Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 24 December 2021

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:RSP

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Misplaced Pages articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability Misplaced Pages Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Misplaced Pages Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Retrieved 8 September 2019. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 January 2020. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Misplaced Pages administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Retrieved 24 July 2020. Palmer Haasch (24 July 2020). "After Misplaced Pages editors battled over citing Fox News as a source, administrators said it should be 'used with caution' for science and politics". Insider. Retrieved 24 July 2020. Noam Cohen (10 August 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Decided to Stop Calling Fox a 'Reliable' Source". Wired. Retrieved 12 August 2020. Stephen Harrison (1 July 2021). "Misplaced Pages's War on the Daily Mail". Slate. Retrieved 27 September 2021.

Joshua Project

Since there's unlikely to be more participation there and that the request seems uncontroversial, I'm pinging Alaexis and relaying the discussion here:

• (Permalink) WP:RSN @ RfC: Joshua Project

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate. If we don't get new feedback in a week or so I think I'll add it to the RSP list. If someone can help me with it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There are six discussions on it so I've added it to the list. Tell me if you think anything in the entry needs to be changed/added. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps worth adding would be that the sources it cites are themselves unreliable... —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I took a glance at the discussions again and yes, it does seem to be worth adding so I've added a line mentioning that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Pronews.gr (and other small Greek sites) should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, since they are not reliable.

Pronews.gr should be excluded from WP. It is not reliable, it is the exact opposite of it.

• At the master thesis of Ev. Athanasiou on Nationalistic and hate rhetoric in Greek internet media with the extensive use of disinformation practices and its influence in military/law enforcement personnel (2020) from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki there is a case study on Pronews (see page 29). Other popular greek sites fail as well (pentapostagma.gr and defence-point.gr), but I suppose these two are of less significance (smaller sites).

I think it should be included in the list at #Sources section. (with the advice not to be used, as in Deprecated) Cinadon36 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm...I hadn't noticed the requirements for inclusion. WP:RSPCRITERIA Cinadon36 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, seeing as pronews.gr   is used in only 20 articles at present, I'd suggest just removing them from the respective articles and bringing it to WP:RSN if anyone disputes the removal. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

pentapostagma.gr   and defence-point.gr   are being used in 12 and 14 articles respectively, I'd suggest the same for them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to establish the reliability of the master thesis referenced here before taking action. Alaexis_¿question? 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Master's theses aren't reliable for content in articles but it cites Ellinika Hoaxes which is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on WP:IFCN's signatories list. When the use case is this low and someone reasonably thinks it's an unreliable source, then imo, it's alright if they just take action till there is a dispute over it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your input. I removed the pronews from all articles in WP and added a {{cn}} template. Now, if I 'll get reverted, I will take it to RSN and discuss it further. If not, then, I guess, no action is needed. @Alaexis: I do not know if there are specific criteria for master theses but unless there are making an extraordinary claim I think of them as reliable. A search for the term pronews at Ellinika Hoaxes yields >750 results. Efimerida ton Syntakton has two articles mentioning pronews and linking them to antivax movement. This article cites (but gives no link) to Nikos Smyrnaios of Toulouze University. Other one (same storyline though) is this one. I also found an article in Lifo.gr, also based on Ellinika-Hoaxes, saying that Pronews, posted a news article, about a white woman, married to a white man, giving birth to a black baby and accusing her husband for drinking too much coffee! . El-hoaxes concluded it was a fault story. It was a story that appeared at satirical pages like thereisnews.com a year earlier. For me, if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck and says quack-quack, it is not a RS. Cinadon36 06:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sure you are right about it. Mine was a more general comment that a lot of supposed fact checkers and fake news researchers themselves often have an agenda and aren't always reliable, so major decisions should not be based on a single questionable source. However, Pronews do appear to be unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

update: I remove pronews and pentapostagma.gr from various articles, none of them has been contested as of now, as far as I know. Cinadon36 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Proto Thema

Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It is used 205 times across en.WP There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.

Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS.Cinadon36 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you not read the banner? WP:RSN is the place where sources are discussed, not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this should be moved to RSN. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Will move. Apologies. Cinadon36 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

CNBC

I was wondering - is CNBC considered a reliable source? Bob (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you cite straight news articles from cnbc.com, in most cases, facing challenges on CNBC's reliability alone would be unlikely and citing news articles for all purposes should be generally fine.If someone does challenge you, the dispute should primarily be resolved on the article's talk page. If that is not possible, you may ask WP:RSN whether a specific CNBC source is reliable for specific statement in specific Misplaced Pages article, but questions like "is CNBC generally reliable" are too trivial and generally fruitless.If nobody challenges you, there is no need for discussion. RSP should not be considered an exhaustive list. Politrukki (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating sources

Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. We know what RS say about the following points, and we have articles, based on RS, which debunk these lies.

Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about these facts:

1. that Russia interfered in the election,
2. that their goal was to put Trump in power, and
3. that Trump and his campaign lied about and cooperated with that interference, or

or makes claims:

1. that Trump won the 2020 election and
2. that it was stolen from him by Biden,
3. that climate change isn't serious,
4. that vaccines are unsafe,
5. that Trump is truthful in any sense,

is not a RS. Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that, and that those sources are often defended here at Misplaced Pages. The Washington Post and the New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

WP:RSP currently says that "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed." I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. The last RfC on this matter showed most !votes as "generally reliable" and "additional considerations apply", but I don't see anyone saying its "unreliable". But "no consensus" sounds ambiguous and could mean "some editors think it is reliable, while other editors think its unreliable". VR _talk 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Good points. The wording should be changed to:

There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.

The last RfC should be linked. -- Valjean (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC explicitly reaffirmed the "No consensus" status. I don't think we should second-guess the closer here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite what the closer said (they said "the current reliability status of Media Matters for America is generally reaffirmed"). But its clear even from the closer's statement that the two predominant choices were "reliable" and "uncertain", not "reliable" and "unreliable".VR _talk 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The "current reliability status" before the December 2019 RfC was "No consensus." The closer wrote that it was reaffirmed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe what they meant by "current reliability status" was the color, and I agree that the color was reaffirmed by the RfC. Your interpretation of the closer's first sentence appears to contradict the closer's second sentence. If the closer truly meant that consensus is split between reliable and unreliable (I don't think they meant that), then that RfC should be re-closed, as I don't see a single !vote that considered MMfA unreliable during the RfC.VR _talk 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the closer didn't mean that consensus was split between reliable and unreliable. The closer meant that consensus was split between "reliable" and "uncertain" but "a lot of the arguments in general default to "uncertain."" By "uncertain," I am quite confident that was simply the closer's shorthand for a marginally reliable source, which is defined as a No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. This makes sense since a great deal of editors !voted "additional considerations apply." Even many of the editors who !voted generally reliable stated that the source should be used on a "case-by-case basis" or is "context dependent." These types of qualifiers are more in line with a marginal source than a generally reliable source, and the closer accurately reflected this in their closing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I feel this is not accurately reflected in the simplistic sentence "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America" and it should be worded differently.VR _talk 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. We can write something to the degree of: There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be be attributed. But I'm open to other suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think its an improvement over the current wording, so I'd support replacing it.VR _talk 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Last RFC was almost exactly two years ago. If there's any uncertainty, we could always just hold another RFC now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Why are we splitting hairs here what the closer may have meant two years ago when it's possible to hold a new RfC at the RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• As the proposal by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d was supported by Valjean and myself and opposed by none, I updated the text.VR _talk 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's an improvement. Consensus has changed for the better. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Far too partisan for my liking, I oppose the proposal. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  The question was never what any of us think about MMfA (also please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but how to best interpret consensus.VR _talk 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  What consensus? The consensus of whatever random half-dozen editors happen to be on this page over a very short but unspecified period of time? Misplaced Pages shouldn't simply be replicating the failed bipolarized US media model, it should be attempting to rise above it. What possible justification is there for using describing clearly politically partisan sources as RS when there are so much better on offer? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed rewrite but better to strike out and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. We wikilink to marginally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"We wikilink to marginally reliable." - Ever cross your mind to ask yourself "Why?" EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin (magazine)

