean omniscient or unbiased, but it does mean we can cite their reports on WP. And RFC really isn't the right venue for this. RSN noticeboard is. This sounds like a political RFC, and should be speedy closed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Completely agree with the Squid. Fox is a mainstream US television news network. It happens to support US conservative politics, but it is still within the mainstream. --GRuban (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reliable, bad RFC. I agree with Squidfryerchef and GRuban. While Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may have interpreted the Akre case as meaning that television networks have the right to lie about the news, (1) that was not the actual argument made by Fox, (2) the Akre case involved a local Fox network station rather than the Fox News Channel, and (3) five major networks supported Fox's argument, which means that the conclusions drawn above about FNC claiming the right to lie are extremely misleading. I would note that most of the items from Fox News Channel we are likely to be using as sources on Misplaced Pages come from FNC's news staff rather than its opinion commentators anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I find it humorous the this RFC starts up at the same time as the White House Correspondents Association voted to move FOX News to the front row in the White House briefing room, right between NBC and CBS. It appears that the Main Stream Media (WHCA) does not agree with the Administration's position, that Fox News is "not a real news organization." -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment By traditional definition, it's a RS. Just as with any RS, you have to exercise some editorial judgement over how you use particular sources. "Reliable Source" is kind of a misnomer in that the sources aren't always, or maybe even ever, "reliable" in a strict sense - again, this is where editorial judgement comes into play. Especially with something like Fox News you'll likely want to be very careful and generally use other sources in cases where NPOV is relevant. Ryan Norton 08:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• RS - A reliable as other media outlets, even if their politics don't always match. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's reliable come on, it's a news organization with editors etc. Is it biased? Hugely. Are there areas it should be used carefully? Of course. But heck the Christian Science Monitor, which is a great paper, has it's own wacky flaws (I'd never ever trust it as a RS on anything health care related for example). Hobit (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Of course the above poster thinks TMZ is a reliable source as well. (see below). I think something is wrong if we are setting the bar for reliablity so low that TMZ is deemed as reliable as the BBC. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When we are choosing a Boolean value to map values that are a continuum by necessity the groupings will be odd--we only get two groups. Are you claiming stuff written on a bathroom wall is as reliable as TMZ or Fox News? In general we can't use non-reliable sources here. I think both TMZ, Fox and the BBC are all reliable enough for use on Misplaced Pages. A random blog or the bathroom wall are not. Hobit (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also, I think this RfC is fine. It should have been proposed in a more neutral way, but otherwise this is exactly the right way to hold the discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Preventing the inclusion of one of such a large news provider (both internet and television) sounds terrible to me. Some of their programming are loaded with entertainment instead of what is generally considered neutral reporting and those programs and hosts need to be addressed on their individual merits. And if we are not mirroring those more biased sources within Fox then much of the concern over Fox as a source goes away. And yes, you will find stories reporting inaccuracies. You can find those for MSNBC and CNN as well. 24 hour news with such a dose of entertainment and political division is bound to turn up some claims that are disputed somewhere but any such concerns should be handled on a case by case. What is the ratio to reported mistakes to just general news? It is reasonable to assume that it is not very close.Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• RS with additional considerations Fox does fine reading from the newswires, but any stories they break, and especially any of their coverage relating to political matters, should be heavily scrutinized on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I don't think such conditions would have prevented us from being duped in the Sherrod case because Fox was essentially duped as well (although they failed - possibly willfully - to maintain journalistic integrity in initially presenting it).
  --K10wnsta (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not a RS anymore, sadly. Take a look at this recent article about Misplaced Pages. THe entire thesis of this article is false, although there are some statements that would have been true five years ago. I don't know if they don't check their facts or they simply ignore the reports of the fact-checkers or what, but the result is the same. This is not an issue of political bias but that they just don't seem to care anymore if what they say is true or not. It's a sad situation and hopefully they will turn it around, but for now they just aren't reliable. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  "I don't know if they don't check their facts or they simply ignore the reports of the fact-checkers or what, but the result is the same. "
  

The problem with this statement is that while you may disagree with their opinion they did not actually cite any incorrect facts. I may be wrong, but please show me something from there that was factually incorrect.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to start with the lede: "Misplaced Pages has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms." In fact, Misplaced Pages has not become a home base for any worldwide network of pedophiles, etc. When I joined Misplaced Pages in 2005, there might have been some merit to the statement (although even then it would be a considerable overstatement). However, I founded WP:PAW and helped (other editors did much more) to rectify this situation. So it is no longer even remotely true, if it ever was. The rest of the article is peppered with stale data ("Three years ago, on Annabelleigh.net...", with the text following up taking up a good portion of the article) or outright misrepresentations ("....other Misplaced Pages pages edited by pedophiles, including 'Child Sexuality'..."; At one time Child Sexuality was indeed problematical. I rewrote it myself from the ground up. In 2006. They quote Xavier Von Erck who is, in my opinion (based on my interactions with him when he briefly edited the Misplaced Pages), a monomaniac, but they apparently never even called anyone at Misplaced Pages, or if they did I guess they decided their response was not interesting enough to include or even describe. I could go on. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• After looking at the smear piece done on us by Fox News, as found by Herostratus, can anyone seriously question Fox News intention to lie, smear, distort, and spin the news? Here is another Fox News attack piece on WP relative to porn images here. Here is Jimbo's denial. Fox is looking more and more like the National Inquirer and should be treated as unreliable. — Becksguy (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• And here is yet another smear piece by Fox News attacking us. There is a Foundation rebuttal here in which they refer to it as a smear. Although all my comments here are my opinions, again I ask the editors here what your opinion is of Fox's journalistic motives and practices based on these last three pieces by them. I know I'm appalled. — Becksguy (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not automagically an RS Here in Denmark, Fox is considered the epitome of pop-news and politically slanted reporting. Ie. Whenever news presentation, and media bias is discussed, it is Fox that is held up as the horror-example. That said, every RS case will rest on its merits - there are hardly any fully reliable sources, just as there are very few completely unreliable sources. In BLP issues, i'd say that the tendency is for FOX to fall into the non-RS category. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although very well intentioned, and the Motion to Close should have been delineated from the main thread much earlier, the problem with collapsing the Motion subsection is that there are now interleaved and intermingled comments that relate to the the RfC as well. Some entries contained in the collapsed subsection have comments that relate to both the RfC and the Motion within the same entry. I don't know if the comments can be untangled sufficiently to clean up the collapsed section to cover the Motion only. Any suggestions? — Becksguy (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that we should direct the closer of the RfC to also consider relevant arguments made in the MtC section, asking the authors of arguments to repost them in this section if they haven't already could also be appropriate, alternatively you would be free to quote any of them with attribution and state your opinion of said arguments. I collapsed it solely to ensure that we didn't suffer topic fatigue within what should be a fairly narrow RfC. Unomi (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think those comments should be sufficient if everything related to the RfC doesn't get moved up out of the box. Regards and thank you for collapsing it. — Becksguy (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing the section silences too many people who put in comments there. Anybody who agreed with closing it agrees that this is a bad rfc.---Balloonman 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would like to draw attention to some lines of argument which I perceive as being problematic:

1. Appeal to 'long-standing consensus' is a valid form of argument.

Not so. Please see Consensus Can Change.

2. If we say X is not an RS then we would have to say Y and Z are not an RS as well.

Not so. This strikes me as a False dilemma and also goes against the spirit of WP:NOTFINISHED, we may well see a similar RfC on the Washington Post, NY Times or CNN - such RfCs should be engaged on the relative merits, not Appeal to consequences.

3. FOX is no less reliable than Y is a valid form of argument.

Not so. First of all it deflects discussion to be about Y when a discussion of FOX is what is on the table. Second, it would have to be backed up by sources which make such an equivalence for it to not be a simple bare assertion.

4. All mass media news outlets are reliable means that this RfC is without merit.

Not so. This is made clear by extant RS policy which offers a delineation in the form of: especially those at the high-quality end of the market, it would be a small change admit that sources perceived to be at the low-quality end of the market are less likely to be considered RS by default.

It is unfortunate that we seem to not have had many serious studies on the veracity of FOX brought into the discussion. The only one that I have seen so far is PIPA study on Americans' misperceptions regarding the Iraq war which found Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions, indeed in the study 80% (!) of the FOX respondents were likely to hold one or more misperceptions, compared with PBS-NPR at the other end with 23% and print media with 47%, source less formally though there is what 1 minute of googling brought up:

quote truncation and misrepresentation.

misrepresentation.

anti-intellectualism at its best

Jimbo says that FOX is wrong and apparently made no fact checking efforts

This seems beyond what might be attributed to 'innocent' political bias' which we do embrace. Unomi (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Unomi's four points. Despite the often claimed argument that this RfC is biased by focusing on Fox News, it is clearly appropriate to bring up an issue with a specific source, as do most, if not all, the other threads at WP:RSN. In fact, the purpose of RSN is to inquire about the reliability of specific sources, whether here or on the talk page. It says at the top of WP:RSN:"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page." And yes, we definitely should find some academic study. Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), or the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that has an excellent reputation, or any other universities with journalism schools, might be likely places to look as a start. — Becksguy (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That report at pipa.org is interesting. It's only one study, and it's from 2003. However, it does answer (or purport to answer) some suspicions that I had. Notable among them was: Is this a matter of causation or correlation? Could it be that Fox merely tends to attract viewers who are already deluded? P16 of the report says something interesting: Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions (paraphrased later on the same page). Again, it could be that those who are already deluded are more inclined to pay close attention when Fox News is on, but this is suggestive all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable although I note, as someone else told me elsewhere, that "reliable" in this sense means "acceptable". The Washington Post, among others, has printed some really really bad and later disproven material as well. And I acknowledge that almost all major media outlets are not necessarily free from sometimes really ridiculous errors. In those cases, it makes sense to indicate that the material in question was later found to be mistaken. But, as per the idea that a "reliable" source is one that we accept, it is an acceptable source for us, although that does not mean that we should necessarily rely on everything they say. And I would definitely qualify that statement by saying that programs which are more of the Rush Limbaugh Show opinion variety which Fox and other networks have should be treated separately from the regular news programs of the network. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Close

Per Long standing Consensus at RSN, that it is reliable as any source and has its flaws as any news outlet does Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is not going to go anywhere.---Balloonman 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think that hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis is sufficient and singling out one news organization seems WP:CREEPy. —Ost (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• FFS, You've got to be joking. Close this with prejudice. Horologium (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close as nonproductive, without merit, and at odds with established practice. RJC _Contribs 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with close for reasons I already stated above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep open and keep calm. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Per Balloonman Soxwon (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. And certainly here, there's no overwhelming consensus about declaring FNC to be an RS without exception. There's no reason to prevent this RfC from being explored. BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Close. This is simply about politics and not liking the bias of Fox News. JASpencer (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close. Salt as needed. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid rationale to claim a source is not rreliable under WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

consensus can change, but there is long standing consensus its reliable enough and a group that finds this whole thing ridiculous. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The group that "finds this whole thing ridiculous" can say so; their disgust does not give them rights to terminate the discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Unomi its is perfectly acceptable to make a motion I am not closing it merly making a motion for some one uninvolved please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTTHAT Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, August 3, 2010

Please to read WP:RFC, if you have thoughts on the discussion topic then engage in it, the behavior you are currently engaging in is borderline disruptive. Best, Unomi (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a motion, that is not a disruption. This RFC by far a the bigger disruption Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was moved here. Also, WP:RFC does not have anything in it about motions to close. I'm not sure where this motion notion came from. Dlabtot (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is at the top of the page on the previous location of this. it was moved here as the proper venue to discuss proper sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are reading instructions, you might try reading those at the top of this page, and those at WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep open. I checked the archives a few days ago, when I was contemplating creating a discussion about FOX's reliability; I, personally, couldn't find a discussion ending in a consensus one way or another. That, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus here that FOX is an RS, so closing this discussion is inappropriate. Sceptre 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"There doesn't appear to be a consensus here that fox is a RS"? Er, perhaps you have failed to notice something, Fox News is already considered a reliable source, thus the burden is to show consensus has clearly changed to move away from that position... which would mean a clear conensus in the neighborhood of 70-75% in favor of removing it. As is, the current !vote is at 7 people saying to change the status to unreliable, 19 people saying to keep it as reliable, and 6 others who are saying some variation on "partial trust"/"use discretion"/"handle with care"---e.g. that you can't cast a blanket on FNC a unilaterally declare it unreliable. Thus, at the current situation, we have seven out of 32 voices saying that FN is by definition not a reliable source. In other words, by my count which could be wrong, around 80% of those who have chimed in, support the notion that Fox News is reliable to some extent or another. Now what are the odds of this turning around and a super majority declaring that FNC should be reclassified en total as an unreliable source? It ain't gonna happen. There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that this RfC will result in a change, thus there is no reason to keep it open.---Balloonman 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your vote-counting is completely irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

