| Revision as of 13:43, 20 November 2020 editKoncorde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,360 edits →How will we deal with Substack?← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 26 November 2020 edit undoYurivict (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,689 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
| This page reflects what happens on ]. A source can be left off off this page because it is so ''bad'' that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is a reliable source -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of this page because it is so ''good'' that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable source -- https://www.nejm.org/ --08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | This page reflects what happens on ]. A source can be left off off this page because it is so ''bad'' that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is a reliable source -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of this page because it is so ''good'' that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable source -- https://www.nejm.org/ --08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| : This is already covered by ]. ] (]) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | : This is already covered by ]. ] (]) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie? == | |||
| One specific recent lie is that they report that 2020 election fraud allegations have no evidence. In reality there are hundreds of ]s, and affidavits by definition are considered acceptable evidence in court. Mass media (CNN/MSNBC/CBS/New York Times) lie (deny the verifiable facts) and are still considered RS. I suggest they are removed from RS sources because lying is not compatible with being a "reliable source". ] (]) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 26 November 2020
 | Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. |
 | Controversially classified sources The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) is one of the most controversially classified sources in this list. There has never been a request for comment (RfC) for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of this source, please start an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The Daily Beast changed to "no consensus"
In response to an inquiry at User talk:Newslinger § Daily Beast, I've reviewed the discussions on The Daily Beast (RSP entry) and changed the classification from "generally reliable" back to "no consensus", because the editors who participated in discussion #4 expressed enough caution to counterbalance the optimism in discussion #3. Please feel free to discuss the reassessment here, or start a new discussion on the noticeboard if new information on this source is available. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: Shouldn't you have at least put it up for a discussion first before making the change, since it was at "generally reliable" for a year before someone raised an objection? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think implied in Newslinger's comment above (or any such comment) is that if this reassessment seems way off the mark, it's subject to BRD like most other things. Summarizing consensus is a very tricky, sensitive thing, so if it's contentious it's better to have a clear discussion on it before changing. If it's not contentious, then it makes sense to just change. The amount of time a version has stood gives the status quo some additional weight, but isn't itself a reason for keeping it, of course. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with the change. First, as it's been in there for a year, the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS should not be changed. Second, where discussion three (linked above) had more editors participating than discussion four, I don't see how we can say four overrides or nullifies three. I would suggest a proper RFC is in order if someone wishes to challenge TDB's reliability. -- Calidum 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I second the call for a full discussion if this is going to be a change. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Multiple comments in discussion #4 pointed to a distinction between the news coverage and the opinion columns. Perhaps these should be split in our table, or noted explicitly as in the entry for the Wall Street Journal. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aren't opinion columns covered by WP:RSOPINION either way? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Multiple comments in discussion #4 pointed to a distinction between the news coverage and the opinion columns. Perhaps these should be split in our table, or noted explicitly as in the entry for the Wall Street Journal. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I second the call for a full discussion if this is going to be a change. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Implied consensus is only a thing until it is challenged. Then it no longer enjoys consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry about the confusion, everyone. Here's what I'm going to do from now on: if someone proposes a change to this list on my user talk page, I'll move that discussion here, and the result of the discussion will determine whether the list should be changed. The list belongs to the community, and discussions about the list should be held here, where all interested editors can participate. I have always preferred that discussions on this list take place on this page, but I had previously expressed that preference as a recommendation. In the future, I'll simply move the discussion here.
At User talk:Newslinger § Daily Beast, Levivich disputed the reclassification of The Daily Beast from "no consensus" to "generally reliable" on 26 December 2019 (Special:Diff/932530133). At that time, there were only three indexed discussions for this source, with discussion #3 expressing a more positive sentiment and receiving significantly higher participation than the other two. Based on these three discussions, I still think "generally reliable" was the most appropriate classification for The Daily Beast at that time. However, the comments in discussion #4 (January–February 2020) do not consider The Daily Beast to be a top-tier source, leaving us with three lower-participation discussions expressing "no consensus" and one higher-participation discussion supporting the "generally reliable" classification. Based on a full review of all four discussions, I agree with Levivich that these discussions altogether are closer to "no consensus" than "generally reliable".