In the latest RfC about Jacobin, I am not sure that "ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. , and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. The rest of the closure and yellow rating, however, was fine; the current (RSP entry) also appears to be too wordy and could be improved. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hemiauchenia and Tayi Arajakate, since they worked on entries, but anyone's thought would be helpful — is it just me? Davide King (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, I would rather not touch that entry since I had made a comment in the discussion itself but yeah, looking at the discussion, I think you might be correct that the entry does not reflect it. The wording in the entry is directly copied from the close summary though, so a close review at WP:AN and a reclose/amendment would be needed if you want to modify it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged on my talk: the close is meant to convey that there is a strong consensus that it is not better than Option 2 (I.E. the arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation) and that there are particular additional considerations to apply to Jacobin (I.E. in-text attribution and some issues expressed regarding contentious BLP claims). If people would like to challenge a 3-month old RfC close on AN, I technically cannot stop you but also I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no reason to change it. Crossroads 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense, going by headcount at least, there were 19 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not better than Option 2" (13 for Option 2 and 6 for Option 3) and 18 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not worse than Option 2" (13 for Option 1 and 5 for Option 1/2). There were policy based arguments on both ends. The close is quite verbose so it's possible no one paid attention to its specifics, at least that's the case with me. There is also only one person among the 37 who said anything about BLPs (i.e, Crossroads). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. So many words and little makes sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

he arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation, that looks more like your personal opinion or view that an admin may not agree with, if they closed it themselves; as noted by Tayi Arajakate, both sides gave strong arguments (in particular Aquillion, and the fact, as was noted by Tayi Arajakate, that There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. It is as if it is deemed too biased to be reliable, even though no strong evidence has been presented to support this fact, and the mere fact it is more opinion rather than straight news already means we cannot always use it, as noted by The Four Deuces — it does not mean it is not reliable or cannot be reliable, or that it is unreliable on facts) and it is very close, much closer than your own closure implied (I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs, so the closure gave way too much weight to one side than was warranted, and was closer than it is assumed), which is why I asked that an admin review it and re-close it with a better summary and entry here. I think an admin close review is warranted. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

As for challeng a 3-month old RfC close on AN, ... I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. I missed it (or else I would have participated too) and I saw it only those days, and I thought that it was worth a review. I do not think that other users ignoring it means they are fine with it (they are free to comment here or someone other than me may ping them if they disagree), and the mere fact it was closed by a non-admin, and at least two other users have agreed with my concerns and about verbosity, of which I know what I am talking about since I am guilty of this and I try to improve, while two users who disagree are the closure themselves and a user who voted for Option 3 — I see no reason not to look further and get a better summary of consensus, or lack thereof.

Davide King (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs - exactly. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Jlevi, Jr8825, and WMrapids (who gave a better summary entry that takes in consideration both sides) gave very good policy-based, summaries, and well-addressed counter-arguments — again, policy-wise and even numerically, this was much closer than was assumed ... Davide King (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that the closer has not responded further to these concerns and the close review at AN was archived with no endorsements, I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the list. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy.com

Any objection to adding legacy.com to the list? This site hosts the generally family-written obituaries (without regard to newsworthiness or noteworthiness). It's been previously discussed here and here, and the consensus is that it really should not be cited for much more than death dates.

We generally do a good job of scrubbing articles where it's used (currently, discounting for non-article space, it's only used in a couple dozen articles, but new articles, especially biographies of borderline notables, citing it continue to crop up; it is a textbook perennial source. A recent example is Eleanor Foraker.

I propose to add it with the notation "legacy.com is discouraged as a source and should be cited, if at all, only for the date of death of the subject."; with pointers to the two discussions linked above.

Any objections? TJRC (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I take back the point of how well we scrub articles: when you include the "www." prefix, there are several thousand uses. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The bias of the liberal media

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

I posted this before and my edit was reverted by Hemiauchenia claiming it's a soap opera. Their "evidence" for the claim was a joke made by Colbert in 2006 about Bush supporters (they seem to see liberal bias everywhere).

I'm not sure how many Misplaced Pages editors noticed, but many people in the general public already noticed that there is a strong bias in the liberal media. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that there are two types of media outlets in USA:

• Conservative publications who support former president Donald Trump and are critical to the current president Joe Biden - like Fox News, New York Post, Daily Caller, Daily Wire and probably Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, The Hill, Washington Times, Washington Examiner and maybe a few others.
• Pretty much the rest of the media, which Fox News names simply "the media" (which includes big media - Facebook and Twitter) who are very hard on Donald Trump and very much defend Joe Biden.