!vote counting isn't "completely irrelevant," it is a quickie means to garner an initial assessment as to where/what people feel on the subject. Strength of argument ultimately comes into play, but generally in order for strength of argument to prevail over numerical counts, you need to have weak arguments on one side and absolutely devestating arguments on the other side. There has to be a clear reason why 20% of the sample's opinions would matter more than the 80% who oppose making a change. Sorry, but IDONTLIKEFOX is not a compelling reason to degrade FNC from the list of reliable sources. This RfC isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Fox has messed up, but so too have each of the other major networks... often intentionally.---Balloonman 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you want to pretend that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RfC are not established Misplaced Pages policies and there is no established long-standing consensus about these policies then you would have a point. It is a pretense in which I don't care to engage. Dlabtot (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh??? your comment makes zero sense. Consensus on this RfC is clearly in against the notion that Fox News is an unreliable source. As for Consensus, consensus has always been that you have to show a substantial change to move away from existing practice, otherwise you lead to abuse of process. Currently, we have roughly 7 people supporting the notion that Fox is by definition unreliable and 25 people saying that (to some degree or another) that Fox is a reliable source. Clearly not enough to move away from existing practice.---Balloonman 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple really: you are counting votes, but it's not a vote. Nor are RfCs closed with a 'motion to close'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Only "counting vote" insofar that the vast majority of people disagree with the proposal---which is why I use the !vote when talking about !votes... because it ain't a vote, but it is clear (barring some miracle) based upon the number and quality of comments that the proposal is going to fail.---Balloonman 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are counting votes, whether you put a ! in front of the word or not. And it is irrelevant and frankly, disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out the obvious fact that this RfC is not going to go anywhere. This RfC is the disruption. Not only is it clear to just about everybody who has posted here, the trend is clearly in favor of Fox News---note that 4 of the seven people supporting were early !votes! If this RfC, which is wasting people's time, were to pass then it would have a cascading affect through numerous other project---FAC/GA/FLC/BLP just to name a few. This RfC is poorly conceived with zero chance of passage, thus insisting on keeping it open is the disruption. Do you honestly expect Fox News to be declared defacto unreliable? Idiotic.---Balloonman 00:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have not taken the time to review WP:CONSENSUS or WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. There exists no mechanism to close RfCs with a 'motion to close' no matter how many people vote on it. Continue to count votes if you want but you are simply wasting time - yours as well as everyone who has this noticeboard watchlisted. You really do not seem to understand what a Request for Comments is all about. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are obviously a wikilawyer who thinks that just because an RfC is opened that it has to stay open for 30 days. Opening this RfC was WP:POINT as no reasonable person could honestly expect to garner enough support to declare FNC unreliable. As this is strictly opened to create a point, it is a disruptive waste of time.---Balloonman 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change the RfC policy, the place to discuss that change would be WT:RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "generally reliable". We do have a general consensus that on non-political stories, it would be considered reliable... but I don't see such a consensus on political stories. Most of the "reliable" opinions (and I say most) tend to be either a rant against liberal bias, "the others do it too", or "it's a popular source of information". On #2: my argument comes from the fact they've had two infamous incidents where they've confused the political affiliations of prominent Republicans—and possibly a third; I've heard that they labelled McCain as a Democrat some time in 2008—something which, I believe, its competitors haven't shown (political lean doesn't come into it). On #3: popul/arity is no indicator of reliability. Looking at the circulation figures for British newspapers, the reliable sources at 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th. Hell, the Star explictly said regarding a Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury, game, and I quote, "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story". Still... Sceptre 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(@Sceptre) I hate to use the "you are too young to remember" trope, but you are too young to remember that at least two US media sources (C-SPAN and the Los Angeles Times) misidentified Representative Gary Condit as a Republican during his scandal in 2002. (You were about 11 at the time.) Since the LA Times is distributed throughout the San Joaquin Valley, it was a particularly spectacular error on their part, but it doesn't make either of them unreliable sources. Someone mentioned the New York Times and Jayson Blair; how about Walter Duranty? Those two reporters and their multiple transgressions don't make the NYT non-RS. We could also mention an idiotic article in The Observer (this one) which thoroughly and totally misrepresents a hypothetical scenario, turning it into an impending ecological catastrophe. You have to read the actual report to understand that what the report suggests is an extreme global cooling incident, and one of the suggested actions is radically increasing hydrofluorocarbon emissions. Stupidity like that doesn't make The Observer an unreliable source, either. Please get over the whole "Fox News is the suxx0r" thing, and recognize that even a couple of errors don't make a source unreliable. Stupidity like equating FNC with WorldNetDaily or Pravda is just nonsense, and it makes it very difficult for me to take editors who advance such positions seriously. Horologium (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood your comment right up until the final word. "Still" what? Dlabtot (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, non-political stories are now deemed reliable. It's the political stories you are challenging. You still don't have the support to make a change in status, the current status is the default position, and you have to show that is no longer true. Which would still mean getting a supra majority. Currently, using the numbers identified above, there are 7 people who label Fox News as unreliable by definition and 6 who put caveats saying that it is and isn't reliable. Assuming that you can get those six to agree with the seven, you still have only 40% of the sampled population calling for change. Not nearly enough to make a change on something this big and Impacting.---Balloonman 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: while I agree that it is just as reliable as most mass-media news sources, and that this is much "about politics and not liking the bias of Fox News" (in fact, the local version of Fox News in my town is completely unbiased), I see no consensus. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Open Referring to the below motion to close, I agree it's premature. While there have been other "Is Fox News reliable" discussions at WT:IRS here and at WP:RSN, this RfC has been open only two days out of 30 potential days. And the legal claim issue seems new. — Becksguy (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep open, per Becksguy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Close, not proper venue for this kind of question. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close This is exactly the proper venue--what could possibly be better--this is a board to get decisions on just this sort of question, rather than scattering them one by one at multiple article talk pages and AfDs. The consensus seems to be as stated, that it is somewhat reliable, and meets the technical requirement of being a RS for the purpose of notability. When in conflict with other sources, relative reliability needs to be considered, and among US news sources, most national level sources would probably be considered more reliable. That it sometimes lies does not mean it always lies. That it often distorts, does not mean it always does. The reliability depends, like other news sources, ofn the subject. Anyone who fully believes it in US politics is in my opinion a fool, but if it covers a story even in this area, it makes for notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Open. This discussion is going well and there is noting wrong with shaing our ideas. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close as an entirely invalid RfC in the first place: it was not neutrally worded, and it's clear that there are two camps: partisans who would love to see everyone but Fox News' POV represented, and those who can't even believe that this is being discussed seriously... which it's not. No matter how large the shrill minority, there's no convincing way Misplaced Pages can make a serious claim to be NPOV without treating it as a major news player. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't fit into either of those two camps. Fox News, like Pravda or other obviously biased and inaccurate sources can be considered a reliable source as the term is used on Misplaced Pages in certain circumstances. It's all about the details: what specific citation is being used to source what specific text in what specific article. But the idea that people should not be permitted to discuss the topic goes against the very heart of the concept of collaborative editing by consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true with ANY source and nobody disputes that. FNC has to be used with care... just as CBS, NY Times, or any media outlet. NOBODY would dispute that, the premise, however, that we can discard an entire network (the most viewed and per numerous polls most trusted one) simply because a few voices is ludicrious. The problem is that this RFC was created simply because some people want to make a WP:POINT which is disruptive. There is zero chance that FNC will be categorized as unreliable and if it were WP would become a joke. Disruptive threads need not be continued... NOTHING will come of it. Snowball closes occur all the time all over WP and I daresay that if it wasn't for the political nature of this RfC, it would have been closed already as it is obviously nothing more than an attempt to make a political point. Oh yeah, as far as !vote counting... that's five four more people who agree that this is a waste of time. I think consensus is pretty clear on this.---Balloonman 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to amend the RfC process to allow them to be closed by a 'Motion to Close' followed by a vote, the place to discuss that change would be WT:RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No need, the process already exists to deal with wikilawyering.---Balloonman 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the discussion: WT:Requests_for_comment#Should_the_mechanisms_for_ending_RfCs_be_amended_or_expanded_and_if_so.2C_how.3F Dlabtot (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The "right to lie about the news" angle in this discussion is off-base. That report mentioned above seems to have originated at the Sierra Times, a right-wing news site that the anti-FOX crowd would probably have a problem with. This was not a libel case, but a wrongful termination case against a particular FOX-affiliated station, that centered on whether the plaintiff could be considered a whistleblower and thus entitled to protection. An issue brought up was whether because this was a broadcaster on the public airwaves, if they had an obligation to tell both sides of a news story. I agree with Balloonman; lawyers will argue the law. Apparently this all boils down to whether U.S. broadcasters have to observe an NPOV-type rule or whether they're allowed to express an opinion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Right here on WP is an article about a movie (and book) entitled Outfoxed, a 2004 documentary that has as the first paragraph of the lede: "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a 2004 documentary film by filmmaker Robert Greenwald that criticises the Fox News Channel, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, claiming that the channel is used to promote and advocate right-wing views. The film says this pervasive bias contradicts the channel's claim of being "Fair and Balanced", and argues that Fox News has been engaging in what amounts to consumer fraud." Note also: Fox News Channel controversies. — Becksguy (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Becks, your point? We also have an article called, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News is a book by Bernard Goldberg, a 28-year veteran CBS news reporter and producer, giving detailed examples of what he calls liberal bias in television news reporting. It was published in 2001 by Regnery Publishing." We also have an entire article on Media bias in the United States.

Nobody is disputing that the media is biased and interjects bias into the news coverage. But this RfC is clearly biased and disruptive because it is singling out Fox News. You can find books and articles on media bias that goes back long before Murdoch ever contemplated creating Fox. Arrogance: Rescuing America From The Media Elite where the book apparently talks about "how news organizations bully interviewees to eliminate anything that might contradict what they broadcast an act of arrogance transcending ideological lines". The Washington Post's own omnbudsman concluded, "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts." Media bias happens, but the only reason why this RfC is started is because a few people want us to believe that Fox is so much worse than the other media outlets, which is not commonly accepted by the public at large, and to make a point. I'm sorry but the fact that this RfC is open is an attempt to make a political point.---Balloonman 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference, of course, is that while all media is biased and its content must be weighed for veracity, Fox regularly engages in politically-motivated dezinformatsiia and must be subjected to especially close scrutiny. See, for example, their recent breathless coverage on monkeys being trained as terrorists... But, to repeat, EVERY statement of fact by every news source must be weighed by the Misplaced Pages editor for veracity. The official Misplaced Pages doctrine of flinging every statement published in "reliable sources" against the wall and seeing what sticks is the somewhat cynical conception of Messrs. Jimbo and Larry — philosophy buffs rather than journalists or historians by training. Misplaced Pages editors, god bless us all, don't behave according to this model. For every single statement of fact, heed the words of Ronald Reagan: "Trust But Verify." Carrite (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't close; leave open here for rather longer, or (if this is the wrong place) move somewhere more appropriate and leave open there for rather longer. It's not harmful, the participants are remaining cool, and it may even be productive. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Should not be presumed to be RS, per recent events. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To which recent event (or recent events) do you refer? Horologium (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest tha,t with regard to topics in which FOX is frequently introducing a particular point of view into its news (e.g. health care reform), an inline citation may be appropriate, and in this cases editors may build a consensus without taking a footnote citation as the default.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All news outlets have a bias, should we also stop using the BBC? or the Guardian? This is a ridiculous RFC and ought to be closed mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Close per DGG. No, the presumption should be that it is not a reliable source. While a particular story or citation may be useful, there has been a longstanding and growing consensus here that Fox News is not reliable, and I see no reason to change that. Its editorial staff is not hired, trained, or proficient at fact-checking. Its chairman is a former partisan. I can't add any more than what Becksguy wrote above. As far as process is concerned, this is as good a forum as any other, and is linked to WP:AfD, making it highly visible to regular users. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see that at all. There is a majority of editors who support it as a reliable source. A supermajority would be needed to change that, and there is not even a plurality, let alone a majority or a supermajority. As for the whole "partisan" thing, I suppose you support allowing Media Matters for America as a reliable source, despite the fact that its founder is a rabid partisan. Becksguy wrote that there is a documentary film which claims to document FNC's bias. There are at least two books which allege and two websites which track bias at The New York Times, yet nobody seriously suggests disallowing them as a RS. FNC is no more biased towards the right than the NYT, CBS, and MSNBC are to the left. Horologium (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

FNC is no more biased the everyone else? Let's just say _that_ I disagree with. Fox is reliable, but remarkably biased. They rarely get facts wrong, but boy do they spin them. NPR is perhaps the closest to the leftward spin, but one gets the sense they try to not be biased. Hobit (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fox News has several components that nobody seems to have mentioned. It has a web site whose reliability can sometimes be solid, along with propagandistic broadcasts that we all know about. It has a Fox Business News channel that is all over the lot. My vote would be that Fox News' reliability needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and must be approached with caution given its recent track record. Figureofnine (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep open The Sherrod case brings a significant new factor to the table in the debate. While it probably won't affect the status quo, it will establish precedent if the case is assessed further.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Open. It takes time for these things to be chewed over. For instance, I just became aware of this thread. And I added a link to this article, which is about Misplaced Pages and which is egregiously false and full of errors. This is not about politics, I don't think. I don't think Fox has any particular animus against the Misplaced Pages, probably. I think what we are looking at here is an organization where the editors and fact-checkers are just giving up, and they are starting to say "what the hell" and print releases they get from outside sources as is (in this case, the outside source is probably people associated with Misplaced Pages Review). At least, it sure looks like this is what is happening. Does anybody have a better explanation? If they did this to us, what else are they doing? We need more time to research this and mull this over. Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close - An ideology-driven waste of everyone's time JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close - Also, if you vote to use Fox on a case-by-case basis, you will be setting WP editors up as evaluating EVERY accepted newspaper, every television station that has ever made a factual error. Eliminating FOX as an RS based on this criteria would mean eliminating the New York Times, NBC, Reuters, ABC,NPR whatever. Bad, bad idea. Chaos, thy name is Misplaced Pages. JuJubird (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close although I wouldn't object to seeing specific discussions about specific programs, particularly opinion programs, which might sometimes be labeled as "news" by the networks. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We're approaching this from the wrong direction