As Rhododendrites noted, I changed the classification back under WP:BRD. Calidum disagreed with the change, restored the old entry, and we're now discussing the entry here. It's been over half a year since discussion #4, so if anyone has new information or evidence regarding The Daily Beast's reliability, I recommend starting a new discussion on the noticeboard. Otherwise, let's finish the reassessment of the four previous discussions here. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you want a change, you should start that new discussion. The #4 you linked is indeed tiny and was focused on a niche subject. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion #4 involves six editors who expressed an opinion on the reliability of The Daily Beast, which is three times the minimum set in the inclusion criteria. The comments focus on the publication's general reliability, despite the initial question being focused on a specific article. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So... you're opposed to actually having the new discussion? Why? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Please feel free to discuss the reassessment here, or start a new discussion on the noticeboard if new information on this source is available.
are not the words of someone opposed to discussion. Lev!vich 04:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)- Yes, I did not say that I was opposed to discussion. Anyone with new information is welcome to start a new discussion on the noticeboard. A request for comment is also an option, to solicit views from a broader section of the community. However, I've explained why I don't think the "generally reliable" classification is the best fit for the four previous discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So... you're opposed to actually having the new discussion? Why? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The general tenor of the comments at discussion #4 seem more about tone and whether coverage in TDB counts for establishing weight than about factual accuracy. Reliability isn't the axis along which it was challenged there, as I read it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion #4 involves six editors who expressed an opinion on the reliability of The Daily Beast, which is three times the minimum set in the inclusion criteria. The comments focus on the publication's general reliability, despite the initial question being focused on a specific article. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you want a change, you should start that new discussion. The #4 you linked is indeed tiny and was focused on a niche subject. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I support a new discussion. Daily Beast is fine for some things, but for others definitely not. If we need to clarify that, let's do it. —valereee (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable sources for notability
WP:GNG requires WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. This is a clearcut policy, esp. if unreliable sources refers to sources based on user-generated content, paid content, press releases, etc. However, the way WP:RSP has gone, it appears that many partisan sources or other major media sources that have in the past pushed particular agendas or even conspiracy theories have been listed as unreliable. My contention is that there needs to be some sort of a differentiation between what's considered a reliable source for factual citation, and what's considered a reliable source for notability-related significant coverage. e.g. while Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion etc have been deemed unreliable for factual coverage, in my view, a profile in any one of these should count towards WP:SIGCOV. On the other hand, any amount of coverage in unreliable sources such as Blogger, Facebook, LinkedIn, Medium, Twitter, Patheos, PR Newswire etc should not. Any thoughts? — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, really! Similarly to the fact that if Saturday Night Live is lampooning you, you've arrived, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree, since one of the objectives of the general notability guideline is to ensure that there are sources of adequate quality and number available for article subjects to be described in a way that meets the core content policies. The Onion can only be used under WP:ABOUTSELF or as a primary source to supplement a reliable secondary source. However, WP:PSTS states that
"Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
— Newslinger talk 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)- Say what? Since when is satire the same as self-published?— Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion is a questionable source, and WP:ABOUTSELF applies to both questionable and self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it has to be noted that while The Onion is self-admitted parody and should not be used as a factual reference for anything, there may be material on The A.V. Club that is useful and reliable enough for Misplaced Pages, especially when discussing critical reactions for entertainment such as movies, television series, and video games. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and The A.V. Club (RSP entry) is currently classified as generally reliable. G/O Media has a diverse set of web properties, and each of them should be evaluated separately. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it has to be noted that while The Onion is self-admitted parody and should not be used as a factual reference for anything, there may be material on The A.V. Club that is useful and reliable enough for Misplaced Pages, especially when discussing critical reactions for entertainment such as movies, television series, and video games. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Onion is a questionable source, and WP:ABOUTSELF applies to both questionable and self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Say what? Since when is satire the same as self-published?— Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to disagree, since one of the objectives of the general notability guideline is to ensure that there are sources of adequate quality and number available for article subjects to be described in a way that meets the core content policies. The Onion can only be used under WP:ABOUTSELF or as a primary source to supplement a reliable secondary source. However, WP:PSTS states that
- Yes, really! Similarly to the fact that if Saturday Night Live is lampooning you, you've arrived, if The Onion is lampooning you, you are probably notable. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 20:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The Onion? No. As funny as it's "reports" may be, these "news stories" are satire written to amuse, and are definitely not factual accounts of people and events. It is not a reliable source. The use of such sources would lower the credibility and quality of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Newslinger You might have missed the point of this post. I am well aware that that Misplaced Pages requires the sources to be RS/IS. My contention is that the the notion of RS should be different with respect to notability vs factual citations. Different words could be used to refer to these two types and different lists of sources would fit in. Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion have all been deemed unreliable for factual coverage by the community. They should, in my estimation, be considered reliable for notability purposes. My comment is normative (what should be), not positive (what is). You seem focused on the positive, i.e. the policy as is. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I had meant to say in my first comment is this: if a topic is not able to satisfy the current general notability guideline, then an article on that topic would not have enough reliable source material to cover the topic in detail while satisfying the core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and no original research). The article would rely mostly on passing mentions in reliable sources, which would be more likely to form a skewed representation of the article subject.