Both sides are visibly biased against the other camp. My question is this: Is there any place to discuss the liberal media bias? I do not believe that this topic should be avoided. Because the criticism against Biden largely doesn't exist in the liberal media. And when Fox News or New York Post are publishing a story targeting Biden, the liberal media pretends that the topic simply doesn't exist - disinformation by omission . And then Misplaced Pages editors will have to ignore a story because what the liberal media doesn't want to see, doesn't exist. For example the Hunter Biden Libyan assets story . I think both sides are biased. However it's impossible not to see the liberal bias, and, in my view, the liberal bias exists here at Misplaced Pages too, with editors trying to avoid including information that can potentially make Biden, the Democratic party and their supporters look bad. If the liberal media bias exists then it's very likely it will be reflected here at Misplaced Pages too. Even more so if the majority of the Misplaced Pages editors have liberal views. And Misplaced Pages should be aware of that, instead of pretending this issue doesn't exist.

On a larger scale, the liberal bias is connected to the cancel culture and visible in other sense making institutions: Social networks, Hollywood studios, Universities plus the Silicon Valley - and of course the Democrat Party. I'm not sure if neutral media outlets that make comments on politics exist. There are various sources who comment on the liberal media bias. Le Monde diplomatique talks at length about the liberal hysteria surrounding Trump (which outlives his presidency) and the media war against Trump. Other sources talk about a liberal hysteria about Trump . There is a huge number of instances that prove the liberal media bias. The sustained disinformation campaign against Kyle Rittenhouse, the CNN lies about Joe Rogan the media (CNN, WaPo, others) lies about Nick Sandman , the liberal media insisting on the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, CNN instructing viewers to see "peaceful protests" where rioters burn buildings including a police station and then (Don Lemon) suggesting violence is normal because the country started with violence , Washington Post instructing readers: Don’t rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes and lower your expectations, LA Times telling readers to stop consuming so much in order to solve supply chains problems (as opposed to cricticize the Biden administration for this situation), the media complaining about vulgar taunts against Biden but having no problem with vulgar taunts against Trump. The media complaining about Trump being authoritarian and the same Media Supports Calling Parents "Domestic Terrorists" . The media being angry because of the "xenophobic" Trump travel ban related to COVID but having no problem with Biden travel ban. Journalists and White House press secretary singing happy birthday to each other - which shows the huge love of the press for Biden administration (and also looks a bit dystopian). When Biden's approval ratings sink, instead of pointing at what the president is doing wrong, CNN defends Biden and discovers that the ratings are going down because of the memes - which "make USA a more difficult country to govern". Twitter and Facebook cancelled Rittenhouse, Twitter admits they were wrong and Facebook refuses to acknowledge they were wrong and blame the fact checkers. Liberal media ignoring the Waukesha massacre claiming what looks like a terrorist attack to be "caused by a SUV" and there are many such examples which some ridicule in memes like The Babylon Bee.