We don't get to decide whether Fox News is reliable or not based on our individual opinions, because there is no way we will ever come to an agreement simply because of our political biases. Given the prominence of Fox News as a news source for many Americans and given the longstanding and not-unjustified skewing of its "Fair and Balanced" tagline, there have got to be academic studies that have looked at this very issue. I certainly imagine that somebody somewhere has asked the question: How often does Fox News make mistakes? How does that compare with other major media outlets? And when they do make mistakes (as they inevitably will), do they issue retractions and corrections? If the quantity of errors is greater than other media outlets and if they don't retract/correct themselves, then they cannot be prima facie considered a reliable source. Is there anyone here who can find such a study? howcheng {chat} 08:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You also have to consider the PR on this. If we rule that Fox is no longer reliable, that is going to be big news and widely reported, so we had better be able to back up that decision with solid facts. howcheng {chat} 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability varies at Fox. As I explained previously, aspects of the Fox News apparatus, such as original reporting on its website, are reliable. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Figureofnine (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A curate's egg, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since academics are rightly or wrongly considered "left wing"; any academic study stating Fox News is an unreliable "right wing" forum would be labeled POV. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if Fox news was in the politicaly poler possition to "left wing". If it were not it would be lableed that surley?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but that might call our source selection into question, if we selected a study on the basis of it arguing something specifically in order to avoid POV issues, if other sources did call Fox right wing. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if some one who is 'left wing' calls something 'right wing' theres a fair chance that the 'right wing' thing is left of the 'left wing' thing.It would be hard to imagine (but not imposible to be sure) to imagine a situation where a 'left wing' accademic (and this idea that all accademics are 'left wing' is a rather borad bursh assumption) (you know the sort if person, leather patches on the sleaves, bnuys the big issue from a news agent, eats Humous) would call a 'left wing' news organisation right wing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't buy the Big Issue in newsagents. I would suggest you are seeing hypocrisy where there is none. Other than that, I think the general point you make is correct. lw wing sources are generally unlikely to be biased in identifying things as rw. In fact, they are likely to be reliable. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, buys the big issue from a street vendor whilst telling his collegue how "important it is that those of us blessed in life with succes should help those unfortunate enough not to have our chances, Ohh and will you and Jocasta be joining us for the African music and cheese festival at the Gastro pub tonight" Bloody intelectuals. Also I am quite happry for us to state that any source were clear political bias can be shown should not be countd as RS. All I am saying is that we aply that to all sources, not just Fox News. We make it a new policy restriction something like "If claer political bias can be shown then a source is not considerd reliabel"Slatersteven (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you see me through my computer screen? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, that’s what all intellectuals look like, its a law or something. Like the fact that all Fox viewers wear string vest and put their bare feet up on the coffee table (strewn with copies of Razzle) to watch Fox whilst beating their children with belts with an Oggaden no.5 hanging from their drooling lips.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual, ha! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• RS - are we trying to become Liberalpedia or to stay Misplaced Pages? It is a reliable source with a basically conservative view, just as the NYT is a reliable source with a basically liberal view and the WSJ is a reliable source with a basically conservative view. You can find errors in all media sources - i.e. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Timothy O'Brian, etc. It doesn't mean that they are no longer a RS. GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Im partialy agree. Not with the sentiment, but with ht idea that all sources (espeicaly media sources) will have a bias. If we no not allow Fox then we should not allow any source htat has a clear political agenda bias.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let's try an evidence-based approach, and look for what other sources say about Fox News. I found some studies of this: "We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News;" "Compared to the CNN audience, Fox News watchers are less likely to follow stories that are critical of the Bush administration but more likely to follow entertainment-based news stories. The findings also suggest that Fox News watchers enjoy news that shares their personal views, while the CNN and network news audiences prefer news that has more in-depth interviews with public officials"; "Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress;" "A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks sought to find out how well informed consumers were about the war. It found that 48% of Americans believed that the US had identified links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, 22% thought that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% thought that world public opinion backed the US going to war on Iraq. As many as 80% of Fox viewers believed at least one of the statements, compared with 71% of CNN viewers; 61% of ABC viewers, 55% each of those who followed the war on either NBC and CNN." Also see news sources, such as this in Newsweek: "Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored."; Miami Herald: "Fox forfeited any expectation of being taken seriously by serious people when it made itself an echo chamber less concerned with reporting news than with affirming the ideological biases of its viewers;" Media Alliance: "Fox News should be seen for what it is, not as a news outlet.". These sources are just scratching the surface. Fences&Windows 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of these sources do not say that Fox is bias; they seem to say its viewers are (or at least less critical). As to political bias I would again say that if Fox is banned as RS so should all the other sources where there has been criticism of political bias (for example the BBC has been both accused of anti-Labour and Anti-conservative, based on which source you use). I am fine with this idea, as long as it applies across the board.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir, were you a bit high when you typed that, or labouring under the handicap of English not being your first language? I was not able to comprehend your post. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No I am dylexic.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice survey of some of the extant materials of the reliability and reputation of the Fox News Channel, Fences and Windows. A few of the sources that you cited also addressed Fox's reputation among the other major news agencies, with publications such as Newsweek and the Miami Herald having voiced criticism of Fox's integrity. That brings up the issue of whether a news agency's reputation among other news agencies is relevant to the overall issue of whether Misplaced Pages can afford to treat Fox News as a prima facie reliable source. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And sorry about the intemperate comment above, Mr. Slater. I thought better of it and struck it out. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And other news sources have similarly been criticized. CBS and NY Times in particular are oft criticized for their bias. As for being respected. What about the fact that FN is now on the front row at the white house? Why is Fox News gaining usage on various media outlets? Why is Fox News oft cited by other sources? Other sources see Fox News as reliable enough that they will take their stories and run with them.---Balloonman 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The seating arrangement of the White House Correspondents Association has nothing to do with journalistic excellence, such as journalistic integrity, ethics, fact checking, neutrality, responsibility, newsworthiness, or editorial oversight. The NY Times won 104 Pulitzer Prizes. Although the Pulitzer doesn't apply to broadcast journalism, how many awards has Fox News won, awards that deal with journalistic excellence, that is. The WP article on Fox News doesn't list any. But it does list Criticism and controversies. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Schroeder: So we should not trust CBS because of Dan Rather's use of fake docs to go after G.W. Bush, the faked gas tank explosion, etc? GregJackP Boomer! 22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the gas tank thing was Dateline NBC back in the late 1980's. And yes, Dan Rather's involvement in the fake documents fiasco was a black eye for CBS, but fired their veteran icon. The distinction being that Fox News does not have the track record of disciplining its reporters for getting it wrong the way other major news agencies do. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly claim that CBS has a "track record" of disciplining its reporters. O'Reilly went on the carpet for it, took the blame, and apologized. The error would have had virtually no consequences had it not been for this administration's actions in relation to it. They jumped the gun by immediately firing her without even giving her a hearing. At least Fox News had planned to have her on TV that evening to give her one. The administration showed their incompetence, and now some liberal-leaning Misplaced Pages editors are looking to find a scapegoat for that incompetence, and not only blame FOX News, but have it declared incompetent. I can't wait to tackle the New York Times and Reuters! JuJubird (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call O'Reilly or Beck objective reliable sources. I have zero doubt that when you look at Foxes commentary shows, that bias and problematic issues arise, which is probably a large part of the reason the PIPA study reached the conclusions that it did. Those two shows are not reliable sources. That being said, the question at hand is not whether or not specific shows on Fox are reliable, but whether or not the entirety of the Fox News can be discarded whole hearted as unreliable. Such a preposal is preposterous and thankfully with the exception of a small handful of people, has not garnered much support. If it were to, then it would again show not a problem with FNC, but rather our sampling methodology. Fox News, despite its biased talk shows, remains per virtually every poll performed the most trusted news network in the country. That is a pure simple fact that nobody can or has disputed.---Balloonman 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to dispute that its viewers (which it seems to have the majority of) consider it a trusted news network, because it simply does not matter what they believe. What matters more, is that in what appears to be a scientific study, FOX viewers were mostly likely to be misinformed, with a whopping 80% holding key misperceptions compared to 23% of PBS-NPR. I can't understand why you keep forwarding the opinion polls as indicative of anything in the face of that. Unomi (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox's viewers having inaccurate beliefs ≠ Fox is inaccurate. You are making a false connection. Horologium (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And that does not prove Fox is any more bias then say The Dailey Mail. All it proves is they might not listen that well to what they hear if they don't like it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I don't dispute Beck or O'reilly being unreliable sources. I don't think anybody here does. If they were ever used as a source, they had best be prefixed with "Per Beck/O'Reilly". But the fact that there are two unreliable OPINION shows are on Fox News does not make EVERYTHING on the channel unreliable.

Plus, in all reality, the discussion isn't on the TV programming, but rather the website. Let's get that clear, this RfC really is not related to the TV programming, but to the reliability of the website. Very rarely do people cite or quote something from a TV program, they are much more likely to goto the associated website and cite the website, so viewership of Fox News Channel is really a red herring.

As for the polls, of course they have merit. Only a fool would believe that the media is without bias. I have never claimed that Fox News is unbiased or 100% reliable---that would be ridiculous. The fact is that all of the major media outlets are biased and cannot be fully trusted. Given that each of the networks/radio stations/newspapers are questioned as for their reliability, the question becomes which news agency do people trust/respect the most? Given that you have to question network reliability, which network do people see as being more reliable? The answer to this has been a resounding "Fox News Channel." The polls don't show that Fox has been the most respected network once, but repeatedly for years over numerous pollsters. It doesn't matter who is conducting the poll, Fox News is consistently viewed as the most reliable source within a sea of corrupt media outlets. CBS, MSNBC and (sometimes) Fox News are viewed as the least reliable sources. So given that each of the networks introduces bias into their reporting, Fox News is perceived as being more reliable than others. The attempt to paint the entire channel with a broad stroking umbrella creates an untenuable position.

As for the single study that has been produced... that in what appears to be a scientific study... it's a smoking gun, but it is not conclusive or final. It is a SINGLE study based upon three questions. Let's repeat that, this is a single study. Even if it were a "scientific study" it's results cannot be viewed as authoritative of final. Seems like you are relying too heavily upon a single study.---Balloonman 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting read Unomi (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some sources about left wing bias in the media, lets ban these as source too.

[This source says that Washington post and Washington Time have been accused of political bias as well as CBC and Fox, so lets ban them all.

This might also make interesting reading which states that the media do have a leftist bias , and deny it. So any news outlets accused in this of bias should not be used as RS (such as CBS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the links as reading the full http code was hard on the eyes, hope you don't mind.---Balloonman 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope thats OK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move, Balloonman. Thanks. (I added whitespace to prevent run on) — Becksguy (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me and not to change the subject, but, just this afternoon I was watching a news program called "America's News HQ" on the Fox News Channel.

Around 12:35 EDT (on August 8, 2010) this show featured a news item titled "Critics say that Department of Defense is denying troops the right to vote this November." Keep in mind that this story was featured on "America's News HQ," which is by all accounts a "straight news" block of time, in contrast to overt "opinion/debating" programs such as hosted by messrs O'Rielly, Hannity, and Beck. The story consisted of a reporter repeating some accusations that overseas troops may be pressured by the government to vote a certain way, or have their ballots not counted. (remind anyone of anything yet?)

Who these "critics" were was never mentioned, nor was any real evidence that this was the case. The reporter then read a few snippets of a denial issued by the Defense Department, prefatory to, get this, said reporter sitting down with the "host" of the show (a rather attractive young blonde) to "discuss" for about ten minutes the horrifying implications of the Pentagon's "denial" of the troops' right to vote, the obvious implication being that the Federal "Machine" (with a Democratic administration at the helm), or the Pentagon, or perhaps even President Obama himself, had an interest in diluting the votes of combat troops since combat troops are more likely to vote Republican.

Keep in mind please that this story was broadcast during a Fox "news" time during the noon hour, and not during one of its popular opinion-based shows! This non-story didn't contain a single verifiable "fact" or "source" in it, but only served as a fabricated platform for the Fox anchor and reporter to alarm the public about some Obama-hatched conspiracy to deny our combat troops (read: born Republicans) the right to vote. Its just little things like that, when repeated all day, every day, that may lead some to question the journalism of Fox News. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note exactly what Fox reported: "Critics say that..." The report does not say that the DoD actually did what the critics are claiming. Fox may have hyped the claims, and given them more air time than we think they deserve, but we have no reason to doubt that the story, as reported, is untrue (ie that "critics" did not make the claims Fox has attributed to them)? Fox remains a reliable source for the statement that "According to Fox News, critics say that...".