If you would still like to propose changes to the notability guideline, I recommend starting a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. The talk page we are currently on focuses more on applying current policy than on changing it. — Newslinger talk 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What I had meant to say in my first comment is this: if a topic is not able to satisfy the current general notability guideline, then an article on that topic would not have enough reliable source material to cover the topic in detail while satisfying the core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and no original research). The article would rely mostly on passing mentions in reliable sources, which would be more likely to form a skewed representation of the article subject.
- Newslinger You might have missed the point of this post. I am well aware that that Misplaced Pages requires the sources to be RS/IS. My contention is that the the notion of RS should be different with respect to notability vs factual citations. Different words could be used to refer to these two types and different lists of sources would fit in. Bild, Daily Kos, The Electronic Intifada, Fox news talk shows, Metro (British newspaper), Telesur, The Onion have all been deemed unreliable for factual coverage by the community. They should, in my estimation, be considered reliable for notability purposes. My comment is normative (what should be), not positive (what is). You seem focused on the positive, i.e. the policy as is. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 14:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
How will we deal with Substack?
Hi folks,
I wonder how Misplaced Pages will deal with Substack in the future. On the one hand, it's a lot like blog posts. On the other, quite a few reknowned journalists are leaving their organizations to go there. (Gleen Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi), etc. MonsieurD (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- We will have to wait and see. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Substack is a publishing platform, just like Medium (RSP entry) and YouTube (RSP entry). A publisher doesn't become any more or less reliable by publishing on Substack, than if it published articles on its own website using some other content management system. Greenwald's, Sullivan's, and Taibbi's newsletters on Substack do not appear to have any editorial oversight, so they are self-published sources equivalent to personal websites. There are also some news organizations (such as The Dispatch, which is currently being discussed on the noticeboard) that use Substack as a platform. Likewise, they should be evaluated as if they were publishing on their own sites using in-house technology.
The best comparison is the WordPress platform, which powers self-published blogs on WordPress.com (RSP entry), generally reliable sources such as Variety (RSP entry), and generally unreliable sources such as the New York Post (RSP entry). It all depends on the publisher. — Newslinger talk 07:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Substack always lacks editorial oversight, so by current rules, it can't be used on Misplaced Pages. However, if reknowned journalists continue to move toward Substack, these rules may become a problem for Misplaced Pages in the future. MonsieurD (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Publications that use Substack (e.g. The Dispatch) can have editorial oversight, and if they are considered reliable, then renowned journalists who write for them can still be used on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the use of self-published sources has always been highly restricted on Misplaced Pages. In particular, WP:BLPSPS prevents any self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons, regardless of the platform the content is published on. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Having written most of the Substack article and contributed to those of some Substack contributors, I agree with this assessment. Jlevi (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Publications that use Substack (e.g. The Dispatch) can have editorial oversight, and if they are considered reliable, then renowned journalists who write for them can still be used on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the use of self-published sources has always been highly restricted on Misplaced Pages. In particular, WP:BLPSPS prevents any self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons, regardless of the platform the content is published on. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Substack always lacks editorial oversight, so by current rules, it can't be used on Misplaced Pages. However, if reknowned journalists continue to move toward Substack, these rules may become a problem for Misplaced Pages in the future. MonsieurD (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- yeah, it's a blogging platform, with some actual publications living on it - not a publisher itself - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that, if there ends up being a trend of independent journalists and commentators issuing their own publications -- this was probably only a matter of time since the WWW came into existence -- sourcing guidelines will need to be applied on a per-author basis, rather than to publications at large. I don't see why this would need to be substantially different from existing RS guidelines, but it will definitely involve more work. jp×g 04:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a difference between Bellingcat (as an example) setting themselves up as an independent self published publication and some of the recent Substack self