There is a recent video made by NYT titled Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How. - which focuses on the hypocrisy of the liberals but it focuses on the liberal politicians. Since they are part of the liberal media, it's very unrealistic to expect them to make another video about the hypocrisy of the liberal media too. However, you can't suspect the politicians to be hypocrites and in the same time to believe that the very media who supports them are not hypocrites. So I think this topic should be discussed instead of being avoided because it is very much about the credibility and reliability of the vast majority of the press. -- Barecode (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr. This isn't a forum for generalized complaining. If you have an issue with a specific source, you're welcome to open a specific thread about it on the Noticeboard. No, "you're all biased Marxist liberals who hate America" is not actionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I don't believe this has anything to do with being marxists or with hating America. You can't add an allegation about Hunter Biden simply because the liberal media pretends that issue does not exist. The source points to the fact that the liberal media ignores it. Then you Google "liberal bias" and you find an article in Le Monde diplomatique that confirms there is a significant bias in the liberal media. Then you find more indications there is a liberal bias. If the liberal bias is a reality, then Misplaced Pages should be aware of that. I tried to find a way to bring this into discussion. Maybe Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources is a better place for such an issue? I don't know. This is real-life situation: you can't mention a specific information in a Misplaced Pages article because the liberal sources pretend that thing didn't exist. And the sources mentioning that information are considered to be unreliable - Talk:Hunter Biden#Libyan assets unfreezing. The liberal media is not perfect, therefore if they pretend an issue doesn't exist, it doesn't actually mean that it actually does not exist. Misplaced Pages should not pretend that things do not exist simply because the liberal media pretends those things do not exist. Barecode (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Barecode, there is bias in the liberal media, just as there is bias in the far left media, the moderate media, the conservative media and the far right media. What matters most is whether or not the source in question is reliable. Few editors would contest the reliability of a straight news story in the Wall Street Journal even though its editorial stance is conservative to right. So, Misplaced Pages editors, after intensive conversation that anyone is free to participate in, decide together whether various sources are reliable or not. Many left sources have been judged unreliable by consensus of editors. These debates are based on well-defined criteria, and if solid evidence is produced that a given source is actually reliable, then that previous conclusion will be changed. We like evidence here rather thab unsupported assertions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - You don't need any evidence to mention an allegation/accusation/innuendo. E.g. Clinton Body Count. The question is if a specific allegation has due weight to deserve to be mentioned in an article. And what should Misplaced Pages do when the liberal media is completely silent about an allegation. When that happens, the liberal media silence does not prove the issue should be ignored at Misplaced Pages. They don't have a monopoly on truth nor a monopoly on what is relevant. This is not an allegation about a town mayor, printed in a local paper. It is an accusation presented by one of the top TV outlets, about the president's son. The size of that publication and the high profile of the accused person indicate that such an accusation should be mentioned. Using only the reliability of the source in order to ignore such an allegation is simply not enough in order to decide the due weight. -- Barecode (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are going on and on and on about the biased liberal media and saying nothing about the biased conservative media which is strong evidence of your own bias. What matters is reliability not bias. A reliable conservative source is perfectly acceptable. An unreliable liberal source is unacceptable. So, if reliable conservative sources are discussing your laundry list of concerns, then use those sources to build content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb - Fact: Zombies did not say lies. The liberal media said many lies. The Sandman case was even confirmed in court. Same with Rittenhouse. Zombies did not create a hysteria and a massive campaign of lies about Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. If you don't like Republicans that's irrelevant. Side notice: I don't like them either. But Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be the place where any criticism against liberal media can be dismissed with "those pesky Republicans are nuts anyways". This is not the place to play identity politics so please stop doing that. This is not about Republican views. The views of the Republican nuts are irrelevant. Suggesting all Republicans are nuts is playing identity politics. This is about something even Le Monde diplomatique noticed: The liberal hysteria and a media war against Trump, which outlives Trump. I was talking about the flat out lies of the media and you try to derail the conversation about fringe conspiracy theories. But anyways, your point is that liberal media is not biased, am I correct?

I would add to my previous message that such decisions of the liberal media to stay completely silent on such allegations against USA president's son had consequences: resignation of high profile journalists: Glenn Greenwald and Bari Weiss. That's another reason why the liberal media silence can not be used as an excuse for Misplaced Pages silence. Barecode (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a gowning FakeVerse out there. We should keep out of WP media that do not separate facts from opinion or fiction. Cinadon36 11:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How has this massive temper tantrum about "the liberal media" been allowed o stay on the talk page? It has nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, this should have been just removed again for soapboxing but too many people responded to it already so meh.. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 - You mean the media like CNN should be kept out of Misplaced Pages? Because CNN did spread a lot of lies.

ValarianB - The term "massive temper tantrum" sounds quite insulting. Thanks for being so gracious. This is one of the reasons why the Republicans wouldn't even bother to argue with the liberals. Anyways, I was talking about the liberal media, which is a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. I also mentioned a real life situation where the Misplaced Pages edits are affected by this situations. How is that "nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages" ?

Tayi Arajakate - You mean Misplaced Pages should pretend that group bias doesn't exist? This topic is about the bias of a group of (reliable) sources. Barecode (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barecode: if that is the conclusion of multiple RS (that CNN is unreliable), then we should let it out. But I feel it is just your opinion. Cinadon36 14:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 - What kind of RS? You mean the other liberal media outlets who repeated the same lies? Because Fox or NYP or others like them are not considered reliable sources. And even if they would be considered reliable, it would not be the best source, since they are enemies. Or maybe some publications from Mexico or Nigeria or China or Japan? Hard to believe they would even bother. No liberal publication would attack another liberal publication: "By attacking one of us I risk to support Trump". Le Monde diplomatique bothered, but not with CNN - with the liberal media as a whole. At this moment, challenging CNN's reliability means supporting Trump for pretty much everyone. Even for Misplaced Pages editors. And are you sure the Fox News Misplaced Pages un-reliability was the count of the conclusions of multiple RS and not a Fox News RFC? Barecode (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - I provided a real life example: allegations about Hunter Biden - Libyan assets unfreezing can not be added to the article simply because the liberal media decided to completely ignore the topic. Not only that, the liberal media is outcasting their own journalists when they try to publish such stories (Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss). I suggested such things have due weight, and the proposal is obvious: such things should be considered to have due weight, even when the liberal media ignores them.