Does this mean we have to include a mention of these claims, or even the fact that Fox reported on them? No. We have to remember that WP:RS is not the only policy/guideline on Misplaced Pages. Given the nature of the report (such as the fact that Fox did not tell us who the critics were, or present any additional facts to show that the claims made by these critics have any basis in reality), I would say that mentioning this report by Fox would give both the report and the underlying claim undue weight. But that is a NPOV issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The story consisted of a reporter repeating some accusations that overseas troops may be pressured by the government to vote a certain way, or have their ballots not counted. (remind anyone of anything yet?)

Well, it has reminded me (for one) to look with a jaundiced eye at someone paraphrasing (with no link to a transcript) a purported Fox News faux pas. In fact (with some minimal research), this story has been on Fox's front-burner as an EXCLUSIVE story that commenced (and has been developing) since July 28...and it is NOT the Pentagon they are targeting (as you suggested) but the Department of Justice...

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military By Jana Winter, Published July 28, 2010

Department of Justice Playing Politics?, July 31, 2010

Is the DOJ Failing to Ensure Troops' Voting Rights? By Shannon Bream, Aug 4, 2010

Who these "critics" were was never mentioned,...

Perhaps so (in this segment), but you'll pardon me if I hold out for a transcript on that point as both the progenitor of the story, a former DoJ lawyer (whistleblower?) J. Christian Adams, was identified in at least 2 Fox News segments available here and here, and Senator John Cornyn, co-author of the "Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act" is now pressuring DoJ for answers. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, pardon me, but just a thought. If refusing to name sources is now grounds for dismissal are we to scrub all information that is attributed to persons "who don't wish to be named" now? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Jake inadvertently proved a point I made above. If DaveDon attempted to use the episode as a reference, it would have NEVER been accepted as a reference. Dave saw on August 8th an episode wherein he purports outrageous claims, but nobody can view the episode again. It will probably not be archived in a manner that people can pull it up (Whereas Beck/Oreilly and other opinion pieces are often replayed the "news" segments are unlikely to do so.) Thus, if DaveDon were to attempt to put something into an actual article, then somebody would ask for an actual link to transcripts or some other article. THe person would have to do some research into it to get additional information and those articles referenced by Jake would be the ones cited. This is true for not only Fox, but MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC---the odds of a specific news broadcast being accepted as a reliable source are slim to none. The, real question is can Foxnews.com be accepted as reliable?---Balloonman 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Dave? Horologium (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hes from Hypertheroical, its just outside parrable.Slatersteven (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I used the wrong name.---Balloonman 00:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A touch of humor is always welcome... :-) Thanks — Becksguy (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to think that this issue is just with Fox News's Internet division and not about the reliability of the television news. They report the same things and are part of the same organization. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IOW, journalistic misdeeds don't count if they are not archived online. Interesting viewpoint. Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. Those are YOUR words, not OTHER words...and I don't see anyone, save for you, drawing that conclusion. Nor is there any way to determine (at this point) that "journalistic misdeeds...not archived online" have even occurred (perhaps you can provide an example where "journalistic misdeeds" that would rise to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE have been kept out of this medium?). That being said, and if there's anything to this allegation, I think you can expect that MMfA (who most likely records every nano-second of Fox New's programming) or some other like-minded "watchdog" entity will attempt to capitalize on it.

Interesting viewpoint.

What's more interesting is that you apparently find WP:V/WP:UNDUE to be an "interesting viewpoint". JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Donald Schroeder as to the issue being with both broadcast and online venues. However, I don't see that Balloonman is saying misdeeds don't count unless they are digitally available online. I respect Balloonman and listen to him, even when I disagree. His point is really about source reference accessibility and even more importantly, verifiability. We tend to mostly use online sources on Misplaced Pages due to their ease in locating, quoting, and linking. Which means they are easily verified. As he pointed out, using a broadcast version requires finding a transcript that's verifiable (or maybe a video clip that's verifiable), and that process is significantly harder, and sometimes nearly impossible without going back to the source, because the broadcaster doesn't release them. And if someone else provides a transcript, how do you know it's accurate. As an aside, I remember being involved in a discussion where an editor seriously suggested that dead tree citations be disallowed, so that all citations could be checked online. I can see the frustration in checking books, but if we adopted that, the vast majority of written history would become unavailable. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference with books is that there is the ability to obtain them. For example, when I worked on the Military Brat article, I used a book as one of my main sources. The book is not widely available, but if you wanted to, you could get it through inter library loan to verify it. But yes, the problem with network news is that unless there is a transcript (and there rarely are) then reporting things from CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX is hard to do. Donald may have watched the segment and it may have been exactly as he described. Or I might see things that he didn't (or if we cynically ABF) could be completely different from what he reported. But since I can't retrieve the exact exchange that he says he saw, I couldn't refute/validate it if I wanted to. (The named shows---Beck/Oreilly/etc are a different story.) But I suspect that whenever somebody sees something on TV or hears something on the Radio, they attempt to find a print or electronic medium to cite as the source. Just take a look at some of the major sports trades/news. Jay Cutler in particular comes to mind. When the news of his trade first broke on the radio, people cited the radio program on which they first heard the news. But as soon as reputable websites, which might be the radio station cite, published the story, the spoken announcement disappeared from the article(s) in favor of more reliable sources. TV/Radio news programs are already, by practice, if not deed, already deemed as less reliable sources. Nobody is defending Beck/Oreilly as reliable sources. So the single study by PIPA is more or less a red herring to the real issue. The real issue to which this RfC is attempting to say, is "Can anything with the Fox label be unilaterally discarded as unreliable?" The answer to that is no. We cannot discard the largest, most viewed, most (and admittedly least) respected news agency in America because some people on Misplaced Pages think it is more biased than other news sources. (I agree it is biased, but so too are CBS/ABC/NY Times/Reuters.) A universal ban on everything Fox would be purely political in motivation and short sighted. And would make WP loose a lot of credibility. This RfC continues to be a huge mamouth waste of time and energy.---Balloonman 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting that a Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, who is referred to as "One of the Senate's most conservative members...", at one point called Fox News information "biased". The quote is: The senator continued, telling told the mostly conservative crowd to not be fooled by the "biased" information from Fox News. Source:Coburn: Pelosi is a 'nice lady,' Fox News is 'biased' from the Hill (April 6, 2010), a newspaper written for and about the US Congress. I think everyone will agree that this is not a left wing spin, coming from a conservative source. — Becksguy (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that Fox does not have spin/bias... just as nobody has tried to say taht CBS/REuter/NY Time/NY Post don't have spin/bias. Hell, the Washington Post Ombudsman herself reported that the paper had a liberal bias!---Balloonman 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a list of Fox News smears and distortions as published by Media Matters for America (MMfA), a progressive press watchdog organization that monitors conservative misinformation: Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points in an article dated October 13, 2009. From the lede: "Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for America has compiled a non-exhaustive list -- from this year alone -- documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points." — Becksguy (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh goody...an MMfA "non-exhaustive" list (can you imagine what an "exhaustive list" might look like?)...but isn't that "alleged" smears and distortions? I'm always amused browsing MMfA to see which hyperbolic characterization will decorate each lede of (cough) "research". Do they have a drumfull of these from which they can mix and pick one at random to relieve them of that tedious task? Here's today's smorgasboard...

...fearmongering about same-sex parenting; ...contradicts economists; ...falsely claims; ...falsely claims; ...furthers myth; ...keep funding the virtual fence that doesn't work; ...baselessly smears; ...relentlessly attack; ...absurdly compare; ...silent on who nominated; ...forwards whitewash; ..."favor religious freedom," but; ...falsely portray judge; ...falsely claim; ...advance false attacks; ...rewrites history; ...dress up political attacks; ...falsely suggests; ...hammer teachers, teachers unions; ...distorts...to attack. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, here is a specific item from MMfA. Fox falsely claims Dems are proposing to raise taxes only "on Red States" as reported on August 06, 2010. the MMfA lede is: "Fox & Friends falsely claimed that congressional Democrats are proposing to raise taxes "only in Republican red states." In fact, the year-old proposal discussed on Fox & Friends would lower taxes on areas with a high cost of living, regardless of how they vote, and would include areas represented by Republicans." The Wall Street Journal runs an editorial on August 4th. Fox picks it up via a Washington Examiner opinion piece and runs it as if it was news on Fox & Friends. The bill, H.R.1943, says: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for adjustments in the individual income tax rates to reflect regional differences in the cost-of-living." Fox ran it because it fit their political agenda, it attacked the Democrats and Jerry Nadler, and it adds drama to their news. The original source was an opinion piece from a editorially ultraconservative newspaper, not a news story. That is an example of the disinformation Fox News practices, IMO. — Becksguy (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, we are going to start citing the ultra reliable source MMfA now? Talk about a jaded perspective, but if we really want to get into citing media watch dogs shouldn't we start citing conservative watchdogs as well? As for the MMfA "reporting". Was the Fox News report accurate? More or less. It was definitely tilted, but the facts are that high cost of living states were almost uniformily democratic in the last election---there may be exceptions (like Alaska). And thus, Fox News accurately reported that the bill would favor Blue States, using the term "only" was a definite mistake. IMO they should have reported what the change was and then shown how that change affected primarily Blue States. They went the other way and the anchor used an ill advised word (only), but the bill would benefit primarily Democratic states. Fox News explicitly stated that this was looking at a state by state level and that Republicans and Democrats would be affected based upon the Cost of Living per state. MMfA, however, decided to take another tack. They refuted the Fox News piece not by pointing out Republican States, but rather talked about metropolitans/districts/regions that were republican that would benefit. Areas such as Honolulu, HI, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA, and San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA. Nice little spin there MMfA. Fox reports one thing. MMfA creates a strawman and attacks the strawman.---Balloonman 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Several comments: (1) The original source was a WSJ editorial, not news. (2) Nadler's bill, the "Tax Equity Act of 2009" or HR 1943, actually says that the Federal individual income tax adjustments apply to statistical areas, or if defined metropolitan statistical areas, based on statistical area Cost of Living (COL). (3) The WSJ reframed the tax issue to a state level from a regional (or statistical area) level, and Fox goes along with it, because that distortion suits their agenda. (4) Even if the relationship between Red/Blue states and COL is true (and I really don't know), it doesn't matter, as the bill, if it becomes law, applies to statistical areas, not to states. So talking about the tax affect on states is a politically driven and intentional distortion. (5) State level vs. statistical area level is apples vs. oranges in this case, and the MMfA properly refuted Fox based on factual information at the statistical area level instead of allowing themselves to get suckered into that reframed POV at the state level. — Becksguy (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question What are the criteria that can be applied by Misplaced Pages editors in an objective, neutral manner, to determine if a source on the scale of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. is reliable? patsw (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are those detailed in WP:Identifying reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd that no one cited that criteria in the discussion, because on its face, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC satisfy the criteria. patsw (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly right, which is why this is a problematic RfC. The guidelines already discusses how news sources are generally regarded as reliable, but that with ANY news source we have to weigh the accuracy and suitability of the story. This is true with ANY news source---whether it is the Guardian/CBS/FOX/Israeli News/etc. Once we start disecting individual news sources, we are entering a slippery slope wherein we will have to start making judgments on all news sources because they are all biased.---Balloonman 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying again

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#We.27re_approaching_this_from_the_wrong_direction

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone actually responded with data to howcheng's post at the top of this section? - jc37 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The handful of people who want Fox labelled as unreliable have cited a single study from 2003 and provided anecdotal evidence.---Balloonman 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is TMZ a reliable source?

I checked on American Idol and have reports about Kara DioGuardi's firing from the show, only TMZ confirms it. One user leaked for no words about Fox.

Talk:American Idol#Judges changes

ApprenticeFan 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that given TMZ's tendency towards rumor and sensationalism, it should be avoided, and if used, used with inline attribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, I thought this would be a good opportunity to take a cheap shot at the celebrity culture, but a bit of researching indicates that their standards are pretty high, given what they report.

For example, they posted this at 11:07 pm 12272009, and posted this update less than 12 hours later. I’ve seen newspapers drag their feet longer (not to mention TV networks; see above) and even refuse to correct a story because they say it’s “too minor”.