publishing; which is effectively the last refuge of at least one journalist unhappy at being expected to follow the usual journalistic rigour and deciding to publish unqualified rumours, long disproven theories, and repeat conspiracy theories without any sense of irony. Koncorde (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- The answer is simple: treat it as a self published source. It's reliable for their opinion. All opinion must be attributed. It shouldn't be used on BLP. It'll never be reliable outside of those attributions without independent verification and oversight via editorial board or similar. Should be treated like any other publically available essay by a notable person (I mean Dan Rather is still active, but we're not sourcing content to his facebook posts). You do have to question why a journalist goes solo in such a fashion to the extent whereby even as a freelancer they are unable to find a publisher for their material. Koncorde (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is the conventional wisdom, yes. I'm not sure which specific journalist you're disagreeing with in this post, but regardless of how much you dislike them, I think it bears note that the Huffington Post was, at one point, an "unqualified" blog; BuzzFeed was a content aggregator/listicle farm; Bellingcat was a D&D goon's personal website. This is the 21st century. Weird stuff is going to happen. jp×g 07:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't dislike any journalist doing journalism, however I am pointing out any journalist that cannot find a publisher is almost certainly peddling the unsubstantiated crap we should not be using - and the conventional wisdom explains why.
- The difference between HuffPo and Buzzfeed vs Greenwald and Taibbi is that the prior submit to fact checking and editorial oversight and it took years to change public opinion of the institution that they worked for to confer reliability to their staff writers (and most content on HuffPo for me is still questionable, particularly on politics, but also science and medicine due to years of allowing woo to be peddled by guru's). In effect - they changed to become reliable sources.
- In contrast Greenwald in particular has rejected the trappings of reliability and any oversight and wants to publish his feelings. At this point he barely qualifies as an RS even for his own opinion so much of it is regurgitated bunkum refuted by all other RS.
- Bellingcat is marginally better, if only for the source of their information being routinely crowd-sourced / open-sourced, and subject to criticism in the public domain. It should still be attributed where used, and is reliable only for the sites own opinion in limited sitiations - which must be balanced against the RS either agreeing or disagreeing.
- In short, multiple journalists running to a self published medium doesn't mean we change our conventional wisdom. They don't become more reliable for becoming self published. Koncorde (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bellingcat largely still falls into that category
so, that assertion's an RSN discussion really - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)- Should clarify: not suggesting Bellingcat is actually publishing crap (meant to move that lower and forgot to move that line before editing the above paragraph - so have struck from above) - my position on Bellingcat is as per the last paragraph. If we are using, or someone is trying to use Bellingcat unfiltered then it definitely needs an RSN discussion. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Without wishing to support or oppose anything said above (since I know v little of the sources mentioned) but we should acknowledge that a lot of very competent journalists have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, purely because the market for subscriber-funded quality journalism has collapsed in favour bot-generated click-bait. So to say that "any journalist that cannot find a publisher is almost certainly peddling the unsubstantiated crap we should not be using" is, well not to put too fine a point on it, unsubstantiated crap.
- --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Journalists losing their jobs is very different to journalists not being able to find a publisher for an expose. Newspapers losing permanent members of staff is very different to engaging with freelancers, usually respected journalists will to engage with their editorial standards, to publish content. The only time I would suggest this is untrue is with local interest stories where the market to publish doesn't exist at all due to old news media becoming defunct. But we're not on about small paper journalists breaking news on a corrupt school board self publishing content in the public domain - which would be entirely unsuitable for wikipedia - we are talking about content rejected by large scale news carriers about allegations of national interest being published because the journalists in question don't want to engage with editorial standards because "censorship". Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know the phenomenon you mean. But OTOH, I also know a lot of journalists who are looking into newslettering as a more reliable source of income, and gathering into new small publications hosting via Substack - with editors, journalists, a professional approach, etc. I would advise caution for Misplaced Pages usage, but this may be a new model emerging. If it turns out to be viable - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Which is when it crosses the line from being self published same as HuffPo (although there are plenty of vehicles created just to push personal POV), but would have no inherent reliability beyond any other public newsletter.