My claims were far from unsubstantiated, I gave a lot of real life facts and sources.

And are you sure this is a time sink? Nobody has any obligation to read or to answer such a topic. Barecode (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have sources that contain additional information that needs to be added to the Hunter Biden article, please go to Talk:Hunter Biden and make your case there. "The news ignores this true story because they have a bias" is an unsubstantiated claim, unless you have, you know, actual reliable sources that substantiate it. Even if you do, don't put them here. Instead, go to Talk:Hunter Biden and make your case for changes you want to make to that article using reliable sources that contain the omissions. --Jayron32 16:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Please do not misquote people because that is kind of insulting. I never suggested "The news ignores this true story". I suggested "The news ignores this allegation". I am not a political hack so I'm not interested in using Misplaced Pages to promote my views. I want to present the encyclopedic facts (which include allegations, hoaxes and conspiracy theories) in a neutral manner. It's not me playing with deciding what is the truth, but I already noticed a lot of editors who are doing that. I already made my case at Talk:Hunter Biden and of course, the item was rejected because no reliable sources mention it. Therefore I went one level up. So I arrived here. My proposal was very clear: liberal media silence can not be used as an excuse for Misplaced Pages silence. If this issue is boring or irritating for you or you think it's a time sink then you can simply skip this and concentrate on more productive endeavors - and let others talk about it.

For the record, lets notice that you jumped into a discussion without really bothering to try to understand what is it about and then you quickly found it to be a time sink and then you closed it declaring (against the evidence) that it is based on 'unsubstantiated' claims - to use a compatible terminology. Barecode (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Allegations, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories are only worth mentioning if reliable sources are mentioning them. This discussion is growing wearisome. When you throw around phrases like "liberal media silence", it belies your attitudes you claim to not hold. Look, I'm re-opening the discussion because you really seem to want even more people to tell you that you're wrong. I'm not that kind of sadist myself, so I don't understand your desire to expose yourself to more abuse, but you do you. Don't bother me again with this issue, someone else can spend time dispossessing you of your delusions. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Thanks. "Abuse" sounds a bit stretched. In line with the mindset of the people who are professionals in weaponizing offense taking. I don't feel any abuse against me, I'm not a professional outrage person. It's impossible not to see the automatic reflex of the people on topics that touch politics. "This guy is criticizin CNN - so he must be pro-Trump. He must be a Republican who believes in all kind of fringe theories. Very likely, he is an alt right, white supremacist. If he happens to be black, that's even worse - he is also a traitor. He must be delusional anyways. We can't agree with him because that means we help Trump to score points." And above all "Trump is the biggest threat, he must be attacked and defeated at all costs" - which makes people act disingenuous, finding all kind of excuses and make their reactions look even comical and hilarious. This fear against Trump makes people become tribal and therefore they alienate the other side, burning bridges instead of building them. This is not an essay, but just an observation about how fear and tribalism tends to drive the debates even at Misplaced Pages. Barecode (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Softpedia

Softpedia is currently listed as 'No consensus... Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews.' The linked discussions do not show consensus for the view that the site's software reviews are reliable, and numerous deletion discussions in the software category have raised the issue that softpedia reviews almost always contain download links, so should not be considered independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dialectric, it might be a better idea to start a RSN discussion on it particularly if you have specific pages that you are concerned about. The listed discussions includes a compilation of viewpoints (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5 § Softpedia) across discussions in WT:VG and WP:RSN which does demonstrate a consensus for that view, but it is a decade old. The only discussion since then has involved one person commenting on it, who endorsed the above compilation. That said, the entry doesn't meet WP:RSPCRITERIA anyways, so I've removed it from the list; it seems to have been added in the earlier days of the list when the criteria didn't even exist. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• WikiProject Reliability pages
• A-Class Help articles
• High-importance Help articles
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press