So I’d say they’re pretty reliable for what they report on. Whether Misplaced Pages should be acting as a breathless RSS feed for celebrity junkies is another question. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that TMZ has enough of a reputation that it could be used, but only with attribution. EG "According to TMZ..." and that it would not be sufficeint to add negative information about a person. This is pretty much how mainstream uses TMZ, "According to TMZ..."---Balloonman 04:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a sufficient source for establishing notability of a topic, nor for adding negative biographic information to an article. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Afaik TMZ tends to be very accurate, but I don't see why we would need to rush to publish the latest celebrity news. This is an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2010 (

People here will tell you that TMZ isn't reliable, or that you should look for another source. I don't know of any policy/guideline based reason for this. TMZ comments on "trivial" matters, which I guess we know when we see. Other than that, they're are super reliable. Editors? Check. Paid writers? Check. Someone to sue if they get it wrong? Check. Used as a source by other reliable sources? Check (quadruple check, really). Cover an area that paper encyclopedia's don't cover? Check. Editors find them distasteful? Check. Hmmm. They're basically reliable, even concerning what they cover, which is BLPs. There isn't any policy based reason to discount them, as far as I know. On the other hand, and in general, if two editors will revert you, you can't get passed 3RR. So, maybe they're IAR unreliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with you, up until those final two sentences. Dlabtot (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I striked them. Too much hyperbole? Check. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The big concern with TMZ is that they are out for the scoop, so while they do have a solid reputation, they are also liable to get things wrong---not necessarily because it is wrong, but rather because it is incomplete and that they do not have th rest of the story, which is why I would prefer to see attribution to them. The fact that other media outlets trust TMZ to run stories of their own is telling about their reliability, but so to is the fact that the other media outlets almost always attribut TMZ. It's basically saying, "We trust you enough to run this, but if your wrong, we're not going to go down on our own."---Balloonman 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"liable to get things wrong---not necessarily because it is wrong" -- That is not a phrase that actually means anything, as far as I can tell. Can you point to instances where they actually did get things wrong? BTW, it is customary for news outlets to attribute stories to whoever reported them, whether TMZ, the LA Times or whoever. That attribution is not in any way an indication of unreliability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen cases where there are developing stories and that the version first reported by TMZ has to be modified---but that is the nature of a developing story. I can't think of specific examples, but they do crop up (just as they do with other media outlets.)---Balloonman 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There track record is very impressive as far as accuracy goes. But, It does seem like other media sources use attribution when using TMZ stuff. I don't know if it's because TMZ was first, so they get the credit. If they don't want to seem as "low brow" as TMZ, or if they are scared the info is incorrect and they're covering their butts. If it's the first or second, then I'm not sure we always need to attribut. If it's the third, well I'm not sure. It may be something else entirely. Anyways, using attribution is probably a good idea for now, even though they're reliable, and not really biased as far as I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of an ad hoc judgement? If it qualifies as an RS according to policy, why would it need to be treated any differently than any other source? Media policy is to always attribute if your own reporters didn't get the story. "Cover your ass" is their default policy for every source, not just TMZ. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I almost always see them attributed, but it's probably just because they broke the story (is my latest thinking). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see what the problem is with using TMZ as a source. They have a staff, an editorial process, and they certainly have a reputation for reporting. Even though the tone of TMZ is different from the tone we use when writing an encyclopedia, that's no reason why we can't cite them for facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• TMZ should be used with caution for breaking news. They've got "news" wrong several times, e.g. . But they have their defenders and are increasingly seen as credible:. Fences&Windows 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be publishing 'breaking' news. From any source. Dlabtot (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the reason for my caveat, 'Whether Misplaced Pages should be acting as a breathless RSS feed for celebrity junkies is another question,' but again, that's another question. And certainly when a notable person dies or some catastrophic event occurs, there's no reason to wait before noting the fact or creating a page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there really is not as bright a line as my comment may have implied. Imagine WP existed at the time, Princess Diana dies in an accident, of course the WP article should be updated to reflect that fact, but need not follow the day to day twists and turns of an ongoing investigation or the tabloid story arcs. But it seems to me that when a news organization is getting 'scoops' or otherwise breaking stories, they are in a way a primary source. When other sources report that organizations scoop - "TMZ.com reported that xyz" - they are reporting more like a secondary source which explains why on a given story broken by TMZ and subsequently reported on by other sources, we would tend to use those. Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dlabdoes have a point there... my main concern with TMZ is when it is covering breaking news... the older articles are IMO fine, my main concern is when they rush to get the scoop.---Balloonman 03:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTNEWS doesn't say anything about imposing a waiting period on news, it just says that breaking news shouldn't be treated differently from other information. We should keep WP as up to date as possible. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:NOTNEWS say at all! I quote: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Please don't make WP:VAGUEWAVEs like that, or you risk misrepresenting the meaning of our policies. Fences&Windows 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a reliable source not sure we should use it often due to what it covers and I'm fine with an in-line "according to TMZ" but they have an editorial staff, real reporters, etc. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Reliable As far as celebrity reporting goes, TMZ is on the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider them reliable on breaking news involving a matter of politics in Great Britain, but when it comes to journalism relating to Hollywood/the entertainment industry, they rarely go public with something that isn't accurate (it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to do so, either). I know it's fashionable to look down on tabloid journalists, but when it comes to Hollywood-related matters, they are vastly superior to traditional news outlets. Case-in-point: the first O.J. Simpson trial, the tabloids (National Enquirer, Entertainment Tonight, etc) had the scoop on every little fact relating to that case before 'respectable journalists' could say 'not guilty'. It was that trial, in fact, which pushed modern news outlets to a more sensational approach - they saw how well-connected and efficient the tabloids were in uncovering and presenting the facts and knew they had to emulate them if they wanted to thrive in the information age.
  --K10wnsta (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Dr Judith Curry in an interview with Keith Kloor on Kloor`s website? Kloor is a professional journalist About Kloor. In particular i want to use the following text in The Hockey Stick Illusion article.

"I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate. While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC. Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument. And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints".

Thoughts? Also per the talk page here could those involved please put INV in front of their posts so uninvolved persons know what`s what, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A link to the actual source you want to use would be helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, is this significantly different from this request? Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes raven, massively different :) sorry i for got the link to the interview mark nutley (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a brand new interview, published yesterday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, and it is an interview not comments lets get that straight right away :) mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to question the need for this, MN. Over half the article and nearly 2/3rds of the references are in the reception section. It's getting UNDUE, you know? Ravensfire (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the concensus of past discussions at WP:RSN is that interviews are acceptable primary sources so long as there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Therefore, I would say this is a valid source for the Hockey Stick Illusion article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point I was making. This is probably an RS for what Curry said, but I haven't looked too deeply. My point is that section really doesn't say too much about the overall reception of the book. Are the reviews generally good? Generally bad? It looks like something you'd find on a publishers page, with line after line of quotes pulled from reviews, most of which essentially say the same thing. At what point is adding another quote from another review just, well, puffery? When does it stop being something encyclopediac and start being a marketing tool? Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire: No, I didn't miss your point. I intentionally ignored it. :) My kidding aside, the purpose of WP:RSN is to determine if a source is reliable. While issues such as WP:WEIGHT and encyclopedic content are valid, they're beyond the scope of this noticeboard. But they can be fixed by possibly removing some of the existing portions of the reception section or reworking each of these items so that they tell us something more unique beyond "I liked this book!". The Synopsis section should also be expanded (assuming we can find sources to use) and the final two paragraphs look like WP:OR to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not RS No, it is not a reliable source because there was no fact-checking. TFD (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know there was no fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In questionable instances, it is required to show that they are reliable, not that they arent. Active Banana (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this questionable? Keith Kloor is a professional journalist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Raven i should like to use this particular piece as it is the first review from a person within that field. I see what you mean by undue and will drop one of the other reviews from the article in favour of this, there are two from booker in there at the moment for instance. mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, that is the nature of an interview. In this case the journalist posed questions in e-mails and Curry replied. Nowhere does he say her responses were edited for accuracy or even grammar. TFD (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD: I don't think Marknutley is intending to use this as a source for a statement of fact, but merely for Curry's opinion of the book. This might be one of those areas where filling out for the four numbered bullet points in the instructions at the top of this page might have been helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalist or not, wouldn't collide-a-scape.com or Keith Kloor need to be notable for their independantly published work to be considered for anything other than claims about themselvesWP:SELFPUBLISH? EDIT to add: That is more specifically stated in WP:ELNO #11. But do we have less of a standard for sourcing than external links? Active Banana (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no requirement that the author be notable. Kloor is a published author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From the about page, he's been an editor at Nature and seems to write in this area often. But ... it's a blog post with an e-mail interview, sparked by reaction to another blog post that was a review of the book. WP:SPS says it needs to be from an established expert in the field, and I don't think he meets that, but he does have work in the field published by reliable sources. It's a bit iffy to me. That said, I think if Ms Curry was misquoted, she'd be able to point that out and it would be hailed on blogs as proof of deception. Haven't seen that. It's not the best source, but probably decent for what Ms Curry says. The bad thing, though, is you do lose the context, that this is in response to a review of the book where things got a bit testy. As written by MN, I would not include the material. Ravensfire (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also an issue of notability, that of Curry. What is she notable for, other than defending the Hockey stick illusion? If her opinions are notable, we should be able to find them in published articles and, more importantly, find support for her views in published articles. TFD (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD:WP:WEIGHT is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but according to our article on Judith Curry, "Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers." Curry's opinions have been published by Newsweek, The Times, Discovery Magazine and many others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Kloor has published in notable locations such as Science and Nature. Although he has written in the news sections and not the papers sections, the latter of which carries far more weight in the academic world, these are still very well respected publications on par with major national newspapers. As he is also an adjunct professor of journalism, one can also reasonably assume that Kloor conducted the interview with Curry with high standards of ethics and professionalism. Therefore, in this case, reliability is not an issue, although weight might be. I'm not going to address that issue. NW (Talk) 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok so we can assume it is reliable, any arguments over weight can be carried out on the talk page of the article. mark nutley (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

L'immensità

For obscure reasons, the reference to this web page has been tagged as a dubious source. Can someone please verify its credibility. Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's non-english might be the issue. English sources are preferred for english language articles. What article is it being used in? --neon white talk 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the policy on Misplaced Pages coverage of minor non-English popular culture? I'm sure a couple of servers could be dedicated to one country alone, much less all the others. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How credible is a source with porn ads on it? Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Show exactly where are the porn ads. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not everybody uses Adblock. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I forget that myself alot. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If this source is NSFW, someone should append "NSFW" to the section header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Italian, I've had a look at the website. It looks like a neat and well researched, even if not strictly professional, database of information on Italian pop songs. It has editorial restriction (i.e. it's not a Wiki or user-made website) even if it acknowledges some contribution as coming from user's suggestion. and for the purposes for which it is used in the article I would say it is reliable enough. --Cyclopia 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable enough"? Who are the editors of this website? Jayjg 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The page provides a list of amateurs who simply personally contribute to the article without explanation of how their respective research was done nor their specific qualification or competencies...Rubikonchik (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC), basically something similar to Misplaced Pages...Rubikonchik (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Crises in the Twentieth Century used at List of wars between democracies reported by User:OpenFuture

Page: List of wars between democracies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Source: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10; discussed as an example where the states confronting each other are similar in government type, in economic status, but not in religion; since Brecher et al. lump common democracy in with other variables, and consider the greatest difference between pairs of states, not the least, there may be others.

Diff or proposed edit: Removal of the First Kashmir War from the list.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#First_kashmir_war

Comments:

The source is being used to claim that the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies. The claim apparently goes like this:

1. . The source says "Accession to democratic India had no appeal to (the Maharajah)", hence the source claims India was democratic.
2. . The source claims India and Pakistan had similar governments, hence Pakistan was democratic.
3. . Hence the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies.

Is that an acceptable reasoning, that makes this a reliable source for the claim that The First Kashmir War was a war between democracies? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• This source is a work of standard reference, widely cited, published by the very respectable Pergamon Press.
• It is the print version of a database, produced by the International Conflict Behavior project, and rather like the POLICY IV database, widely quoted here. Since the database has only 278 lines, one for each crisis, it is possible to publish it in a volume, with commentary, with only a little compression.
• One of the database's classifications is into democracies, civilian autocracies, and military governments. (Since one point in one variable is whether all the regimes concerned are the same type, the detailed classification is abridged)
• The quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". The suggestoins of qualification above are special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Does the quotes really show that? Isn't it your interpretation that is special pleading? After all, you claim that since the Maharajah wasn't appealed by a democratic India, this means the book claims India was a democracy. That sounds doubtful. It might rather be a hint that the Maharajah wasn't particularly interested in democracy. And then, since the book gathers that the governments was similar, therefore Pakistan must have been a democracy as well. That if anything sounds like special pleading to me.

So please, I'd like some other opinions on that. Is this kind of logic acceptable as interpretations of a source, and can this be regarded as a reliable source for the claim that India and Pakistan were democracies in 1947? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK source one does not say India was a democracy, just that some one did not like the idea that India would become a democracy. Source two says that both countries had similar governments, it does not say that eitehr were dmocratic, nor what it means by similar governments. There is a definate element of synthasis here. I would susgest finding a better source for democracy in thses to coiuntires.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's actually the same source, so I don't know if it's synthesis or not. But that's not really important. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question... I agree that the source is being used to form an improper synthesis... but I am not sure why this is an issue. Is someone claiming that either India or Pakistan was not a democracy at the time of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947? (AFAIK, both had achieved independence prior to the outbreak of the war, and both had democratic constitutions). Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZBs0HdpKuaQC&pg=PA125&dq=pakistan+democracy&hl=en&ei=eyJcTJ-9DcuFsAaW2sGZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20democracy&f=false say that during the period of the war Pakistan was governed by the 1935 government of India act. It also says that Pakistan did not infact pass a consitution until 1956.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, when you ask for input on reliable sources, it would be helpful if you provided the name of the publisher, which in this case is Pergamon Press and considered to be reliable unless reasons can be provided why this book is not. Whether or not it can be used to back up the claims in the article is a different issue, and this is the wrong forum for that discussion. TFD (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you are the only one on all of Misplaced Pages that thinks that "reliable source" stands and falls with the publisher and the publisher only. :-) I don't see how it's the wrong forum, but you are welcome to suggest one that you think fit better. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS: " Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.... For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources." The assumption is that the book is a reliable source and if you wish to challenge that you need to provide evidence that it is not reliable. Have disciplinary actions been taken against the writer for falsification of facts? Has Pergamum withdrawn the book and apologized for publishing it? TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you did not suggest a better forum. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I assume your silence om the topic is because there is no better forum. In my opinion you have misunderstood both this forum and WP:RS, probably because you read it selectively. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the input. I think the consensus is clear, the source can not be used to support the statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consult an opthalmologist, OF. The responses you got were as follows:

• PMAnderson - it's a reliable source
• Slatersteven - thought it was two sources, due to you not formatting the request correctly
• Blueboar - wondered why it was an issue, because they obviously were both democracies (he also thought it was two sources, following Slatersteven)
• TFD - said that Pergamon Press was a reliable source, and this was the wrong venue for discussing whether the source supported the statement

I recommend that under no circumstances should you attempt to represent the outcome as a consensus that the source cannot be used to support the statement. Go back to the talkpage - that is the correct forum for content disputes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Blueboar clearly concluded that it did not support the statement. That Blueboar thinks that India and Pakistan are democracies at this time is irrelevant, the question is of *this* source supports it, which he agrees it does not. TFD did not offer an opinion on that question, and Pmanderson is the one making the unsupported claim in the first place, so he is not the outside input that was needed.