- Currently this model already functionally exists for games journalism (i.e. Jim Sterling) and in a few other limited spaces, people paying for content they want to consume. If Sterling was to form a conglomerate it would be interesting to see if he suddenly became a reliable source outside of his own attributed opinion. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I know the phenomenon you mean. But OTOH, I also know a lot of journalists who are looking into newslettering as a more reliable source of income, and gathering into new small publications hosting via Substack - with editors, journalists, a professional approach, etc. I would advise caution for Misplaced Pages usage, but this may be a new model emerging. If it turns out to be viable - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Journalists losing their jobs is very different to journalists not being able to find a publisher for an expose. Newspapers losing permanent members of staff is very different to engaging with freelancers, usually respected journalists will to engage with their editorial standards, to publish content. The only time I would suggest this is untrue is with local interest stories where the market to publish doesn't exist at all due to old news media becoming defunct. But we're not on about small paper journalists breaking news on a corrupt school board self publishing content in the public domain - which would be entirely unsuitable for wikipedia - we are talking about content rejected by large scale news carriers about allegations of national interest being published because the journalists in question don't want to engage with editorial standards because "censorship". Koncorde (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should clarify: not suggesting Bellingcat is actually publishing crap (meant to move that lower and forgot to move that line before editing the above paragraph - so have struck from above) - my position on Bellingcat is as per the last paragraph. If we are using, or someone is trying to use Bellingcat unfiltered then it definitely needs an RSN discussion. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Is Oc-Media.org reliable?
Some of our wiki writers refer to OC-Media to justify their controversial information. I am raising the question about OC-media reliability as one of the major funders of this media is Open Society Foundations which is direct tool of George Soros to conduct revolutions in Eastern European countries, that is no secret anymore. Supporting opposition is already meaning to take a side and journalism in OC-Media mainly support opposition people in Eastern Europe an other countries that can't not be considered as proper journalism. There are too many conspiracy and controversial information about George Soros who is the main owner of Open Society Foundations. In order to avoid misleading information and any potential biased articles my suggestion to include OC-Media into unreliable sources. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bias does not automatically rule out reliability. — Ad Meliora ∕Contribs 10:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Adding the 'Washington Free Beacon'
Recently I encountered someone claiming The Washington Free Beacon was usable as a source for potentially-defamatory claims about a BLP; they cited the fact that it wasn't listed here as evidence (here and prior discussions). While I explained to them that that's not how it works, I also noticed that there was in fact a previous RFC on RSN that looks like it reached a conclusion to depreciate; it was never formally closed and had somewhat lower participation than some, but the results seemed clear enough. Is that sufficient to include it here? --Aquillion (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should formally deprecate Washington Free Beacon. I'm surprised it hasn't been listed at all in the table. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, by my reading, we already did, it just wasn't added to the table. I'm just making sure other people agree that that discussion is sufficient for the reasons I mentioned. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- We did not. Free Beacon is a reliable source, with a history of fact-checking and accuracy. As of May 2020 or so, deprecation requires an RFC. I don't think there ever was one, but maybe Doug Weller could confirm? Politrukki (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, by my reading, we already did, it just wasn't added to the table. I'm just making sure other people agree that that discussion is sufficient for the reasons I mentioned. --Aquillion (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: this discussion also came up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Free Beacon, wherein some posts occurred. jp×g 07:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Newsmax
With Newsmax gaining a much broader audience, I think it needs to be reconsidered as a reliable source, their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc. I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources. I believe that this perspective is important and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum.they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints. BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- for everything you just said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- this has been posted in multiple places that it’s has surpassed fox business and CNBC in daytime ratings https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/newsmax-tv-surpasses-fox-business-cnbc-key-ratings-newsreal-blog/
- Viewership is up, because conservatives think Fox News is too liberal. This does not make Newsmax at all reliable though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- "their coverage of this election differs from other MSM such as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Etc." - That would be because Newsmax is a propaganda outlet unconcerned with factual accuracy.
- "I believe that they offer a different perspective of current events that is widely ignored by other reliable sources." - Your belief is your belief, but Newsmax as an outlet produces and promotes falsehoods with shocking regularity and disdain for human life and the consequences of spreading false information, such as their promotion of anti-vaccination propaganda.
- "and should be considered reliable for election related news at a minimum" - Ahh, now we're getting to it. It's the spreading of disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election that you're wanting?
- "they no longer represent only fringe viewpoints." - They may repeat what other parts of the extreme right-wing WP:FRINGE of American politics repeat, but that does not make their false claims, propaganda, or disinformation WP:RELIABLE.