So of the two extra opinions I got here, both said the source did not support the statement.

(And your continued uncivility doesn't help your case. Please stop it.) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My point was that a there is something going on here that looks like (and would be if more then one source was involved) synthesis. What is going on is OR, the source does not explicitly stated that Pakistan was a democracy. It a kind of synthesis (fact a is supported by sources, fact b is supported by source so I see fact C). Even if we accept this as anything other then OR (and I fail to see how we can) Fact A (that some one did not like the idea of India being a democracy) does not support the assertion that the source says India was in fact a democracy, and so cannot be used to claim that fact b (Pakistan had the same form of government) means that Pakistan was a democracy, the source does not make that claim for India. (Previous unsigned comment by User:Slatersteven)

Reliable source for employment statistics

Comments would be appreciated on this discussion regarding whether an Institute for Public Policy Research or an Office for National Statistics source is better for employment statistics on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? I know the discussion is a bit long, but we could really do with outside input. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Without delving into the discussion, wouldn't it be fair to say that official sources such as the ONA are generally the most reliable for employment statistics? Figureofnine (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my point but another editor was saying they were skewed, despite using official definitions of the employment and unemployment rates. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also agree that the official sources such as the ONS are generally the ones to use for employment statistics. Codf1977 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the intervention of an editor not previous involved in editing the article, we are now using ONS figures. Thanks for your comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The ONS would generally be considered the most reliable source for employment statistics in the U.K. Jayjg 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz

I'm bringing this here in courtesy to try to help resolve a stalemate. I don't think I should weigh in myself because of how I found out about the dispute, but I can certainly ask you good people to do so. :)

The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz, which has recently been challenged in several articles. See and . Not one, but two threads have been opened at WikiProject album (the active one is here; the other was a later but failed attempt to get feedback here), but they haven't brought wider participation.

Opinions to help establish consensus and resolve the stalemate would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also brought it up recently here. Dan56 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know for sure that really is Russ Elevado? Forums are generally frowned on. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So we're going based on the assumption that the user on that forum is actually the guy, right? Probably a silly question, but it would be very easy for someone to register a fake username and pretend to be someone. Anyway. WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Elevado has done work in the relevant field, and he was there when this specific song was recorded, so he has a firsthand account.

In terms of citing the text on the actual pages: I personally am okay with the text on The Root. It's particular to the song and actually explains how the song was produced. What I don't agree with is its inclusion Voodoo (D'Angelo album), mostly because the text is mostly the same. There's no reason that the text needs to be replicated in both places; the song is notable enough on its own, so I'd think the text belongs there so as to give a whole explanation of the song. I'm curious to what other people think about this one. — HelloAnnyong 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Voodoo article, this edit shows another discussion with Elevado from Gearslutz. Dan56 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that when they wrote "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." they meant that its OK to include the writings of these so called experts found on many public forums to give reference or support to knowledge or events that took place, etc, and much less to discuss anecdotal *history* (whether interesting and relevant to an article or not) involving other living people. Matter of fact, if we are going to start using the opinions and stories found on millions of web forums and blogs we will be creating problems of verifiability and WP wont be regarded like an encyclopedia anymore. I believe when they wrote the exclusion "....published by reliable third-party publications" they meant it. Is Gearslutz reliable third party source now?? That's the question ya should ask. Mind you the key word is public forum not *personal blog or forum" which in this case is not. If Gearslutz is a reliable source then it would be most likely the result of notability and if so, then why its article was deleted?? My position is if we are gonna use the forum gearslutz as a reliable source now then let me bring back the Gearlutz article i wrote. Jrod2 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't rolling back the rule that forums aren't reliable. This is a judgment based on one specific set of circumstances. What applies here doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. And again, what I wrote above was just one opinion, and I wouldn't go rolling back the edits on the article until some form of consensus has been formed here. — HelloAnnyong 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that. But you gotta ask yourself, why do we need info from public forums?? Like you said, anyone can open up an account and pretend to be somebody else, especially at Gearslutz, so why chance it?? This is the main reason why public forums aren't reliable sources. Bsides, if the info is a well known fact then we would find it on less controversial sources or on major reputable more reliable sites. Jrod2 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree with that. Everything I wrote, though, was predicated on the fact that the poster on the forums is the actual guy. If it's not him, and it's actually a hoax, then of course it shouldn't be included in the article. But if it is him, then the text may be acceptable - in this one particular instance. — HelloAnnyong 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo, I actually believe is him, but what i think has nothing to do with it. I also get all that whats written on that link ya posted on your answer but its an essay not a guideline, much less a policy. So you gotta take it with a grain of salt. The principle Im referring to is if we are gonna be using public forums to add content and support all that stuff up, then we're gonna have a lot of problems with verifiability and more vandalism than ever. We wouldnt be even having this discussion if this was his personal blog and i wouldn't even have cared to have that content on WP. But, determining the id of the author on a public forum is at best an *assumption* and the rationale should be not allowing non-encyclopedic content to zip thru WP. Its also better for The Wikimedia Foundation in terms of preventing too many OTRS issues. Jrod2 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The concept behind the "experts" exemption to WP:SPS is to allow citation to a blog or a personal webpage that is clearly authored by the expert in question. A posting on an open forum like Gearslutz does not qualify. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; my opinion was predicated on the assumption that it really is him writing the forum post. But since it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's him, then it shouldn't be allowed. — HelloAnnyong 15:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not RS, rather obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

His official website has the link to his Gearslutz account here at the links section, which leads to his discussions at Gearslutz. Hope that clarifies anything. Dan56 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, a forum is not a reliable source for claims like this. We do not investigate which forum posts are made by which people, and choose those we believe are valid. Looking at the matter another way, if the issue is sufficiently interesting to record in an encyclopedic article, there will be a better source. Misplaced Pages should not be used to lavishly document every snippet of information relating to a topic – that's what personal websites are for. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wheter its "sufficiently interesting" is disputable. I mean, some interesting and notable info on the album's production was provided by Elevado's Gearslutz posts. That the producer decided to only post this information on a forum, and it was him (check his profile on Gearslutz and his website's link section), doesnt seem relevant to a piece of information's notability. Like User:HelloAnnyong said previously, "since it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's him, then it shouldn't be allowed", but the links at his website and the contact info at his profile on Gearslutz show that it is him. But if the issue goes further than just whether its him or not, then perhaps the source shouldnt be allowed. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why were are always discussing things like this. Logic comes into play here. A forum is never acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages because it is never going to be a WP:reliable source. Anyone can appear on the forum and post anything. Imitation is very much a possibility. I really don't see this a need for discussion. Forms are not reliable. Additionally forums have administrators that have the power to modify posts... To have a massive discussion about such a source just shows how contentious it is. If it came down to a vote mine would be a catagorical no based on the current evidence provided. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you why we are always discussing this: it's because discussion is often merited. I have used discussion boards, bulletin boards such as this, to back up certain specific facts in articles, always with an eye to accuracy. The author of the bulletin board entry must be reliable or else the entry is not usable. Some bulletin boards are very particular about members using their real names, or very particular about hosting serious discussions. One such bulletin board is the Live Audio Board, aka LAB, started by Dave Stevens in 1999, now hosted by ProSoundWeb. PSW also hosts R.E.P., a forum for professional recordists. I just counted 55 articles on Misplaced Pages that used PSW bulletin board entries somewhere in the article. Gearslutz is not used as often here, probably because its members hide behind their usernames. Some don't, though: famed Michael Jackson recording engineer Bruce Swedien wrote a few entries about MJ recordings on Gearslutz. I count these as reliable as magazine interviews.

Since Russ Elevado's homepage collection of links includes a link to gearslutz.com called "My Q&A section at gearslutz", I think we are clear to assume that Russ Elevado on gearslutz is Russ Elevado for sure. Anything he says on that forum can be used as an expert opinion. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be focused on facts not a loose interpretation of guidelines and essays. What are we discussing here?? The inclusion by an editor of some anecdotal content, nothing more. Check. We assume it's a good faith edit. Check. What was some of the text about?? For one, R. Elevado recorded C. Hunter's guitars on D'Angelo's Voodo album and split the guitar's bass strings to be recorded in separate tracks (at least that's what i got). Check (harmless enuff IMO). The self-published source is Gearslutz, a public forum, yes but with a particular sub-forum that is reasonably verified and accepted as belonging to the author of the self-published material. Check. Here is the problem, Yo: the material relates to other living people. Misplaced Pages has a clear policy on "content" regarding "verifiability". One that says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I thought all of you already knew this, apparently not. When Elevado stated that Hunter used a special guitar for that song/album, he is talking 'bout a living person. What if Hunter doesn't want that information be known?? Thats the main reason why we need to avoid using the encyclopedia to write about non-encyclopedic content. Or to as one user put it, make it a "lavish" collection of loose short stories. Misplaced Pages is not a text book. Aight, in this example, if I am Hunter and dont wanna have that info known, I would write WMF or go to our OTRS asking that info be removed right away. You dont even know if hes aware of that info and approves of it. Some of you are only thinking about this one edit instance, not in the big picture. We need to keep the amount of OTRS issues down not up, my brothers. This type of editing also encourages nothing but more edit disputes and vandalism. And all for what?? Isn't it good enuff that info be known at gearslutz?? If it's a big deal we should find it on his site or a mag interview. (I bet there's one) But anyhoo, why do we need it here??. The problem is in our policies and guidelines as well. In this present state, the material R. Elevado wrote at Gearslutz fails our policy on content (WP:V) so it shouldnt be used at all. Anything similar to this case that is also referenced thru other public forums should be avoided and if some editors feel its appropriate, the existent content should be removed from the main space right away.

Solutions: One possible solution is to modify guidelines to exempt sites like Gearslutz, though i believe it would be a tough sell. Another is to bring back the article on this forum Gearslutz which was deleted for lack of notability. This way the site would be considered from now on as a reliable third party source. This wouldn't mean that anything said on that site could be used to verify truth (all criteria on verification would still apply) but at least it would be used to verify some exceptions like in the case of R. Elevado. Another solution is to remove the names of all living people so that only the description of the recording process remain, that way is up to the readers to look at the personnel's section of an article or at the reference source to figure it all out by themselves. One more solution is to simply keep the content but remove the forum's reference and tag the article for lack of verifiable citations. If none of these solutions can be used, then delete the content and keep the status quo. Thats it, I am done done here. Jrod2 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another is to bring back the article on this forum Gearslutz which was deleted for lack of notability. This way the site would be considered from now on as a reliable third party source. Having an article on Misplaced Pages has no relation to whether something is a reliable. source. Dlabtot (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, so thx. In this particular case I was talking 'bout giving extra support to the use of this site as a reliable source (to prevent more edit disputes). Although something notable isnt necessarily reliable, we have some clarifications when it comes to online businesses and for the most part *Notability* goes hand in hand with *verifiability*. See: "Information on Misplaced Pages must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." (WP:N). Think of these guidelines as the same rationale we use to include for example sites like NBC.com or Billboard.com (very notable and reliable). Another use is to include sites like Sweetwater Sound (not so notable but reliable and with great reputation). Jrod2 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz is not a reliable source and never will be no matter how creatively one reads our policies. Comparing it with NBC or Billboard is ludicrous to say the least. Dlabtot (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)^

Thats because its mainly a public forum and like user -OpenFuture said that we frown upon public forums. I never said Gearslutz was comparable to NBC.com or Billboard.com as music news channels, I used that to point out why we perceive notable sites as reliable sources, if they weren't notable we probably wouldn't use them as reliable sources. Never say never, we can always change the guidelines and policies with consensus. AFAIAC, the more clear the guidelines the less "creative" policy reading on talk pages. Jrod2 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means, attempt to change the guidelines and policies. Go to their pages and be WP:BOLD or go to their talk pages and attempt to make your point. At least then you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time on this noticeboard with your excessive and repetitive verbiage. Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people. Jayjg 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

...except when the living person is the author of the forum post, and the autobiographical claim is non-controversial. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but apparently the postings are about more people than just the author of them. Jayjg 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The information than can be incorporated w/such a source should concern only the author then. Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, no. Public forums are not considered reliable sources. They are user generated content with no editorial oversight. In the case of R. Elevado and other engineers who volunteer their time to these blogs or public forums, information should only be used in a case by case basis (e.g. upon verification that their personal web sites link to their forums) but the content ya intended to use violates WP:BLP. Jrod2 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How do u know the content intended to use? In light of this discussion, the content will obviously be limited to Elevado and not his account of others. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Aight then...now that you've become an expert on what kinda content not to add with reference to those public forums, lets motion to close this discussion. Jrod2 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Found other citations for third-party accounts, and since it seems reasonable to have the forum posts for only Elevado's own work/actions??, I left that only for that. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, gearslutz is definitely not usable for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How blunt. Dan56 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz is usable for the purpose of citing the author's claims to his individual actions, and noone elses. Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The content supported by the Gearslutz citation, which was already removed by Jrod2 from The Root and Voodoo (D'Angelo album), is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy on using the subject as a self-published source. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, Dlabtot, Johnuniq, Lil-unique1, Jayjg and me are not convinced that open public forums are WP:RS, that's our main issue. The other issue is that you wanted to add content that violated WP:BLP which ya now have found a video at Red Bull Music Academy as another reference source...but it still violates IMO WP:BLP...Regardless, ya still have a problem with the first issue anyways and FYI, I didn't delete content only the links to the forum. Jrod2 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of those users posted comments before the authorship was cleared up. Second, if u have a problem with both sources, why werent they questioned during the articles assessments? And third, you started removing the sources and having a problem with Gearslutz. And FYI, thats what I said, "the Gearslutz citation"/link to forum. Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan56, please stop beating on a dead horse. Many editors here have explained to you why the content you initially intended to add was not appropriate per WP:BLP and public forums are generally not WP:RS.That is Misplaced Pages policy. If you don't like it then please attempt to get consensus to change this policy. You could start at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), which is one of our resources to have policies discussed.Jrod2 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Postings to a forum are not 'Self-published' unless made by publisher of the forum. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people.

...except when the living person is the author of the forum post, and the autobiographical claim is non-controversial. Dan56 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such exception in WP:SPS, and continuing to falsely assert otherwise could be considered disruptive. It's not self-published. It's not a reliable source. It's not usable for citations on Misplaced Pages. Dlabtot (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an exception concerning such material. It is self-published. Elevado put it into print himself on the posts to the forum. His forum posts are significant to Elevado discussing his work; Google his name and the posts are one of the first links, and his official website's Links section offers the Q&A Gearslutz link first. This may be trivial, but it shows that his posts contain his "expertise" and information on such topics as the articles Voodoo and The Root. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No there is no such exception to WP:SPS which I suppose is why in making this false claim you linked to a different policy. Please stop disrupting this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I got that link from your link wise guy, where it says "see WP:BLP#Reliable sources" at your link "WP:SPS". Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind you this discussion is geared towards finding out whether Gearslutz is RS or not, and it was requested by Moonriddengirl‎ not me. The opinions and conclusions from consensus override, as Dlabtot put it, any creative interpretation of our guidelines by you. Jrod2 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Moonriddengirl stated "The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz", not finding out whether Gearslutz is RS or not. If it was, it would be clearly against, a forum is not generally reliable. But its circumstantial in this case, as the main concern has been the post(s) by Elevado in regards to the Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root articles. Otherwise, I wouldnt care, respectively. Dan56 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided

I'm hoping to get a handle on the consensus emerging from the conversation above.

Those who seem to feel the source is usable, at least in some circumstances, include User:HelloAnnyong (who opines that if the poster is an expert and the poster's identity can be verified, the content is usable (eta), but only in discussing the poster himself); User:Jayjg (with the caveat that it cannot be used to support claims about living people eta only to support statements about the poster himself, if the poster can be verified);User:Binksternet (who notes specifically to this situation that Elevado's identity as the poster can be verified and agrees that it can be used to support information only about the living person who wrote it), and User:Jrod2 (who also notes that Elevado's identity is confirmed, but who also feels that nothing Elevado says that directly relates to other people can be used). User:Dan56, who originally used the material, seems at this point to agree that the source is usable for citing the author's claims to his individual actions (since his identity is verifiable), but nobody else's.

Those who seem to feel the source is not usable are User:Blueboar (who feels that the "experts" exemption was not meant for this situation); User:Dlabtot (who strongly believes it is unreliable under any circumstances); User:Johnuniq (who says if material is noteworthy, it will be published elsewhere as well); and User:Lil-unique1 (who fears both impersonation and modification of the material by administrators). (ETA) And User:Jrod2, whose opinion has altered in the course of this conversation.)

Please let me know if I have misunderstood your perspective. (ETA: Every contributor mentioned here has been notified of this summary.)

At this point, we don't seem to have clear consensus, and that would be particularly valuable to get in this circumstance as User:Dan56 is quite a prolific and good content contributor, with many GAs under his belt. Making the consensus here clear to him will undoubtedly inform his future contributions...and accordingly Misplaced Pages's future album-related GAs. :) His confusion is understandable, I think, given that Voodoo (D'Angelo album) included this content at the point it passed its GA review in September 4, 2008. I trust that he will abide by clear consensus whatever it is, once it's been established. --Moonriddengirl 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I read too much into the source. Since it's a BLP concern, if the source is accepted it should be used only to back up claims made about the guy himself - stuff he did, etc. Text about other people should not be sourced to the forum, I think. — HelloAnnyong 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thx Moonriddengirl for your usual excellent work, big up...this time arbitrating this content dispute. I don't believe and never did that using sites like Gearslutz (public forums) are good for WP, whether the self-published material by an expert relates to living people or not. We shouldn't encourage editors that like to read stuff up from forums to come here to re-post them. My main rationale is, if its relevant or important, we would find it on RS less controversial sites. My second rationale is that as a WP:CVU member, I believe that if we make it a clear policy (without any gray areas) to reject public forums per WP:RS, we'll avoid lots of bad faith edits, vandalism, sock-puppetry, peeps complaining at the WP:OTRS and the unnecessary use of this notice board. Jrod2 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, this means that HelloAnnyong supports caveats against using the source for other living persons and Jrod2 no longer believes the source is usable under any circumstances, in order to avoid more widespread use of forums. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, ya got it Moon...the other issue is if per WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" can apply to public forums and other unreliable sources, why shouldn't it apply to videos whose authors are also unknown?? Jrod2 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The video is hosted by the Red Bull Music Academy. I believe they're probably reliable. If you want to question that, it's probably better to open a separate section than to risk distracting from the specific point of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My statement is that it is a WP:SPS, and can only be used as such. Therefore, if the author of a post can be positively identified as the author of a post, that post can be used for non-controversial claims about the poster, nothing more. Jayjg 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Both sides of this disagreement are hoping to improve the encyclopedia: one side wants to include up to date and interesting information sourced to what appears to be a confirmed identity posting in a forum; the other side wants a strict interpretation of WP:IRS so that forums are never considered a reliable source for information in articles. I am firmly in the latter group and repeat that it is not satisfactory for editors to investigate which forum posts are made by which people, then choose those which appear "genuine". I am concerned about the alarming precedent that would result from relying on some forum posts – those which an editor believes are genuine and useful. When posting in a forum, people often use shortcuts, or omit key words (writing "X is good" when what they meant was "X is not good"), or occasionally make provocative remarks that are not at all typical. So even if the author can be verified, and even if we are confident that a forum moderator has not edited the remarks, use of forum material could easily conflict with due weight. A key point of an encyclopedia is that information should be based on secondary sources where some calm analysis and reflection has occurred, as well as editorial correction. While it may be nice for our articles on cultural identities to include the most comprehensive collection of everything that the person believes or has done, that is not possible because most of the material would be unverifiable using the same degree of reliability that is required for general articles. Imagine articles on politicians if we started using material posted in blogs or forums. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Elevado's account is a primary source though. Dan56 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Manolith.com

A reviewer at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2 questioned the reliability of Manolith.com. Judging by WP:Reliable sources, I thought it was. Does it pass? Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Absent some argument as to why it would be RS, I would say no. But all the facts in that article are sourced to Box Office Mojo, anyway. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So it is reliable enough to use on Misplaced Pages? Just not the most reliable source? I was thinking of using this entry from that site about the film's ability to make men cry. A little about that is already in the Titanic (1997 film) article (in the Commercial analysis section), but I wanted to add a little more (from this piece). Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. It's just some blog. Titanic doesn't feature on a new poll by the BBC Magazine on this very topic: MSNBC beg to differ though: Seeing how reliable sources do discuss this, don't scrape the barrel with Manolith, just search more for decent sources. Fences&Windows 02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

associatepublisher.com

Is this a reliable source. Editor User:Mike R has removed it twice claiming it is a wiki mirror, I see no evidence for that claim. Justin talk 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Justin talk 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone else is curious, this page of the same source (the list of ethnic slurs, in case it is deleted from here and the mirror) has mirrored a WP deletion tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PMA is correct, that source is a mirror of WP and can`t be used mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It clearly states at the bottom of the page that the content comes from wikipedia, it's not a reliable source in any form. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar V. McKnight

Is this ] RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:09, August 7, 2010

It's a book written by an author who's active in that realm (per the press page, he's a religion professor) and published by an actual publisher, so unless I'm missing something, yes. Why was it called into question? — HelloAnnyong 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See ] As far as I can tell he has not been rejected persee, just mthat a requirment has been made to prove he's RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Iran Terror

Is http://www.iranterror.com/ a reliable source? This page is being used in an article for biographical details. Jayjg 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The website's director, Abolhassan Mojtahedzadeh, has not signed the page, and there is no author information. No sources are given, no footnotes. The text may be as accurate as far as Mojtahedzadeh can ascertain, but we do not know how Mojtahedzadeh learned of this, what source he had, or even if he wrote (or signed off on) this particular biographical page about Saeed Emami. Not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an advocacy site, so probably not a good source unless used for opinions and facts about the organisation. Fences&Windows 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for Malcom X

I am ignorant on the topic Malcom X however this paragraph raised WP:REDFLAG for

"Living in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and steering prostitutes. According to biographer Bruce Perry, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money. In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite. Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived. In Boston a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm. No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters. >

This entire paragraph is cited only with Bruce Perry's book

Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America.

The final sentence is: No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.

Which Raises REDFLAGS to me. I really dont care either way whether he was Bisexual or not but this smells funny, and I am not the first to note this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I struck a portion of the preceding message which quoted the article twice. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry's biography is the most thoroughly researched book about Malcolm X that has been published. Perry interviewed more than 400 people who knew Malcolm X, and he's the first biographer who has questioned the veracity of the account of Malcolm X's life in The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Perry's book is also controversial, for several reasons. First, Perry uncovered information at odds with Malcolm X's own account of his life. Second, Perry published stories, such as the ones at issue, that were not previously known. Finally, Perry's psychobiographic approach seems determined to infantilize Malcolm X and trace every one of his major adult actions to a childhood trauma.

Perry's sources for the same-sex sexual experiences are friends of Malcolm X, often men who took part alongside him. There has been considerable discussion on the article's Talk page (and in the archive) about whether and how to include this subject, and how to refer to the fact that no other biographers have mentioned it. (For what it's worth, no major biographies of Malcolm X have been published since Perry's.)

I think Perry's book can be accessed via Amazon. I can provide small excerpts as well. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

removed the stricken text thanx for pointing it out, I saw the discussion and it still bothered me so i brought it here. You make a very well articulated defense for the book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable Biographies / Encyclopedia of World Biographies

Is this a reliable source for biographies? ("Encyclopedia of World Biography"). Is this a wikipedia mirror? --Ragib (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not a Misplaced Pages mirror, for ex Michael Dell's bio is differnt from that of Misplaced Pages's ( even 2004 revision). However, the references in the encyclopedia look pretty out-dated: for ex: checking the dates of external links ("Web sites")and "For More Information" have older dates, in think the latest being ca.2004-2005 or so. So probably they have put the old encyclopedia online(?) --TheMandarin (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's run by a company called Advameg, but I can't find much about them. They publish other "encyclopedia" websites: Misplaced Pages does cite some of them: (that's only those that say "Advameg"). I'd avoid it, we have no idea who they are. Fences&Windows 22:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

L'immensità revisited

There is trouble on the page with a youtube link used as reference and an editor keeping to remove the "unreliable source?" tag. I cannot find the policy that explicitly forbids youtube as a reference. Could someone point it out for me. Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one. WP:VIDEOLINK is an essay explaining our guidelines on this. Fences&Windows 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a rule against linking to copyright violations, however. See WP:LINKVIO. Fences&Windows 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New Communities, Inc., and the CMT movement

It is alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the BLP section Resignation of Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod that Shirley and Charles Sherrod were among early pioneers of the Community Land Trust movement in the US. The citation for this was originally The Yellow Springs News, a weekly local paper from the area where the University is located where Shirley Shirrod was awarded her masters for her research on such collective farms. Is the YSNews a reliable source? Note that a citation to an academic essay has since been added to the YSNews ref. Does this help? (See also New_Communities#The_Model_for_Community_Land_Trusts.) The applicable talkpage discussion is here. Any editors' input is appreciated.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I now see that the YSNews website's "about" page says, "In 2007, the News won first place, or the general excellence award, in its size category at the Ohio Newspaper Association annual contest for weekly papers. In 2008, the News won first place in editorial writing, feature writing and original columns, along with awards for in-depth reporting, special editions and advertising."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This all seems well sourced, I see no reason to challenge any of it. Fences&Windows 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonably reliable, keeping in mind it is a weekly paper. Please note, though, that many, many of these kinds awards are handed out each year. These are awards from the Ohio Newspaper Association, so the competition is limited, and they're further segregated by "weekly papers" and "size category". On top of that, awards are handed out in multiple categories. As a result, I think it would be unusual for an Ohio newspaper not to win at least one of these awards in some category or other each year. Jayjg 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP is mischaracterizing the dispute. Nobody is disputing that Shirley and Charles Sherrod are land trust pioneers. The OP is attempting to use the local weekly as a reference to say that Shirley Sherrod was intimately involved in the land trust activity of the 1960's, which is not supported by a single reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for her co-founding of the New Communities trust, a fact with multiple reliable sources, and which was already in the article.Jarhed (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Please note that the text Jarhed appears to hold in contention, to the contrary, does merely state that Mrs. Sherrod was a land trust pioneer that co-founded N.C. in '69.

Here is the text currently disputed, in full:

In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.<RuralDvlpmtOrg><CNN> According to scholarship by land trust activists Susan Witt and Robert Swann, New Communities' founding in 1969 by individuals such as the Sherrods connected to the Albany Movement<SmallTownPpr> served as a laboratory and model in a movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.: "The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country."<AcademicPpr>

Located in Lee County, Georgia, the 6,000-acre project was the largest tract of black-owned land in the U.S.<RuralDvlpmtOrg> The project soon encountered difficulties.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a much-edited version, but I am still waiting for an RS for the fact that Shirley Sharrod helped pioneer the land trust movement (whatever that is) in the US.Jarhed (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

<nods> OK. Jarhed, I add the in-line cite for the "land trust pioneers" assertion, just now, with this edit.

Peace?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I request that we return this dispute to the talk page and stop bothering the editors on this noticeboard.Jarhed (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Above Jarhed states, quote, Nobody is disputing that Shirley and Charles Sherrod are land trust pioneers. Now that is exactly what he disputes. Whether this is more a personality conflict or more a conflict about RS guidelines, in either case, I ask for the noticeboard's third-party, reasoned input, as sort of an intervention, if possible, within the dispute(s?) between Jarhed and myself.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything, I am asking you to provide a reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Sherrod was recently involved in a widely reported US political dispute. The OP is attempting to use The Yellow Springs News, a local weekly, to assert the following fact in Shirley Sherrod's BLP: In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S. This is a notable fact that would have been reported by the national press if it were true. On the talk page discussion, the OP refuses to remove this poorly cited controversial fact from the BLP, and he claims that he was told right here on this noticeboard that his citation was deemed ok. If anyone can help with this, I would be grateful.Jarhed (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, RSers: please.

Indeed: the reliable source of Yellow Springs News uncontroversially credits Sherrod with the status of a land trust pioneer . This was certainly no case of relying on some haphazard fluff piece that made some unsupportable fringe assertion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sherrod is *a* land trust pioneer, a fact that is not controversial by virtue of her co-founding with her husband of New Communities in 1969. Your edit, on the other hand, says that she helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., a much more expansive and certainly controversial statement, one that needs not one but several reliable sources, *especially* for a BLP, and so far you have been unable to provide any. This is about the 10th time I have tried to explain this to you.Jarhed (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for being specific in your contentions, Jarhed. I can fix that. Cheers.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done (in this edit). Good suggestion, Jarhed. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit failed to provide a reliable source for the assertion. Once again, please provide a reliable source or revert.Jarhed (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Springs News is the RS for the (as you said) non-controversial assertion: already attached.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where I said that, in any case, there are numerous reliable sources for Sherrod as the co-founder of New Communities, any one of which are fine. In addition, please provide a reliable source for Sherrod being a pioneer of any kind. Otherwise, please revert as original research.Jarhed (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I am generally ok with Yellow Springs News being used as a source for the characteristics of New Communities. It absolutely may not be used for anything regarding the Sherrods. There is a ton of recent RS data about them, and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to confine your BLP updates to these (in addition, this is BLP policy). While I don't think anybody will argue with you about the Sherrod's being civil rights "pioneers", that is a controversial statement, and I would appreciate it if you would confine your BLP updates to the facts contained in reliable sources. Find one and we are good to go.Jarhed (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed oblique reference to the Community Land Trust group (that Albany was the pioneering prototype for) and put in its place reference to the Sherrods's being among generic " land collective activists," adding 2 refs.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Niburu collision - anyone in the mood for a clean-up?

Nibiru collision uses sources like Geocities, Zetatalk.com, and Badastronomy.com, documenting a popular delusion. I don't have an appetite to clean it up myself, and there are probably a few fine-tuning judgment calls to make, so I'll just mention it here if someone is interested. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, badastronomy.com is run by Phil Plait, a recognised astronomer and skeptic. I'd personally class him as reliable, especially as he's written or co-written about 20 peer-reviewed papers on the subject of astronomy. Sceptre 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue of restricted/paid access to source

I seek your views of an issue I am discussing at User talk:Dyanega#Problem citation. The citation(s) in question are accessible at this site—but only to paid subscribers. I have the greatest respect for the editor(s) who have posted the sources, but there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such sources. However, in the interests of transparency, I have expanded their description to convey that it is a waste of time clicking on the link. Is this situation covered more fully anywhere in our guidelines, or has anyone an alternative solution, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag the cites with {{verify source}} which I have done. Codf1977 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good one, thanks. However I see that, in the meantime, someone had substituted accessible links. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations should provide enough information to allow a member of the public who is reasonably knowledgeable about libraries and research to obtain access to the publication, possibly with the payment of a fee or traveling to the appropriate library or archive. A citation that leads to a website with nothing more than a demand for a userid and password is not an acceptable citation.

Also, {{verify source}} is, according to its documentation, intended for information that appears to be dubious or false. If the information is probably true, but you just want to make sure, some approach other than {{verify source}} should be used (or you should gain consensus on the {{verify source}} talk page to change the documentation to allow using it on information that is probably true. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. For subjects of prime interest, I often purchase the ref books online. However, there's little point in subscribing for WP purposes to an info source that can't be shared with other users. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment about Chiropractic

There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blogs used as sources

I've got an editor on Talk:Fashion_blog#New_content_added who doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on using blogs and other self published sites as sources, and they have personalized their issues with me enough that they don't seem inclined to listen to me any more. If anyone has time to drop by and offer their two cents, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I joined in and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wipipedia

There are a number of articles which cite, or rely completely on, Wipipedia, described as a "specialist BDSM wiki". Spanking bench is the example that I cam across, but there are others. I know that we don't normally accept open wikis per WP:SPS -- is this an exception? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it might be an exception? --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't use the site as a reference; it's listed in the external links. I'd say it shouldn't be used as a reference anywhere, but linking to it in the EL is marginally more acceptable. — HelloAnnyong 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No reason for an exception has been advanced. Jayjg 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- I'm not proposing that it should be an exception, I'm simply asking whether it already is, since there are articles such as Kajirus wth a banner "This article incorporates text from Wipipedia" and others for which it appears to be the only source/external link. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom charitable society

Hi some thoughts on if this site would be a reliable source for the St Nazaire Raid article. It the St. Nazaire society a registered charity in the United Kingdom. It was set up by the survivors of the raid and its patron is the Duke of Edinburgh. Obviously I would want to use the society as a reference for the article. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the specific statement that you wish to support with a cite from this site? Can't really help without specific examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry it would be this page and teh awards page.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

But what is the information you want to include in the article? --FormerIP (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

From this page the numbers and types of awards given. That's it really other details have been found in published books. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Should be ok, you could double check each of the VC awards by searching on the National Archive website too. For example here is Commander S.H Beattie which backs up all the info. This is the page to browse those awarded VCs, just need to enter name. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are the others.. Commander Ryder , Able seaman Savage . Colonel Newman and Sergeant Durrant have no individual register, but listed on the page of those who were awarded them but have no entry.. All accurate so no reason to doubt that charity as a reliable website. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The charity appears to have an active committee and some of the website content seems to have been put together with the assitance of a historian, so it should be reliable for this information. --FormerIP (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

linking to a fan translation patch of commerical item that doesn't include the work itself

I'm wanting to know for meeting WP:V can we link to unofficial/fan translation patches themselves if they don't include a copy of the work that would be translated as a last resort?陣内_Jinnai 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is a the file itself on a filehost server. The article it will be used for is under development at User:Jinnai/VN for List of Japanese visual novels translated into English. The patch is used to verify that the item has an English language version available. It will be used in one of the tables (likely the second group, unless the readme file has a release date on it).陣内_Jinnai 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity profiles on talktalk.co.uk

The current Simon Amstell article relies on this talktalk celeb page for an accurate date of birth, no other sources validate this information. I have tried looking at the site T&Cs but these do not appear to have any editorial policy for the website. Considering they have a significant database for popular celebrities but no named journalists or attribution for information, should be support or exclude this source under the WP:BLP guidelines? Fæ (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB say the same date although theres problems citing that too. Dunno if TalkTalk should be considered a reliable source, but its probably the accurate DOB. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

I consider Robert K. G. Temple to be a fringe author and I propose to remove all references to him in articles related to Chinese and world history, particularly at Military history of China (pre-1911) and Economic history of China (pre-1911) where the main author, User:Teeninvestor, heavily relies on him. Why should he be removed? Temple, at least the way he is cited, makes a string of exaggerated and grandiose claims of Chinese excellence which aren't true and are so sweeping vis-a-vis Europe and the rest of the world that most cannot be verified in fact.

Temple is best known for his book The Sirius Mystery where he presents his idea that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system". Temple is considered a pseudo-scientist by bad archaeology (link). He is no historian, and even less a sinologist, but merely purports to summarize in his The Genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention the work of the notable sinologist Joseph Needham (mostly without detailed references).

Since I happen to work in this field, I found him factually wrong on many accounts such as his claims that the Chinese invented segmental arch bridges (in fact, the Romans did half a millennium before, see here, here or here) or that the Chinese use of water-power preceded that of the west by many centuries (in fact, the oldest watermills were built by the Greeks and Romans). But the real problem remains Temple's propensity to make exceptional unproven and unprovable claims which have no basis in Needham actually.

In this context, Temple has been found by a majority of users to be not reliable here and particularly here by a majority of users. Consensus was that he needs to be removed or replaced by the scholar he purports to summarize, Needham; this should not be difficult given the wide availability of Needham's work.

I apologize to renew the debate and draw your attention from other matters, but Teeninvestor's inactivity since then suggests that he did not hear that. The users then participating are going to be notified by me per WP:Canvass. Please leave a vote so that this question can now be permanently settled.

Template:Seemore

Military history of China (pre-1911):

• According to Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia"

• Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years

  Comment: untrue, cast iron appeared in Europe since ca. 500 AD

• Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations

• These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts

  Comment: utterly impossible in pre-industrial times, such huge productivity gaps may only exist in extreme cases today, where machinery makes the difference

• The range of large artillery crossbows was estimated at 1160 yards, while the range of handheld and cavalry crossbows is estimated at 500 yards and 330 yards respectively.

  Comment: very unlikely and in any case irrelevant: what counts on the battle-field is effective range

• Another innovation was the use of poisonous ammunition, which killed any soldier that it touched, even if he was simply scraped or touched by the bolt.

  Comment: certainly, we all have seen these b-movies

• the first true flamethrower capable of emitting a continuous stream of fire was introduced in China around 900 CE.

  Comment: untrue, Needham himself considers the earlier Byzantine flamethrower to be ejecting a continuous stream of fire

• Units in southern China were often equipped with an innovation, paper armour, which was much lighter and was said to be able to withstand firearms

  Comment: if magic was inconvenient

• The Chinese were the first to deploy poison gas in combat, having deployed gases as early as the 5th century BCE

Economic history of China (pre-1911):

• Developments such as paper, cast iron, the seed drill, an efficient horse harness, steel and the Iron plow allowed China's wealth and economic efficiency to increase to levels unmatched by other civilizations

• Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader

• Advanced drilling techniques that allowed drilling up to 4800 feet were developed, allowing Chinese to extract salt and even natural gas for use in fuel and lighting

• Economic growth was strong under the new liberal policies and China developed a number of innovations, such as improved masts, sails, and rudders, which laid the basis for China's later overseas trade with India, the Middle east and East Africa druing the Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties, as well as the later European voyages of discovery

  Comment: untrue, the lateen sails and pintle-and gudgeon rudders of the caravels were developed in the Med respectively the North Sea

• By contrast, historian Robert Temple notes that contemporary Rome was unable even to transport grain from northern Italy to Rome and had to depend on ship-carried Egyptian grain, due to a lack of a good harness

  Comment: untrue, it has been established since over 30 years that the Roman harness was every bit as effectve as that of other ancient peoples (Roman traction systems)

|}

Temple = unreliable. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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