- Given the sheer unreliability of Newsmax, it should probably be in the same Deprecated category as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, Daily Mail, and The Epoch Times. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I’m here for an real discussion. Using terms like propaganda, disinformation and extreme right-wing tells me that can’t happen with you on this topic. You seem to be intolerant to a viewpoint that differs from your own BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Terms like "propaganda, disinformation, and extreme right-wing" views are a pretty apt description. My favorite part is the constant reminding to their viewers that Newsmax hasn't called the election for Biden...even though they don't even have a decision desk. Grandpallama (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I’m here for an real discussion. Using terms like propaganda, disinformation and extreme right-wing tells me that can’t happen with you on this topic. You seem to be intolerant to a viewpoint that differs from your own BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- This seems like a discussion that should be had at WP:RSN. signed, Rosguill 22:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are correct, I’ll move it there BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Republic TV
Republic TV is an Indian-news channel. It is at present the most popular news channel and website in India. It is my personal ideology, that it isn't politically reliable, but is reliable in all other cases. I think it deserves to be in this list.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- An active discussion is taking place at WP:RSN § Republic TV. — Newslinger talk 14:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Ad Fontes Media
@Hemiauchenia: I have no objection to your addition in this edit, but why did you remove and have questioned its methodology
? The source's poor and statistically unsound methodology is one of the primary reasons it was found to be generally unreliable, and IMO that qualification should stay in the description. Armadillopteryx 10:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was trying to reflect recent discussions of the source, which regard Ad Fontes Media's rating of articles as at least somewhat objective. "and have questioned its methodology" is vague, and the criticism in the entry should be more specific. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I should note that I was the one who wrote the entry to begin with, I am only editing my own words. There's sort of a tension because there is the two separate dimensions of its use in article space without a 3rd party source discussing it (which the overwhelming concensus is no) and its use as a metric to discuss source reliability in noticeboard discussions (which seems more mixed). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
FNC
Fox news channel's news pieces on politics have become more "reliable." Although that trend has been highly visible in its news reporting of 2020 presidential race, probably it has been felt earlier by folks who regularly surf FNC website. FNC and MSNBC, (On their websites) generally do not spread false information about politics. But they are worded smartly to appeal to conservatives and liberals, respectively. If you consider MSNBC to be a reliable source even when it reports on political issues, I will urge you to endow FNC with the same epithet. The Conservative "lying" syndrome (CLS) in FNC, is generally less "intense", compared to OANN, Newsmax, Breitbart and others. So I think we should look at whether FNC still suffers from CLS or it has recovered. Before answering the question, have you kept an eye over how they reported 2020 election on their website. Please don't judge FNC's news content via looking at Ingraham or Hannity talk shows. Pro-Abortion on demand, Pro-recognition of gay marriage individuals like Jimmy Kimmel and Daily show host Trevor Noah are talkshow hosts on mainstream media. So we would love to have a constructive debate on the subject. And please don't judge me by my words. I have adopted pragmatic centrism long ago (AKA New Mexico politics). So what to do about FNC's status? Ppt2003 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- We just had this RFC - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I looked in the comment for some kind of actual point but all I found was a lot of false equivalence and whataboutism. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IHateAccounts: Was that response necessary? jp×g 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I looked in the comment for some kind of actual point but all I found was a lot of false equivalence and whataboutism. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in the RFC prevents us from using Fox as a source for politics (or science for that matter). -- Calidum 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
OP, I think you would be well-served to consult the numerous RfCs on this subject. This specific issue has been discussed ad nauseam in multiple places before; simply reigniting the issue without citing specific conclusions of past discussions seems unlikely to cover any new ground. jp×g 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion
This page reflects what happens on WP:RSN. A source can be left off off this page because it is so bad that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is a reliable source -- https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ -- and a source can be left off of this page because it is so good that nobody has ever come to the noticeboard with a question about whether it is reliable source -- https://www.nejm.org/ --08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is already covered by WP:RSPMISSING. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?
One specific recent lie is that they report that 2020 election fraud allegations have no evidence. In reality there are hundreds of affidavits, and affidavits by definition are considered acceptable evidence in court. Mass media (CNN/MSNBC/CBS/New York Times) lie (deny the verifiable facts) and are still considered RS. I suggest they are removed from RS sources because lying is not compatible with being a "reliable source". Yurivict (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Categories: