Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 233

Citation of TV broadcast
It's long been my understanding that a TV broadcast may be cited as a source, even if it has not become available on permanent home media or in a Web archive. We even have templates for this. All that seems to be required is sufficient info to identify the broadcast and the material within it (e.g. show title, broadcaster, airdate, and time into the show). A published (including broadcast) source from a reputable publisher is valid, even if obtaining it would be difficult or costly.

At Talk:Steve Davis is an ongoing dispute I've been trying to mediate, and it seems to be a stalemate. Someone has a videotape of a snooker match from BBC Sports coverage (back in the '80s) and wants to cite it for some details, and another editor objects because they can't easily or perhaps at all verify the source personally. I haven't been involved in something like this in a long time, and it's possible my understanding of WP:V / WP:RS no longer matches reality.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I am not just objecting to the broadcast on the grounds it is difficult to access (e.g. languishing in the BBC archive) but rather the editor who wishes to cite it provides no evidence at all that an archived copy of the broadcast exists anywhere other than his own tape collection. Betty Logan (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Question: Wouldn't a TV broadcast be a WP:PRIMARY source? If it's a primary source, I'd question the necessity to cite from it. Can the article do without this information (WP:WEIGHT)? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Medium of transmission has nothing to do with primary vs. secondary. And primary sources are valid for many things, just not ideal.  Whether the information should be included (per WEIGHT or per WP:NOT) is a valid "local" question about any particular fact/claim, but is irrelevant to the question I'm asking, which is whether live TV broadcasts (which may be secondary-source news material, or primary-source live sports or interview material, or tertiary-source documentary program material) can be cited at all any longer. Historically, they have been citable, though they are not ideal sources, because the only people who can verify them are those who also recorded them or can find a recording of them from someone else, or by getting it from the broadcaster somehow, or otherwise going to some trouble.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, it is not verifiable unless a recording exists in an archive somewhere. As for the WP:WEIGHT issue it is straightforward to source the result—which is the only real necessity for the article—but the other editor wishes to add actual match details. I also objected to the content on this basis too (the article has less detail on more important matches), but obviously that is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I guess the real question that concerns this discussion is just how verifiable does a claim have to be? For the record I am not challenging the veracity of the editor's claim——I believe him and have find myself in his situation a few times—but IMO it goes against the spirit of the first sentence in WP:Verifiability if the editor provides no reasonable method via a citation to check the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "cite video" does not remove the need for the source to be obtainable, beyond someone's personal VHS copy. It would be one thing if the video was from 2000s or so, where we know that nearly all video productions are archived, but we know the BBC took a while to get on the archiving train (see Doctor Who), so there's no assurance that a BBC sports recording in the 1980s had been kept. If one can show that it is generally possible to access other snooker broadcasts from that same period, then it is reasonable that we can do the same with this, and it would be okay. But without that, we shouldn't consider the source meeting WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 13:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The answers I get here directly conflict with previous and still-ongoing discussion at WT:NOR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Betty and Masem here because WP:V states, "Source material {must have been published}, the definition of which for our purposes is {"made available to the public in some form}" also, WP:RS states, "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or {archived by a reputable party} may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." and "Additionally, {an archived copy of the media must exist}.". However, according to AGF, the editor wanting to use this source is a reputable third party who has an archived copy of the source. The only problem here is that it hasn't been "made available to the public", therefore it isn't "published" according to the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Although, if he were to post the video on a reputable video site, then one could argue it has been "made available to the public", therefore "published" for Wikipedia's purposes. Technically, it could be argued that the very act citing the source on Wikipedia is "making it available to the public", therefore "publishing" it according to Wikipedia terms, but that would be really stretching it a bit far I think. :) Huggums537 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that case, that would not be allowed, assuming the original work was copyrighted. If the only source the public can access is a copyvio, that's not acceptable. For all purposes, if the only archival copy that seems to exist is a VHS copy, that's not acceptable for WP:V. But let's say I gave that VHS copy to a NYTimes reporter, and they wrote a summary of it, then we've got an RS talking about the contents, and that establishes the WP:V we need (this is bascially the way some of the information on lost Doctor Who episodes is known, that experts have reviewed material that is not available to the public and reported what was in it). --M ASEM  (t) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That mostly makes pretty good sense, and I agree with you that going to the NYTimes journalist with the video would be WAY more reliable than going to Youtube with the video! (Probably safer too considering the COPYVIO concerns) However, that NYTimes article written by that journalist would still be based on a single VHS copy of a home video. Fortunately for us, the only requirement that I saw regarding this at WP:RS was, "an archived copy of the media must exist". I've never seen anything excluding home videos or single VHS recordings. So, I'm kind of wondering why your very good interpretation of a NYTimes RS seems to go against the kind of hasty statement you made saying, "if the only archival copy that seems to exist is a VHS copy, that's not acceptable for WP:V"? If the archival copy is good enough for the reporter, then it's good enough for WP:V, right? Huggums537 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A NYtimes recap of what is on a VHS tape becomes a new RS, it doesn't change the RS nature of the VHS tape. And we know that the NYTimes is meticulous about archiving, so there's zero question that the source can't meet WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, if the new RS is different from the RS nature of the VHS tape, then what would be the purpose to requiring the archiving of the tape? I mean who cares how meticulous they are at archiving if we now have a new RS? Couldn't we conceivably just burn the tape after the recap is done since we now have a new reliable source and the tape alone was "unreliable" anyway? I still sense a bit of conflicting ideas. It's just weird because the only difference I see between going to a reporter and going online is the notability of NYT. In fact, he wouldn't even have to go to youtube, all he would have to do is post somewhere online that he has the video archived at his residence along with all the relevant details and make an invitation to his home for anyone who wants to see it. It would be made available to the public and there would be no COPYVIO. So, really the only difference we're talking about is the notability of NYT vs. the reliability of this editor. But, when you boil it all down we're not even talking about that difference either because the difference there is night and day. NYT is obviously more reliable than any single editor. However, the question is not who is more reliable, the question is, wouldn't it be reliable enough if he did that? Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The text that the editor is attempting to add to the article appears to be "He captained England to victory in the State Express World Team Classic, beating Ray Reardon in a tie-break frame to clinch victory for England over Wales in the final. Earlier in the tournament he won a similar tie-break against Australia's Eddie Charlton, despite needing a snooker with just three balls remaining in the tie-break frame.", which, if accurate, can surely be cited from something other than his claim. Right? So why don't people spend their energy trying to verify or refute the text via other sources? Softlavender (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If it matters to anyone, I've gotten numerous unreleased 1970s/1980s TV material (either transferred to DVD screeners or FTP) from the BBC in the course of researching certain matters 7 years ago. The company that sells the footage (once called BBC Motion Gallery) has changed hands a couple of times since I dealt with them (I actually think its handled by a division of Getty at this point). That said, the episodes I obtained were not sports tournaments, but some of them were even more obscure. I would not be surprised if they retained and digitized nearly everything from back then. Only in the very dark ages did they ever record over something. You'd be surprised -- there is always a need down the line for someone to replay or re-air bits of obscure footage, which is why they save it. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that if we have reasonable good assurance that the BBC recorded and archived all material from this period, just that access may be behind an expensive WP:PAYWALL, then that still meets the demands of WP:V for being publicly accessible. I don't know enough here to justify that. I use the Doctor Who example that we do know the BBC at one point did not care about archiving. --M ASEM  (t) 20:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can tell you how to obtain official archived footage of Dr Who episodes from the 1980s. It's a rigmarole and it's expensive, and you have to sign a non-distribution license (or pay a distribution fee if you are going to air part of it), but it's there in their archives. Softlavender (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about Doctor Who missing episodes which did change their archival policy in 1978 -- but that doesn't assume me that regular news/sports broadcasts were also kept. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, if you want to know whether they still have the footage of this sports broadcast, I can tell you how to find out. Someone who knew I had the unreleased TV footage I previously referred to queried me via email about obtaining her own copies earlier this year, so I researched the information of how to contact the current iteration of BBC Motion Gallery. They have all of their footage catalogued and searchable (by them) by who appears on screen, title of show, date, length of broadcast, description, major crew, etc. Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to sports broadcasts (but I can tell you how to find out), but I got 1980s news broadcasts from the BBC Motion Gallery: for instance, an episode of Newsnight from 1984; Breakfast Time from 1985; etc. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Y'all are confusing the "made available to the public" part. If the footage was ever broadcast on TV, or otherwise publicly screened somewhere, then it was made available to the public. So we already know it meets that criterion. Whether it still exists somewhere as an archive is unknown but probable, and I can tell you how to probably find out if anyone cares. Softlavender (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, I like your interpretation of "made available to the public". I found this at WP:PUBLISH
 * A film, video, CD, or DVD distributed to theatres or video stores; a radio program including its contents actually broadcast; a television broadcast; a streaming video or audio source on the Internet; a song recording distributed to a public;
 * A transcript or recording of a live event, including: plays, television programs, documentaries, court trials, speeches or lectures, demonstrations, panel discussions, or meetings, a song sheet;
 * I forgot to mention that we know an archived copy exists on home VHS, but how can you find out if it exists "officially" elsewhere? I'd like to know. Huggums537 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A personal VCR-recorded tape is not an official archived copy, any more than a newspaper clipping in someone's attic is an archived copy of a newspaper. That said, the sales office for archival footage from the BBC is: http://www.motiongallery.com/. The email is on that link. As you'll notice, it's now managed by Getty, which is a slick corporate giant and not the friendly company I dealt with in 2010. Anyway, since it's a sales office, you'd have to do some convincing about why you want to know if the footage exists and what you plan to do with it as a customer. You'd also have to provide all the information that is known about the episode: title, date, who appears in it, description, etc. Then the salesperson would hopefully send that info to the BBC and they would search their database keywords to see if they have the program. There may be another way to go about all of this but I don't know of it; perhaps a Brit (especially someone in the TV or film industry) might know (I live in Hawaii). Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the information. I appreciate it. However, "an archived copy of the {media} must exist" over at WP:PUBLISHED suggests very strongly that they are making direct reference to audio and video recordings as opposed to textual material such as newspaper clippings. The meaning is further supported by the preceding two sentences, which make reference to "multimedia" and even by making sure they clearly distinguish the difference with, "Like text sources, {media} sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited". So, it becomes abundantly clear that a whole [stack of] newspaper[s] would not be an archive any more than a newspaper clipping in this context since the reference is specific to media, not text. This being the case, I think there was an unfair comparison made between the video our editor has in possession, and a newspaper clipping in the attic. Also, I found nothing anywhere that the copy must be "official", only that "an archived copy of the media must exist". If anyone can find any exclusions for personal home videos of any kind, please let me know because I need to be aware those guidelines. Huggums537 (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Professional, commercial home video issued by the studio is not the same as a personal recording of a TV broadcast made on someone's VCR, which is what we are talking about. If the editor in question had any form of professional commercial home video issued by the studio, then this entire discussion would not even be happening. Please read or re-read SMcCandlish's OP. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been to the article talk page, plus the talk pages of everyone involved including Betty Logan, SMcCandlish, and the editor who owns the "personal" video. Not to mention all of the relevant guideline pages. So, I'm extremely familiar with what we are talking about. I guess it probably only seems like I don't understand because it's unfathomable that someone would argue contrary to presumably deeply entrenched beliefs about the interpretation of guidelines. It's important everyone be aware that by saying you don't think I understand the simple difference between a "commercial" or "personal" video is, in effect, only a polite way of implying I must be plain stupid, and this, after already refusing to give my earlier submittal any kind of a fair comparison at all. At any rate, even if the editor had a "professional, commercial video" we could still be having the same discussion because it's entirely possible, no matter how unlikely, that one might possess such a video which might be the only existing copy and therefore could still face the self same relevant issue of unverifiability that our "personal home video" in question faces. But, why we are discussing hypothetical situations in avoidance of my straightforward suggestion that archived means "digitally preserved", not "professionally made" only to make implications of severe stupidity is beyond me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please read or re-read SMcCandlish's OP: "It's long been my understanding that a TV broadcast may be cited as a source, even if it has not become available on permanent home media or in a Web archive. (bolding mine). The bolded portion is the crux of this RSN discussion, and we would not be having it if the TV episode in question had "become available on permanent home media or in a Web archive". Also please read Masem's reply to you below: . -- Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, you got me on that one Softlavender. However, the answer to the OP's question is easy, and it was your interpretation of "made available to the public" that I liked so much which led me to find that answer at WP:PUBLISH. The answer is plain and simple: (my text in italics)

So, we see from WP:PUBLISH that you were right about a public screening in a movie theater being made available to the public because it's already archived on film. But, for a live TV broadcast, it's not considered made available to the public until it has been archived in a recording by someone. Huggums537 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A transcript or recording of a live event, including: plays, television programs, documentaries, court trials, speeches or lectures, demonstrations, panel discussions, or meetings, a song sheet
 * "Also, I found nothing anywhere that the copy must be "official", only that "an archived copy of the media must exist". We expect material that meets WP:V can be legally obtained (even at great cost and/or time). A home video tape of a 1980 program (which is default under copyright) is technically a copyright violation, though possessing it for personal use falls under fair use -- but that still fails WP:V's legal availability requirement. We're not going to point people to use illegal tools to determine if WP:V can be met. --M ASEM (t) 21:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem. However, you already addressed the point of COPYVIO on NOV 5, 18:32 UTC. I responded with a counter point here with a suggestion that might allow the editor to avoid a COPYVIO, but you never did reply to it. I'm assuming you missed it since there were several back and forth edits between you, Softlavender and me at the time. I'm still curious as to what your response might be to that because it raises some interesting questions. In response to THIS comment, what if the personal home video were not a COPYVIO? For example, lets say it wasn't a copy of a TV broadcast, but a home video recording of an important person, place, event or otherwise significant. The false assumption being made here is that all personal videos are a COPYVIO, therefore my argument that "Also, I found nothing anywhere that the copy must be "official", only that "an archived copy of the media must exist" is somehow invalidated. Also, you kind of misrepresented the guidelines a little bit because you said, "We expect material that meets WP:V can be legally obtained (even at great cost and/or time)", but a more accurate representation would be "legally accessible". I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake, but it's a very important distinction because there is a significant difference between "legally obtained" and "legally accessible". Now, as far as videos, of any kind, that are copyrighted, courtesy of WP:COPYLINK: "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material.", "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material,...", and "In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims". I just wanted to add that I was not asking for obvious exclusions that are understood and go without saying, like COPYVIO, when I made this request: "If anyone can find any exclusions for personal home videos of any kind, please let me know because I need to be aware those guidelines." Huggums537 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The home copy is not an authorized copy of the broadcast, and if it was posted to YouTube or the link, we would treat it as a copyvio link per WP:EL. Only a link to the publisher's own copy of that video would be allowed (that's the fair use you are quoting), if this was the way to make it publicly available.
 * If you took footage and posted that, then that changes the copyright owner to you, barring issues with things like Freedom of Panorama. However, you personally may not be a reliable source, it would be treated as an SPS, and some may ask if the film was doctored or the like. So while that is a possible source to link to, it may not be appropriate as an RS. --M ASEM (t) 23:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take it. That sounds like a definite maybe. So, it IS conceivable that personal footage might possibly be used as source somehow barring any unforeseen issues. I feel like we've made great progress. We've gone from no way,no how to maybe just maybe. There may be hope yet! I wonder who was the one who shot that famous home video footage of ___________. Huggums537 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I would just like to state, for the record, that it is entirely possible for this editor to purchase a license from the copyright owner and make copies to distribute the personal home video himself, however unlikely that may be. The fact that this possibility does exist should be enough to convince anyone that his personal recording is to be considered just as much of an archived copy as any professionally made commercial product out there. Please people, let go of the brainwashed assumptions commercial=good/personal=bad. What if he actually did have a commercial copy of the video, and the studio had a fire destroying everything, leaving him with the only remaining copy and no way to verify it? His commercial video wouldn't mean squat, and he would actually be in a worse position than he is in now. At least now he still has a chance to verify his personal video or license it or any number of possibilities. In the fire scenario, he would have none of those options, but he'd have a real fancy commercial product he can't do anything with because the fire caused the studio to go bankrupt, so he can't license it since the copyright is in limbo and he can't do any fact checking because the records were on the website servers that got destroyed in the fire. It's just a terrible mess he's in with his so-called superior commercial copy. No, he's much better off with the personal recording he has now... The only thing stopping him from using it as a source is that it's not published as far as we know. To address the OP's original comment, you clearly can't cite a live TV broadcast unless it's a "transcript or recording" of the event that's been made available to the public. The personal video is clearly a recording, but it hasn't been proven to be made available to the public. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Huggums537 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "I would just like to state, for the record, that it is entirely possible for this editor to purchase a license from the copyright owner and make copies to distribute the personal home video himself". No, that is not correct. "The fact that this possibility does exist should be enough to convince anyone that his personal recording is to be considered just as much of an archived copy as any professionally made commercial product out there." No, that is not correct, and you apparently misunderstand the concept of "archived version". "What if he actually did have a commercial copy of the video". If commercial copies of the broadcast had ever existed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Please read or re-read SMcCandlish's OP. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you've piqued my curiosity...why don't you believe it's possible for him to purchase a license and distribute the video himself? My understanding of "archived" is that it means "preserved in a permanent form", not "located at an official place". Suppose I discover one of the missing episodes of Doctor Who in my attic of collections, and it turns out to be the only copy known to exist. By my logic, it is an archive because it is preserved in a permanent form according to the basic requirement of WP:PUBLISHED: "an archived copy of the media must exist". According to your logic, it's not an archive as long as I hold it in my hand, but the moment I transfer it to the hand of the BBC it somehow magically transforms into an archive, and only then can we say an archived copy of the media exists. Meanwhile, the only difference is who was holding it. Why isn't my video from my attic collection any more of an archive than the BBC and their collection? Just because theirs is bigger and worth tons more? I forgot, this is Wikipedia, so theirs can be sourced and mine can't. Therefore, they have archives, and I have none! That's also why the video archive doesn't exist until it transfers hands. Wikipedia is simply magical! Huggums537 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Fox News a RS on issues related to Hillary Clinton?
When it comes to the issue of Hillary Clinton, Fox News (i) is not a reliable source and (ii) is not an indicator of notability. Since 2016, Fox News has promoted a number of falsehoods, hoaxes and debunked conspiracy theories in its straight-up reporting, as well as in its opinion shows. This was most prominent in its extensive promotion of falsehoods concerning the Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theory. The Seth Rich conspiracy theorists hold that the Clinton campaign or the DNC murdered Seth Rich. Even though the reporting on Fox News was shown to be false within 24 hours, Fox News did not retract its Seth Rich stories until a week later. Unlike normal ethical news organizations, Fox News did not apologize or publicly explain what was wrong in the stories. The promotion of the false Seth Rich story coincided with the breaking of the James Comey memos in the Russia investigation that garnered wall-to-wall coverage in all normal ethical media outlets.

On the same day that the campaign chairman of the Trump 2016 campaign was indicted by special counsel Mueller, an event that garnered wall-to-wall coverage on all normal ethical medial outlets, Fox News led with coverage of the rehashed 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' Uranium One story from 2015, suggesting wrong-doing of Clinton. Even before Fox News ramped up its Hillary Clinton coverage last week (when it was revealed that indictments in the Russia probe were forthcoming), normal ethical news outlets noted that Fox News' coverage of Clinton was obessive. Here's the Washington Post on 16 Oct 2017: "on no other media platform does she dominate headlines as she does on Fox News. All year, the network’s commentators have covered Clinton’s post-campaign life and comments as breaking news, often with screaming “NEWS ALERTS,” as if the long wars of 2016 never ended. Fox’s coverage of Clinton has synced up with its cable news competitors only a few times, most recently when Clinton began the American tour for her memoir, “What Happened.” Since then, Fox has continued to put Clinton at the center of breaking news stories..."

Fox News' coverage is problematic in general, what with its promotion of climate change denial, birtherism, lies about other media outlets, sycophantic Donald Trump coverage and with numerous studies in top academic journals showing that Fox News increases Republican vote shares, but if there's any one issue that Fox News is not a RS on (or an indicator of notability in terms of WP:DUE it's on issues related to Hillary Clinton. There are serious concerns with the accuracy and notability of Fox reporting on Clinton. Apologies if this post was malformed (this is the first time I'm making a request here). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC) -EDIT- This is what Fox News just did in the last 24 hours. It's an every day thing at Fox News: everything from willful distortions to outright hoaxes. And there are editors here who still maintain that this is a reliable news outlet because 'both sides the same'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No agreement or disagreement with the above views, but just saying it might be worth posting or linking to at WikiProject Hillary Clinton. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be hesitant to use Fox News as the sole source for a factual claim about Hillary Clinton, but reliability is usually context-specific, and there usually aren't blanket prohibitions on sources. Is there a specific Hillary Clinton claim being referenced here? [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As Nblund says this question cannot be answered without a specific source and specific text. Whether Sean Hannity is reliable for claims about Clinton's health or foxnews.com is reliable for claims about the FBI's investigation into Tenex are two different questions. What can be said is that blanket removal is not appropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fox is reliable as any other major WP:NEWSORG like bbc,cnn and etc--Shrike (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely cautious of calling out "ethical" news sources. We judge based on journalistic integrity (which are elements like redacting stories that are wrong, editorial oversight, etc.), ethics have nothing to do with it, since the question becomes "whose ethics are we comparing that to?" I would agree that case-by-case, certain stories at Fox News should be dismissed as "reliable" for coverage of Clinton or other principally Democrat-related stories, but the bulk of their news is just reliable as as CNN and others. --M ASEM (t) 20:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The non-editorial (i.e. not Hannity, same goes to editorial content on other outlets) Fox News is just as reliable as other news sourced about Clinton. And by just as reliable I mean they are all awfully biased to be pro or anti Clinton. To build a balanced view of such a subject you need sources from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The non-editorial content is also deplorable. Your views on news outlets are bizarre. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of 'false balance'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "The non-editorial content is also deplorable": Do you have examples? Their non-editorial content reads much like CNN and BBC from my experience. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Seth Rich BS was part of Fox News' 'news reporting'. As was the blatant misrepresentation of Jake Tapper in the last 24 hrs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't read much about the Jake Tapper stuff (which is apparently just happened), so I can't say anything about it at the moment, but FNC did retract the Seth Rich story. This shows they care about having correct coverage, even if they don't retract everything that you wish they'd retract. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I showed in the OP, the retraction came a week late, without an apology or explainer for how it went wrong, like normal ethical news outlets would. The story was built on the shoddiest foundation and would never have been published unless to hurriedly distract from the Comey memos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox News did offer a note on the Seth Rich story after they retracted it. Sure, they didn't say "we apologize," but they admitted they did something wrong and retracted the story. They were not silent. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We didn't disqualify CBS after they got it wrong about George Bush. We didn't disqualify CNN after the Operation Tailwind scandal etc. All major news orgs get it wrong sometimes. Trying to single out FNC for a blanket prohibition on a particular person is dicey. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Normal news outlets publicly apologize, explain where they went wrong in their reporting and sack staff when the reporting is completely atrocious. FNC stood by its Seth Rich reporting for a week, and nobody got reprimanded for it. Which makes sense given that the Seth Rich story did what it was supposed to do: give the liars and conspiracy theorists that make up the bulk of Fox's cast of opinion hosts something to distract its viewers with while normal news outlets were reporting on the Comey memos. It is not normal that journalists say that their own outlet's coverage is an "embarrassment", "laughable" and saying it "does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country" and that it is "another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course context is important. I have used Fox News as a source on occasion, but have always avoided them on anything political given their history, the histories of their founder and owner, and statements that they have made in the past. The subject of Hillary Clinton is particularly sensitive. As an example, their legal expert two days ago. I think we need be very careful using Fox in this particular context. And, there are so many reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless "Judge Jeanine" contributes legal analysis to foxnews.com or news broadcasts this is not relevant. Jim Acosta, CNN's White House correspondent, is openly feuding with President Trump. Should we be equally skeptical of CNN's coverage of the president? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that is part of her job. And, I don't remember Acosta yelling "lock him up". Apples and oranges. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be comparing Jeanine (a political commentator) to Acosta (Senior White House Correspondent). Acosta at CNN should be compared to his FNC counterpart John Roberts (journalist). We should differentiate, in general, between the commentators and regular journalists at FNC, with the latter including James Rosen (journalist), Chris Wallace, Trace Gallagher, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, and Bret Baier. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For any news outlet, it is important to draw a line between news reporting and news analysis/commentary. Fox’s news analysis and commentary on Hillary is definitely biased... but their news reporting is fairly straight forward and mostly neutral.  Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My sense is Fox "News" is essentially GOP propaganda.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC) A Fox employee said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which time slots on fox do you consider propaganda? Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My sense is Fox is mostly unreliable, although they're thrown in a few real reporters to try to give their "news" some credibility -- but overall it's GOP propaganda, and really shouldn't be used in Wikipedia imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because your sense tells you something doesn't mean it's actually the case. FNC has more than "a few" actual journalists working for them, and that's even more apparent if you read their website, even though they do like to have commentators on their primetime TV slots (similar to how MSNBC likes to have left-wing commentator Rachael Maddow on their primetime, or how they used to have Al Sharpton during primetime). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support excising Fox from HRC topics. When it comes to Clinton, Fox is best known for their conspiracy theories. In any case, if something is notable, I'm sure that NYT / CNN / WaPo / ABC News / NBC News etc. have covered it and Fox is not needed to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better said that if two sources (of opposing biases) agree on a fact, that it enhances the reliability of *both*? Wouldn't then it be beneficial to include both sources in order to enhance the reliability of Wikipedia?  I don't see where topic-banning a news source does anything but shed doubt on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @  01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A claim doesn't become more reliable if it's supported by one reliable source and one unreliable source. Note that nobody is calling into question the RS status of a source such as the Wall Street Journal, which has a conservative leaning by all accounts but is recognized by any sensible person as a top notch source (one that I've used frequently as an editor). Fox News is akin to Salon or Media Matters, none of which I recall citing as an editor. What I'm calling for is a carefully designed topic ban for a news source with a record of falsehoods, misleading stories and obsession on one specific topic (both in news reporting and opinion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the scope of this not-at-all-neutral proposal is quite excessive. Such decisions, when necessary, should be made on a case-by-case basis. Lepricavark (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the specific case here is Hillary Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. As I said, that scope is quite excessive. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Reliability always depends on context. A source may be reliable for one claim, but not another.  It must always be judged on a case-by-case basis.  If you go to the instructions at the top of this page, there is more detail on what exactly this means. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor is going through articles removing Fox News claiming it's "not RS." Can someone please put a stop to this? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to do this myself, but please post a notice on their talk page asking them to stop. If they continue, report them to WP:ANI and an admin can block them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
 * The editor has accused me of harassing them. If others agree a warning or complaint is appropriate it would be better and more effective from someone else. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Observation: This edit looks fine to me: "The WaPo article covers this: the uranium was shipped to Canada for processing, then returned to the US. The FactCheck.org link says that attempts to export would require "other approvals", unrelated to Clinton. Fox is not a RS as you are well aware of". The comment above has an appearance of "block shopping", and is consistent with the harassment claim by the OP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that James Lambden after harassing me today has now by my count (i) followed me to nine Wikipedia pages that he had never edited before, (ii) reverted me on those pages for spurious or ill-founded reasons and (iii) on nearly every occasion been reverted back by other editors who found his reverts to be baseless. Is this acceptable behavior? I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia rules on this, but following editors around and indiscriminately reverting them seems like an obvious detriment to the Wikipedia project. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a Wikipedia "rule" - you don't make unsubstantiated accusations. Post diffs of the 9 pages I had never edited before today. Post diffs of my 9 spurious reverts. And post diffs of others' reverts of my "baseless" edits, or strike your accusations. u|K.e.coffman I understand you may feel Snoogans is helpful to your cause but encouraging his behavior is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Please reconsider. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While this is RSN, not ANI, I'm curious -- which cause do you have in mind? Please feel free to elaborate on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Lambden follows, stalks and harasses editors who he thinks don't align with his political agenda. He was doing it to me for awhile, going through and just blind reverting my edits, or showing up to articles he's never shown an interest in just to "Oppose" whatever position I took. He then started doing the same thing apparently to Snoogans. IIRC there was another user before me which he also did this too. In each case, when confronted about his creepy behavior he would turn around and try the "nah ahh, you the one harassing me" defense, which is like the most often used tool in the toolbox. Since he affects a quasi-professional writing style (which some people mistake for civility where actually it's mostly just a passive aggressive way to be a jerk) he's been given a pass on this behavior in the past. But a serious sanction here is way over due.  Volunteer Marek   18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * VM has followed me to a number of articles and unrelated noticeboards (as we see here) simply to attack me. His comment has nothing to do with the reliability of Fox News.
 * Here are some among dozens of similar comments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. When I object or suggest he restrict these comments to disciplinary noticeboards he calls my objections harassment. This has gone on for months and with multiple editors including another commenter in this thread within the last hour. It appears to be a tactic to discourage ever reverting his edits.
 * I am preparing a formal complaint. In the meantime I would greatly appreciate if someone collapsed these comments so we could return to relevant discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, Lambden always tries to play "uh uh, you the one stalking me" card. It's bullshit. The fact that multiple users have complained about precisely that specific behavior of his illustrates it's bullshit. He can spin and weasel all he wants but his edit history speaks for itself. And oh, Lambden, you're "preparing a formal complaint"? Haven't you been doing that for, what, like two years now? You still have that little black list in your user space that got you in trouble before, or did you finally remove it? Your user page is still the same exercise in trolling, I see. You do know that sort of shoots your credibility dead like a possum when you make these false accusations against other editors, right? I guess it's hard to help oneself.  Volunteer Marek   00:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Whenever I see something hatted, I always make sure to expand and read it, even if otherwise I would've even noticed it.  Volunteer Marek   05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Are we removing CNN from articles about Trump? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fox is RS, if people feel it is to biased, well we have ATTRIBUTEPOV for a reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blanket disqualification. Fox News publishes a variety of content. Some of the journalists working there are highly regarded by their peers and their newsroom reporting is a RS like that from other US broadcasters. Some of the content on their website is more like a media blog than newsroom reporting and should be treated with caution. There are obviously strong and divergent opinions among journalists on political controversies, so their content may be treated per WP:BIASED. Eperoton (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Fox is GOP propaganda.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- perhaps, if we narrow the focus to Uranium One, to begin with, would excising Fox be acceptable? WaPo has an article on why and how Fox's coverage of the deal is incorrect: "The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’". Fox's claims are notable enough to have other outlets cover them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this request for a blanket disqualification is clearly too broad and feels like a crusade (are we to ban it from every topic tangentially related to HRC too?). If anything, WP politics coverage has a systemic bias with overall too much of a reliance on mass-media, daily news sources as opposed to book sources. In political areas, WP lately feels more like "The Free Tabloid that Anyone can Edit". Any political topic of more than about a year old should be migrated off daily news sources as soon as possible. -- Netoholic @ 05:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as a blanket ban. However I would be cautious of having Fox News as a single source, I see it more as giving a second opinion or as a source for something that is then properly discussed elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To be blunt, most sources have some sort of bias. I don't think FNC is more biased to the right than most other sources are biased to the left. A blanket ban is unwarranted. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: are Breitbart and Gateway Pundit in your view reliable sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on those and perhaps I'll comment there. This is about FNC. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is that a lot of editors appear to have a warped and 'false balance' understanding of media whereby outlets that deal in hoaxes and falsehoods are seen as equivalent to reliable sources with left leanings because "both sides the same". Note that I'm not nor would I ever call for the removal of the RS status of a high-quality news outlet with conservative leanings, such as the Wall Street Journal. It sounds like a lot of the editors above must believe that ShareBlue, Media Matters and Salon are about as reliable as the Wall Street Journal because 'both sides are the same' or does the 'false balance' only extend to one side? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you're getting at. Your agenda is not exactly hard to see. And since MediaMatters and Salon keep getting used on Wikipedia, I fail to see where you are finding this great imbalance. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fox "News" is paid GOP propaganda. CNN is a reliable news source. Equating the two is borderline thuggery. I've long said that Wikipedia can be corrupted by paid contributors who infiltrate the encyclopedia to advance an agenda. There's really no way to prevent that from happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We've all heard you claim that FNC is GOP propoganda. Is it necessary to keep jumping into other discussions to repeat it? As for your nonsense about "bordeline thuggery"... well, addressing you over that inane remark is most likely a waste of time.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The problem is that there are many more mainstream sources that lean left, making Fox stand out in opposition. Fox news has just as many issues as other mainstream news sources. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See, this is where a lot of editors are: the reliability of news outlets is besides the point in their mind. They want to allow Fox News because it is biased. Just because one news outlet leans left then that must mean that every rubbish source on the right must be accepted. Note that nobody has questioned the RS status of the Wall Street Journal, an actual RS with conservative leanings. What's being disputed is the RS status of a news outlet that is as questionable as Salon, Media Matters and ShareBlue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone wanting to allow Fox news "because it is biased", just people pointing out that all news sources have bias. And you haven't shown anything demonstrating the equivalence between fox and salon, media matters, and shareblue. Natureium (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * " I don't see anyone wanting to allow Fox news "because it is biased"" - you pretty much imply it with your statement: "there are many more mainstream sources that lean left, making Fox stand out in opposition". Basically you're making a "Yeah, it's total shit, but at least it's the right color of shit" argument.  Volunteer Marek   18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep insisting that the Wall Street Journal is conservative? "The Pew Research Center found that the Wall Street Journal is read by people of all political leanings and is the only news source that is more trusted than distrusted by people all across the political spectrum." And additional data can be found |here. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it freakin' is. The fact that you dispute that sort of says more about where your own ideology lies on the political spectrum than about WSJ. And of course all kinds of people read it. For stock quotes if nothing else. So what? I read Breitbart. Doesn't make it a paragon of militant centrism.  Volunteer Marek   18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are fighting your hardest against the sources I provided (Pew Center and University of Michigan Library Research Guides) makes your political bias perfectly clear. I'm providing objective data. Natureium (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "fighting" against your sources - I'm just pointing out that you have no idea how to understand the data. In particular, who reads it, does not determine whether a source is "conservative" or not.
 * I think it's also pretty funny that you cite the fact that a source "is more trusted than distrusted by people" as evidence of it being NOT conservative. Which of course implies that conservative sources should be distrusted. Are you sure that's what you wanted to say?  Volunteer Marek   18:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying, that what the source is saying. It's a direct quote, because I didn't want to introduce any of my one ideas by summarizing it. And the article says that it's trusted by people identifying as being on both ends of the political spectrum. Not just that it's the only news source, regardless of leaning, that is more trusted than untrusted. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Natureium, I think the Pew Center report may not really show what you’re suggesting. For example, I subscribe to the WSJ. I read it for the business news. I trust more than distrust the WSJ for business news. I don’t even read the WSJ political news stories because I have seen far too much wildly biased nonsense. But, I would say I trust the WSJ more than I distrust it for what I read in it. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Fox News has been well-known to propagate lies, debunked conspiracy theories and deliberate falsehoods about Hillary Clinton. They have become effectively a Donald Trump state media outlet. A prime example the other day was the arrest of former Trump staffers, which Fox bizarrely turned into Hillary Clinton being at fault, again, somehow. The mutual back-slapping between Trump and Fox on Twitter and TV is proof of that. Despite getting so much wrong they do not issue any form of corrections which suggests they are a questionable source - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." Let's stick to policy here, not personal opinions. Policy is clear that Fox News would not be considered a reliable source for BLPs. AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose' Editorials of any news source have bias. Fox news is reliable as a source for some statements, and may not be for others. Banning a mainstream news source because it has made mistakes, similar in scope to many other mainstream news sources, clearly only serves to support your viewpoints. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about news reporting, as well as editorials. The news reporting is unreliable. When normal ethical news outlets make errors in reporting, they: correct and retract immediately, apologize and if the errors are egregious, fire staff. Fox News does not do that. Furthermore, the employees at normal ethical news outlets do not regularly chastise their own news outlets for their abysmal journalism, like Fox News employees regularly do with their own. Why is that? But yeah, "both sides the same", "there is no truth", "there is no such as RS" and *insert postmodernist claptrap*. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but I think it should be not RS for any fact (and yes I would include CNN in such a ban). I am of the conviction that most news organs are now so unreliable for basic facts that most should be blocked from being used.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Who says CNN is impeccable? CNN deletes false story on Trump ally's links to Russia: 'It was a massive f*** up So going by the logic here CNN should never be used on articles dealing with Trump Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, one difference is they correct their shit, Fox doesn't. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit without ever admitting they were making stuff up. That's actually one way to tell a reliable source from a non-reliable source.  Volunteer Marek   18:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that they do make corrections. Maybe not every time. Maybe not every time you think they should. But they do make corrections, so your claim is not entirely accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fox news spews insane, unverified propaganda unlike any other outlet. Comparisons to CNN are a false equivalence. Wikipedia can't start trying to filter RS per subject though, it's doomed to failure. Either FNC is RS for all topics, or it's not. In the case of HRC and the DNC, their cheap nonsense is often countered by serious news outlets, which can be used to either 1) fill in the context which FNC intentionally leaves out or 2) refute the claim entirely in which case it can be stricken. #twocents. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a proposal to blanket ban Fox News then I oppose it. If this is a proposal to blanket ban Fox News from anything to do with Hillary Clinton then I'm neutral. In general, there might be some things its reliable for, even in this topic area. Such instances however are most likely rare. I would put it in the "possibly but not probably reliable, use with caution, and only when other sources don't contradict it".  Volunteer Marek   00:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, after just watching Fox News spread a hoax conspiracy theory as well as spinning the Rand Paul thing so hard that it's basically lying, yeah Support, and just for Hillary Clinton stuff. It's just not a reliable source at all anymore. Our reliability criteria are independent of whether a particular source is "conservative" or "liberal". We shouldn't give Fox News a pass - when it's clearly become unreliable over the past two, three, four years, gradually - just because we feel like we should have some prominent "conservative" outlet in the "reliable" column. It's jumped the shark. It's down there with InfoWars and Breitbart. If it no longer satisfies our criteria for WP:RS, then that's not our problem.  Volunteer Marek   05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:COMMONSENSE. "It claims to be 'news doesn't magically equate to "it is reliable and the publisher is reputable", especially when it's been amply demonstrated that such an assessment consistently fails for a particular source and publisher. Fox News is not at all reliable or reputable for anything involving liberal versus conservative political matter.  While, yes, "reliability always depend on context", FN is programmatically unreliable in this context.  FN is a reliable primary source – in the limited contexts in which primary sources are reliable – but only for what some particular person's opinion is (WP:ABOUTSELF), be they a Fox talking head or someone being interviewed. It's unreliable for assertions of fact beyond that, if there's any left-versus-right political dimension to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not just me claiming that Fox 'News' is GOP propaganda but [ New York magazine, Salon magazine, Huffington Post, Slate magazine, Newsbusters, U.S. News, Politics USA, Paste magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post -- mainstream journalists see Fox as GOP/Trump propaganda. It's become an organ of the state like Pravda. Fox "News" shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are opinion pieces.
 * Yes, let's not use op-eds to prove that FNC is a giant op-ed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of mainstream journalists that Fox "News" is GOP propaganda. For example, Fox downplaying the Mueller investigation and is part of a "giant fog machine" according to Vox; Fox fabricating the Seth Rich story, instead of talking about the Manafort indictment, it focused on cheeseburgers and candy; Slate describes Fox as offering "a light, sugary sip of fascism". Any time Fox is used as a reference in Wikipedia, it downgrades our encyclopedia to GOP-pulp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so people who work for left leaning publications like Slate or Vox have an opinion. Big shocker. And that whole AV Club thing is misrepresentation. At one point, a picture was taken that shows FNC covering something different, acting as if the Manafort story is the only topic allowed to be covered and that all stations had to cover the same things in the same time frames. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I really do think those voting support should be TBANNED for US Politics. This, if passed, will become yet another nail in the coffin of Wikipedia. We don't need to add fuel to the fire that we're a laughing stock. Those claiming Fox is a propaganda arm of the GOP is just as guilty of bias. Every news source has some sort of bias, whether it's Fox or MSNBC or CNN. Those claiming that only Fox should be banned yet are fine with CNN or MSNBC is just as guilty. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think WP has already gone too far with its blanket bans on certain sources. A case-by-case ban is more appropriate. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban: FNC is a reliable source like CNN and other mainstream news orgs, per WP:NEWSORG, and it is recognized as such by most people, probably except by commentators on the Left. Its editorial stance is more conservative than most of the other sources, but 1) we shouldn't equate the op-ed section of any news org (including CNN) with their actual reporting, and 2) it's OK to use sources with different points of view to get a broader picture of an event or debate (FNC vs. CNN vs. Mother Jones, for example). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Fox News is a mainstream source.  Their normal reporting should be treated the same as the reporting of any other news source.  If Fox is the only one to reach a conclusion then we can treat that as we would any other single source claim.  If Fox and another source agree then both can be cited to illustrate it's not an isolated claim.  Conversely if Fox is the only source and other sources disagree that can also be reported.  Fox, like most other news sources also has editorial content which should be treated as opinion just like any editorial content.  Springee (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose They comply with WP:NEWSORG without question. Blanket banning them for a specific subject is just absurd. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." This is not something that Fox News does. Fox let the Seth Rich story which was exposed to be false within 24 hrs stand for a week (allowing the network to deflect and distract from the Comey memos). Fox News has now in the last 24 hrs blatantly misrepresented Jake Tapper without correction. This is standard for Fox. This is not how normal ethical news outlets function. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox News Insider is commentary. Also, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. all do the same. Your bias is really showing and needs to stop, lest you end up TBANNED from politics because you clearly can't edit without a NPOV. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, what matters is that Fox News eventually retracted the Seth Rich story. Also, Snooganssnoogans, you're assuming that FNC had dark motives for waiting so long, when it is just as reasonable to believe they simply were skeptical of reports that the story was false or something more along those lines. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox didn't do basics in its reporting on the story (such as calling the FBI) and was exposed within 24 hrs by multiple other news outlets. There is absolutely no plausible justification for the delay in correcting the story (which was spreading like wildfire among conspiracy theorists, leading to the harassment of a murder victim's family) other than distracting from a real news story that reflected poorly on the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are conspiracy theories everywhere, and your proposition is one of them. Not only do you have no evidence for it (other than "it's just got to be so", which won't fly here), but Fox's political commentators love talking about supposedly negative stories. Watch Tucker Carlson, and much of what you'll hear is him pushing back against what the other media orgs present as reflecting poorly on Trump, like the whole Russia thing, etc. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to indicate that 'Fox News Insider' is commentary. If news reporting is conflated with commentary to the point that they are indistinguishable, then that's just one other reason why Fox News is unreliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox "News" isn't. Look at this bogus junk -- divisive commentary that Santa Claus is white.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're confusing journalism and political commentary. There are both on Fox, and they are separate from each other there. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize this is but one day; but what is the obvious top story today? The tax bill, which has an enormous impact on Americans. Shares the NYTimes front page, above the fold with the NY terrorist attack. Nearly all of the WSJ front page, above the fold. What’s the top story on the FoxNews site? Hillary Clinton, a year after the election. This isn’t an opinion show. This is the main story on the Fox News site. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When did that become the standard for reliability? Each network can choose what stories they cover, in what order and to what degree. Just because YOU think the tax bill should be the lead doesn't make FNC wrong. People magazine is a reliable source, but they aren't covering the tax bill either. Why are you so insistant that if a source doesn't conform to your ideal that they are not reliable? Sounds more subjective than objective. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because YOU think. I am not the NYTimes or WSJ. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating the obvious. I didn't say anything about the WSJ or NYT. I am talking about the opinion YOU are expressing here in THIS discussion. It is YOU that is saying that since the WSJ and NYT are showing a different story as their lead, this shows FNC is not a RS. The WSJ didn't say that. The NYT didn't say it. YOU said it. Got it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the NYT and WSJ that the tax plan directly affecting American citizens and corporations released yesterday is an enormous story today and a claim about what Hillary Clinton (who holds no office, has no power, and hasn’t run for office in a year) may or may not have legally done in a private organization is a rather weird top story. We are on this page to give our opinions on the suitability of Fox as an RS on Hillary Clinton. I am merely pointing out an example of Fox’s dubious reporting on the subject of this section. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that you're not addressing reliability. You're addressing their choice of lead stories. That has nothing to do with reliability. Motor Trend isn't reprting on the tax plan at all, but they're still a relliable source. FNC IS reporting on it, just not their lead at that momenent. While you seem to understand that the thread is about FNC's reliability, you aren't addressing that. You are talking about their priorities, not reliability. Again, not objective, but subjective. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am talking about bias related to Hillary Clinton (the subject of this section). Fox chooses to headline a story calling for an investigation of Hillary when there is a huge story that actual reliable sources are covering. A year after the election, Fox is still headlining anti-Clinton stories on the slightest pretext. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It troubles me that you can't see the point. You are talking about what they choose to cover and when they choose to cover it. Neither of those is a standard to measure reliability, which is the point of this whole discussion. Until you actually start addressing reliability, it's pretty pointless to continue entertaining your responses. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am talking about an indication of biased reporting, which is a part of reliability. Until you understand this, it's pretty pointless to continue entertaining your responses. I’m done; You may have the last snark. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you don't understand the actual discussion and aren't even capable of coming up with your own snark, I'll just offer some sympathy instead. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36 is spot-on. Different media sources have to choose daily which stories they think are worth putting on their front pages and which stories they should report on at all. Fox News apparently had a different opinion on which story to put at the top of their website than other mainstream sources. So what? The actual articles on its website are reliable regardless of where they're placed. Besides, we've been hearing about this tax plan for weeks already, and it's a good thing to uncover potential misconduct from a federal official, particularly one who the people almost chose to control the government. My point with all this is that reliable sources can have the discretion to chose which story they accurately covered to be on their front pages, and FNC's decision is logical regardless of what anyone thinks of it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No misconduct has been shown by a federal official or anyone else. It appears you're repeating the kind of anti-Clinton stuff pushed by Fox that is under discussion here. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I said potential misconduct -- please read what I said properly. It appears you're the one jumping to conclusions on the Clinton stuff, just on the opposite side of the typical liberal's FNC viewer stereotype. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blanket ban. Decisions like this need to be dependent on what the source says and how it is being used.  There is nothing wrong with using Fox News to support a factual statement (for example, "Clinton gave a speech in Middletown, USA on July 4"), but in general it shouldn't be used in support of subjective criticism.  Deli nk (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans gives sufficient evidence that Fox News is a questionable source for matters of fact. This is separate from any issues about political viewpoint, distractions, or opinion pieces. Per policy, "questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Hunc (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Question given that much of FNCs content is outlandish propaganda unlike any other news outlet, what about just jettisoning them outright? There is enough RS for "landslide in Honduras" (or whatever other real news) that WP will get by without FNC. This solves the problem of trying to go issue by issue to decide where Fox News is factual, and where it's insane conspiracy theories. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or we can jettison CNN and just use Fox, same thing different side. People who are advocating for the removal of Fox from RS are extremely short-sighted and unwilling to admit their own bias. I think this thread needs to be shut down already and further POV and pointy pushes should be stopped right away. Wikipedia doesn't need more negative news that is on point. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a study of CNN's coverage (originally from Harvard) and found it extremely biased and anti-Trump,, here's a journalist stating Trump is right that CNN is biased: and here's a study on bias on all cable news channels: Sir Joseph (talk)  18:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CosmicAdventure, that FNC is not a reliable source is clearly not a given. The Harvard study is interesting: Fox was the most balanced of all major news organizations in covering the Trump Administration, with roughly half of all coverage being positive and the other half negative. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of this comes back to far too many editors sticking heads into the sand and refusing to want to discuss the situation of the media today, which is far less objective, and conflates op-eds with reporting, thus making nearly every political-based controversy article a battlegrounds for editors. Media has always been biased, but the bias only was limited to op-eds. Nowadays, since very few pieces are written without the inclusion of op-ed (opinionated journalism), the bias is a problem for us in trying to evaluate NPOV, NOR, and NOT, particularly when editors agree with the op-eds that are published on the side of bias that the mass media falls into. It doesn't make these sources no longer RS, but we have to be aware where the draw the line to what is factual reporting (and include that), and what is opinion which needs to be weighed both per UNDUE and per RECENTISM. That last part is simply not happening. --M ASEM (t) 19:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is why I think this discussion should be closed. It will get us nowhere. As for Fox, people need to realize that it's a 24 hour channel and many of its shows (not the news) are news commentaries, similar to CNN and MSNBC Sir Joseph (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Seconded - and this has had a significant effect on the neutrality of our articles. It is interesting (and alarming) to compare the time spent reporting fact vs reporting opinion on American cable news channels to others like the BBC and even Qatar's Al Jazeera. The unfortunate reality is proper journalism is an increasingly unprofitable business model. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. This discussion should be closed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Meh Let me know when CNN doctors images or just makes up insane conspiracy theories about murdered DNC staffers. As for the Harvard study, Fox was "the most balanced" but you left out, interestingly, the critical qualifier "however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.". Ah, context, remember when it mattered? Go ahead and close this, Fox's insane lies are easily countered by legitimate media, and perhaps HRCs article is doomed to be a POV battleground where FNC bonkers claims have to be countered by actual real news. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that you sound biased or anything..... But yes, CNN has been caught making up nonsense. Like when it claimed the US used sarin gas on Americans in Laos. Proven lie. (Then NBC hired the reporter) I guess CNN conotributors passing questions to HRC isn't a lie, so that doesn't count, but in 2003 when they showed fully automatic weapons firing during a story about a semi-automatic weapons story, that would be pretty darn close to the photo-doctoring you asked about. Or when they used pictures of Margaret Thatcher with a pedophile repeatedly during coverage of her death? Yeah, CNN is unbiased and pure as the driven snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, 20 years ago CNN reported that the US used sarin on US troops 20 years before that? Scandalous! And obviously meant to discredit the Nixon administration 4 years after he'd died. Let me know when CNN repeatedly lies about the sizes of crowds for "conservative" events, or just peddles insane conspiracy theories about murdered DNC staffers. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, they lied about it to discredit the US government, headed by a Republican president at the time. But your claim wasn't solely about politics, just that they don't make stuff up. And note how you completely ignore the incident about using footage of auto weapons in a story about semi-autos. That's probably hitting too close to home for your example. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, the president in 1998 was Democrat Bill Clinton. No, my claim was not that "they don't make stuff up", my statement was that FNC is totally over the top in terms of their insane made up stories. This whole discussion is littered with unreasonable comparisons to CNN, and when I pointed out recent obvious conspiracy theories peddled as news for days and weeks on Fox, you dragged up one story from 20 years ago that CNN actually retracted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When has Fox News lied about crowd sizes? Repeatedly? The editors here who want to ban Fox News from Wikipedia are only bringing up a handful of false or questionable stories. Every media site, whether it's CNN, the Associated Press, etc., makes a comparable number of mistakes. Just this year, CNN and the AP were caught in some relatively serious cases of misreporting/fake news (CNN fired at least three people because of their incident, a false story having something to do with Trump and Russia). So why are the left-of-center editors only going after Fox here? Fox, like CNN, caught their mistakes and admitted they were wrong (as I pointed out with the Seth Rich story above). Fox News has a conservative and (relatively) pro-Trump editorial stance. So what? Their reporting is fine and not worse than the other outlets, which make just as bad mistakes at times. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's true, CNN found some misreporting and fired the people involved, when Fox and Friends just LIED (not a mistake, just told a crazy on air lie) that the memos Comey released were classified (they were not), who was fired? It turns out no one. Speaking of Fox and Fiends, there was the crazy claim of 100's of thousands of protestors the 9/12 rally, the lie about Michelle Bachmans crowd, the lie about Sarah Palins book crowd ... those are just from Wikipedias articles about fox news lies. I mean vs . --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose the ban. Fox News certainly has its biases (and more so than most news sources, in my opinion) but broad bans such as this that would take the place of thoughtful consideration of how each source is used in its context, it is an extremely bad idea for Wikipedia.  As a general rule, any proposal that comes from an editor heavily invested in editing politics-related articles from a singular viewpoint should be automatically rejected because the motivation is almost certainly for the purpose of gaining an advantage in controversial editing.  Peacock (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose per PCock .Further Fox News like any other network they are accurate at times and at times has biases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is really bad proposal. Instead, individually evaluate the appropriateness of a news source as it is used.  Gnome de plume (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As an apolitical editor (I say we should elect some socialists, libertarians, and greens, so we can be disappointed by someone new) it is obvious to me that some democrat-leaning editors think that any republican-leaning source must be unreliable, and that some republican-leaning editors think that any democrat-leaning source must be unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It is a reliable media; in this context, source is reliable. Each media holds some concerns, does not mean, unreliability. Cite with NPOV. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose All news media err and publish retractions as Fox did. If we add make Fox News Channel the second addition to the Wikipedia media blacklist, then we are going to have to question thousands of other sources.  The best way to deal with stories that only appear on Fox is weight.  If only Fox reports a story, it lacks weight.  (The same applies to any news organization.)  TFD (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban. Are we seriously considering banning Fox News from RS simply because their coverage of Clinton is negative? Reminder that we never use opinion pieces or commentary segments to source facts. We don't do it with Hannity and Tucker, we don't do it with Maddow and Scarborough. However, the news reporting from Fox, as with other mainstream RS, is reliable. Like others here, I would recommend finding an additional source besides Fox (something like The Hill) to cite controversies surrounding Clinton and similar issues. But a blanket ban of Fox is illogical. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reboot this discussion, or close
Most of the above has nothing to do with reliability for matters of fact. Biased opinions are not material here. To declare Fox News unreliable, or questionable, we need evidence that it is more likely to propagate demonstrable falsehood, and less effective in correcting itself when falsehood is demonstrated, than other news outlets. Can anyone provide evidence that this is so? Or that it isn't? Hunc (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Fox "News" predicts an antifa apocalypse today. Let's see if that happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is literally Will the so-called "Antifa apocalypse" come with a bang or a whimper? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The gatherings are being described as a kind of "Antifa apocalypse" on right-wing media, according to The Washington Post." How dare they report on what other media are saying 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether bang or whimper the Fox "News" report is bogus.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think Fox News is making this story up, you're absurd. There is at least one Antifa group (Refuse Fascism, which has its own Wikipedia article, suggesting notability) that says it will do these protests, and the Fox News story clearly is skeptical on whether these protests will actually go as R.F. is saying, and the Fox News story does not believe that R.F.'s protests are intended by the organizer to be violent. The fact that FNC has decided to give this story more coverage than other mainstream sources is irrelevant. The story is accurate regardless of that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. The "Refuse Fascism" article was created on September 12 just as this hoax was starting to spread. If anything that article should be deleted. The Fox News story is NOT skeptical, although it does make sure to ensure "plausible deniability". The fact that Fox News "has decided to give this story" - and by "this story" we mean a bullshit hoax and a nutzoid conspiracy theory which had/has the potential to actually get people hurt - IS in fact very very very very very very very very very relevant.  Volunteer Marek   05:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What's stupid is you creating ridiculous reasons to not accept Fox News as reliable. First, regarding the Refuse Fascism article, the article is very detailed and well-sourced and covers its numerous protests long before the one which the FNC article discussed. If this article really should be deleted, then you should nominate it.
 * Also, the Fox News article CLEARLY does NOT buy into the rumors that this protest would be massive, and it is skeptical of the rumors -- it just reported those rumors (and it also reported what WaPo said about those rumors). You apparently think reliable media need to pass judgments on what they discuss to be reliable (that's opinion journalism).
 * Also, you apparently think that simply reporting on the existence of "a bulls*** hoax and a nutzoid conspiracy theory" (which WaPo also did) equals unreliable reporting. That's ridiculous. Even if FNC was giving undue weight to this story (which it was not; and WaPo would then be responsible for the same atrocity), it's reporting is accurate. As I said above, news organizations have to choose on a daily basis which stories they will report on and which they will ignore. These reliable organizations don't have to choose the same stories to be reliable. Considering that FNC's audience is relatively conservative (which has no effect on its reliability--remember that CNN's audience is relatively liberal), we can see why FNC chose to report on this story (does this mean WaPo has a conservative audience? :) ).
 * Also, stop pretending that Fox News is significantly worse than other networks like CNN. CNN and other left-leaning news orgs, just in the past day, distorted the story of Trump feeding those Koi in Japan. See CNN's story and Bloomberg's White House Correspondent compared to the actual event (start at 0:30). Also, CNN distorted Trump's statement regarding making cars in America, the article implying at first that Trump never admitted that Japanese companies already made cars in the U.S. before correcting itself (just like FNC's correction of the Seth Rich story, CNN never said "we apologize"). My point here is to show that Fox News is not any worse than the other reliable media sources. They all make mistakes and have bias, but then they are shown to have inaccuracies, they all act appropriately. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accurate? Nonsense. "Antifa apocalypse"? Nonsense. Fox "News"? NOT.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Close this already FNC is absurd, far more so than legitimate media, but the legitimate media treats them like a peer so they're RS. Simple as that. As for their insane propaganda regarding HRC, it's easily debunked by legitimate news media, so it appears she's the hero America needs, but not the hero America deserves right now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not as "simple as that". Fox "News" is propaganda masquerading as a serious source of news according to TeenVogue, and treating them as a credible news source pollutes our encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but until legitimate media stops treating them as peers, until peer reviewed journals start calling them out, we're stuck with them and their insane propaganda I'm afraid. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhh, TeenVogue as a serious source for discussion of issues in the media? I would expect that we'd need a source like from the Pew Research Center or Columbia Journalism Review - expert sources that discuss the state of the media - to make that call. --M ASEM (t) 22:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're trying to use Teen Vogue to support your view is a clue that you should reevaluate. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why? Why are we rebooting? There is clearly, very clearly, no consensus for the proposal. This reboot is simply another venue for those who backed the proposal to sit here and continue their tirades. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Niteshift is right; we have not generated a meaningful discussion of reliability. We have had a lot of off-topic discussion of bias. This needs to stop - or shift to an appropriate venue. Please either address the point of reliability for matters of fact, or close this discussion. Hunc (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This project page is Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The issue is whether FNC is a reliable source. Accordingly, this is the proper forum for this discussion. Whether we agree or disagree that FNC is reliable, this discussion (above) is relevant and on-topic. We just have not come to a consensus yet, so calls to close are premature.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating the obvious name of the page. This is the forum to discuss it....however, there is CLEARLY not a consensus to support the blanket exclusion of FNC from articles about her. Just saying "reboot" and starting the same discussion smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The discussion is above....the proposal clearly doesn't have consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see above, it looks like there are far more arguments against this proposed ban. Natureium (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I mean. More oppose it.....meaning there's no consensus for the proposal. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Can an article with limited self-published source pass Featured article criteria?
I am developing an article about a Vietnamese movie and considering to use at least 5 sources from its Facebook page for Marketing section because none of VNese publication mentioned the information that I need (I used to concern about the use of Facebook a couple week ago). Although I've not finished yet but I estimate this article will have about 50 sources. Base on WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources such as Facebook can be used as sources of information about themselves. However, after reading this candidate, a reviewer said that Facebook is not a high-quality source while WP:FACR require this criteria (1c-well-researched). Can anyone give me advice? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could be worth asking at WT:FA?. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what the reviewers decide. However I think it inadvisable because "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" would indicate that articles should be mostly based on secondary sources.  Furthermore, the lack of secondary sources could affect "Notability".  And without sufficient secondary sources, it is hard to determine "Weight".  TFD (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any support for having an annual cull of RS acceptable for Wikipedia?
I am thinking there is no harm, and potential benefit, in having an elected or appointed committee to assess annually whether there are existing sources considered reliable which should be removed or suspended as acceptable RSs for Wikipedia purposes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? We don't operate on a whitelist of "accepted sources". Except for a few rare cases like the Independent where a publisher takes a drastic change of direction, sources are rarely going to change their reliability (and even in the case of the Indy, everything it published prior to Lebedev's takeover is still going to be a RS for Wikipedia purposes). &#8209; Iridescent 22:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that fake news has infected some former reliable sources recently and that the entire reliability spectrum has become more dynamic and less stable. In addition, I think quite a few sources have lowered their standards increasingly over the past few years. I'm thinking a white list might be a practical evolution, if not yet necessary. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol. You wanna be specific?  Volunteer Marek   01:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Step 1 is to decide whether there exists such a thing as fake or biased news in your mind. Step 2 is to put on the "annual review" list any RS which has published what you consider to be fake or biased news. There are many editors much more capable of being on the "RS annual review committee" and/or suggesting entities to put on the list than myself, but 2 I might suggest be reviewed are Fox and CNN. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to approach/design the list by reaching consensus on the 10, 20, or 100 best/least biased sources and start a "reliable" list that way. For what its worth, I'd likely add/support adding The Hill, Reuters and The Guardian to any "reliable" list that was created. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am against this committee elected or appointed. This noticeboard is willing to deal with the reliability of sources. However I could understand a volunteer group or project where we have a list of suggested RS's and a list of sources that are probably not RS's. Some good essays, such as Reliable sources checklist and Suggested sources, already exist on the matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I'll ping the founders of those two essays, and see what they have to say. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Emir of Wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I wrote Reliable sources checklist (and also this template). So yes, I don't think a black-and-white list is probably a good idea mainly. We do have a blacklist for really poor sources, and fine. As a general rule, sources are more or less reliable for a given fact depending on various details. I'm not in favor of the approach "This source says X and this source is reliable, period, so discussion can now end". It's usually more complicated than that. There are a few sources that that are generally pretty reliable for everything. But even in the New Yorker I saw a capitalization error the other day. This might be a sign of the end of the world. Or maybe just a reminder that no source is always right, which being on a whitelist might tend to imply. Herostratus (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "guy in a bar" template and your accompanying comment "Given what passes for reliable sources nowadays, we might as well have this template." is exactly what I am trying to address. Maybe a white list is not the answer but maybe an aggressive increase to the black list is the way to go when it comes to RS for news. Maybe news publications should have to be the best of the best to qualify as RS for Wikipedia articles. Why not? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The question of whitelists comes up every once in a while. I always like to roll out WP:VG/S as an interesting example where this approach is used. It certainly helps smooth AFD discussions to have a known, common list of sources to check for notability. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, would that be an indication that its at least worth a try on a broader scale? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A broader scale? Probably not "broader". If you have a area of interest such as forestry or books... it might be valuable to try putting together a list. That helps to keep the list narrow. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as viable even if it were desirable. There are just so many potential sources.  How many websites are there in the world?  How many books have ever been published?  No one has the time to list all of them.  TFD (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point, I guess it would only be useful for the larger print and broadcast media. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally, this misunderstands the way that we assess reliability of sources on Wikipedia. The source matters, but it also matters what the source says in a given instance, and also what Wikipedia content we want to use that source to support. It matters whether it is an editorial, or a regular column, or a wire story, or an affiliated blog.  It matters whether it is a report of a politician giving a speech, or an allegation of criminal activity, or an assessment of the efficacy of a new drug.  There's a reason why the instructions at the top of this page ask for Source, Article, and Content&mdash;trying to take just one element in isolation gives lousy results. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re essay wp:Suggested_sources: I am responding here as author of "wp:Suggested sources" (from May 2011), which I wrote to help users who edit a wide range of topics, such as medical pages which I learned follow guide wp:MEDRS or rock-music pages which often cite pitchfork.com or Rolling Stone with bio-pages of many in the rock-music world. At that time, there were legal concerns of linking music-lyrics pages that fail to note lyrics under copyright, and that's when I found Lyricsmode.com, which formerly posted the copyright restrictions of lyrics on each song page. Because I rarely edit rock-music pages, I often got stuck trying to find reliable 3rd-party sources about newer songs. Hence, the essay was titled "Suggested..." as a place to list a few hundred sources covering a wide range of topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

blog as a source
I question the reliability of http://fabsydneyflashbacks.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/1990-grace-bros-opens-at-hurstville.html?m=1 used in Westfield Hurstville. whilst it has scans of newspaper articles it still is a blog. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it has scans of newspaper articles, it's probably violating copyright. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can cite the newspaper directly. Unless you have doubts about the scans legitimacy. That the older papers are not online is not a prohibition to use as a reference, it will be archived somewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct - just about anything with "blogspot" or "WordPress" in the name are going to be amateur, self-published sources not in line with WP:RS. Sergecross73   msg me  03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the content is cited to the news paper, not the blog, (and we accept the scans as real) then the only issue link rot when linking to the blog. Remember that access via the web is not a requirement for a source, it's just preferred so others can view the source.  If we cite the blog or the opinion of the blogger then it's a less reliable source.  RS doesn't say we can't cite such sources but they are considered to be lower quality which limits their use. Springee (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the above, we shouldnt be linking to the blog per WP:COPYLINK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Iranian media, news agencies, and revolutionary departments
Can Iranian media, news agencies, and revolutionary institutions be used as a RS for anything other than the Iranian regime's position?

Per Freedom House Iranian media does not enjoy freedm of the press: Freedom House Iran Freedom of the press.

The article in question is 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping. Some examples of sources:

Islamic Revolution Document Center being used to source this was a kidnapping, and not a disapperance or killing, as well as details such as the location.

state owned Al-Alam News Network being used to specify the role of the missing people in the Iranian appartus.

private Tasnim News Agency used to specify where and by whom the men were stopped, specifying a BLP Samir Geagea. Further used later to say BLP's group was known for cooperation with Israel.

Islamic Republic News Agency an official gvmt news agency is used to state, unqualified, the Iranians' travel plans.

Fars News Agency a semi official news agency used to source that the men were held in Adonis prison in Beirut. Also Fars, used to report on a rather FRINGEy report by Rai al-Youm (which is an Arabic source, whose use elsewhere in the article is also perhaps questionable)

Mashregh News news site possibly associated with the revolutionary guards used for opinion of Lebanese Karim Pakradouni.

Press TV affilate of state owned IRIB, used to source Israel/Hezbollah 2006 negotiations details.

Iranian website (my browser block this one due to a privacy issue), used to source annual commemoration.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Government-affiliated Iranian outlets should be treated at least as WP:BIASED, with attribution. Here is a nice inventory of attributions. I personally wouldn't have used any of these sources. Eperoton (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The mentioned article is GA which was deeply reviewed sentence by sentence. Most of the items above are not challenging and are already confirmed by other sources:
 * - These two random sources, for example, say that the diplomats were kidnapped.
 * - Reuters, among many others, specify the role of the kidnapped people.
 * - This book specifies where and by whom the men were stopped.
 * - ...and etc.
 * If there's a challenging item solely claimed by Iranian media, then proper attribution should be done. -- M h hossein   talk 05:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A very recent GA, that may be challenged. All the sources mentioned here are being used to source a sentence/paragraph by themselves, without support from other sources (at least not stated so, presently, in the article). these are being used without attribution (I've omitted attributed sentences - that I also find questionable in terms of length and quantity in the article (which reads as "portrayal of kidnapping in Iranian media" and not a an article about the disappearance of said Iranian officials.). My understanding of most Russian media sources (and all the more so news agencies such as ITAR TASS) is that they can not be used on Wikipedia unless attributed (according to...) or alternatively to state the Russian gvmt position - I would think that the same, if not more so, would apply to sources from within Iran. The affair in question has ample sources from outside of Iran - but in this article currently a large proportion of the sources used are Iranian media/gvmt agencies and the rest of the sources are really great either (Lebanese newspapers, Rai Al-Youm (which might deserve a separate section), and an assortment of other news sources (as opposed to non-news analysis)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * e.g. here Tasnim News Agency is used, without attribution (IRIB is attributed here specifically, not elsewhere) to source information about a BLP's actions and alleged cooperation with Israel: Lebanese Phalange forces headed by Samir Geagea stopped and detained the diplomats. ....... The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) said that the interview substantiated the abduction of the diplomats and their handing over to Israel by Geagea's group. The group was known for its close ties with Israel and for handing over many Lebanese and foreigners to Israel during its invasion of Lebanon.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

PressTV yes, the others I don't know, but PressTV is high quality. Xinhua has used it as a source in articles. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with this blanket assessment of Iranian or Russian media. I'm better familiar with the latter, and most news outlets there are not affiliated with the government. Their editorial line may be critical or supportive of the government, and they may reflect other forms of bias (e.g., nationalistic), but this in itself does not automatically make them unreliable, and there is no consensus on treating them as such AFAIK. I'm not very familiar with Iranian media, but I do know that there is considerable variety in the Iranian press. The use of government-affiliated sources for topics on which the government has a position is a special case. Eperoton (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The 4 diplomat case is very much in the Iranian gvmt agenda and is a nationalist issue. Drawing a parallel with the Russian (which we should note has a higher degree of press freedom than Iran - 83 vs. 90 (higher is less free) per Freedom House) would you use russian media as an unqualified source for a stmt of fact regarding the War in Donbass?Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I might if it was a source known for well-researched and independent investigative journalism, like Novaya Gazeta or Vedomosti. I follow WP:NOENG in preferring English-language sources, and part of the rationale for this policy, I believe, is the ability of fellow en-wiki editors to assess the source's reliability. Eperoton (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ethereum


This article is replete with sources like bitcoin.com, coindesk and even Twitter. I have a hard time believing that half the sources actually meet WP:RS/ What do others think? as an obvious SME here. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sourced were questioned at Talk:Ethereum/GA1. I also doubt that sources present are RS's and so I have tagged the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At best, they are primary, regardless of their reliability, and should be used appropriately for such. WP:SELFPUB is also relevant. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked (admittedly awhile ago) most of the primary sources were being used appropriately. Has that changed? What ones are problematic at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If Guy is accurate in saying that half of the references used are primary (regardless of each individual use--I haven't looked either!), then the article is on the wrong track per NOR policy: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. as well as Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. That's besides our separate policy at WP:NPOV and especially the section on WP:WEIGHT, which relies on the topic's visibility in reliable sources (noting that reliable sources aren't required to be non-primary). --Izno (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a problem that comes up with technical articles sometimes. The best sources for how a technical device/system/etc functions almost always tend to be primary when the subject is not widely covered. In Ethereums case, there were (last time I looked at the article) plenty of sources on cryptocurrencies, enough sources to establish notability for ethereum, but very few non-primary sources that described how it differs and its own unique flavour. I just had a look now and it does seem to have mushroomed a bit. Given its higher profile it should be possible to replace some of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Bitcoin press is ... not good. It looks like specialist press, but is frequently straight-up advocacy (because that's what its readership wants). Some of the best, like Coindesk, are IMO usable as sources if you're careful and are using a report on events that have already occurred. But they also run barely-founded speculation as if "might" is "will" is "have already done", e.g., if you look through the talk archives you'll see someone want to mention that SingularDTV made a TV show based on cryptocurrency, on the basis of a Bitcoin press article that said they were totally going to; of course, this hasn't eventuated.
 * Many of the cryptocurrency "news" sites are actually garbage. Dig this article, which is an extended attack on for daring to edit Monero according to the actual rules of Wikipedia.
 * The actual problem is that the advocates are frequently completely over the top, considering anyone who disagrees with their advocacy the enemy - I had two Reddit /r/ethereum threads about me daring to edit the article per Wikipedia rules, where one of the most common objections was that I, uh, knew the rules. And moreover, that they have a direct financial conflict of interest, i.e. a significant holding that they want to see go up. And we've had Ethereum Foundation board members editing without a COI declaration.
 * That said, burning that article back down to actual mainstream press is fine by me. But expect it to be a battle with abusive advocates - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Source
PYMNTS.com https://www.pymnts.com/

Article
Here's a link to the articles that currently use PYMNTS.com as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.pymnts.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Context: I have a draft that was rejected in AfC for lack of notability. The editor comment referred to sources as paid and/or press releases. I'd like to either eliminate there references or eliminate the possibility that the article is being rejected because of this source. I understand that just because a source is used in other published articles, it doesn't mean that there is any consensus around its reliability. After searching archived discussions, I can't find anything mentioning PYMTS.com. Is there any consensus around this source?

For my part, I can verify that these articles are not paid for (see COI notice on my user page) and have the contact information for the reporters and editors that were involved, including email threads. I also don't think this would qualify as a press release because they reached out because of a press release and wrote a story. I want to verify that this source wouldn't fall under the realm of press release.

Content
Here's the content and the source included as support:

https://www.pymnts.com/news/b2b-payments/2017/zipbooks-takes-on-age-old-sme-growing-pains-accounting-finance-saas-jaren-nichols/ <- used to support feature set of ZipBooks

There are multiple sources from PYMNTS.com in the article. I'm still in the process of editing the draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ZipBooks

ZB wiki (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the links to pymnts.com in articles have the URL path "businesswire-feed", which means they are press releases, written by and paid for by the company. These would be considered primary sources, not secondary independent sources, which are desired. The pymnts.com site doesn't seem to have those pages anymore, though; the ones I checked in Special:LinkSearch came up 404.
 * Other articles published by them have the anonymous byline "PYMNTS" which doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the piece results from actual journalism. Indeed, pymnts.com gives the appearance of being a trade journal that exists for the purpose of providing publicity to companies in the e-payments space.
 * The question is, is it reliable? As far as what they actually report, probably yes, although if they get their information from interviews with their subjects, then they wouldn't be considered truly independent. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

PCMAG.com reliability consensus
Is it common knowledge that PC Mag doesn't do pay to play reviews? I have had a couple offline conversations with some Wikipedia editors whose backgrounds are not in the software space, and they mentioned that they weren't sure where you could and couldn't get a paid review / sponsorship. More generally, after searching the archives I've seen a couple mentions about PC Mag but nothing clearly delineating any consensus around whether PC Mag is considered a reliable source. As an anecdote, the review posted about ZipBooks involved figuring out who the reviewer was for accounting software, reaching out to them, scheduling and giving a demo, and waiting many months for a review to get published. ZB wiki (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Was that review based solely on a demonstration, or did the PC Mag reviewer evaluate the software independently? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "Archaeology" magazine a reliable source?
A question came to the fore while discussing an edit with another editor on the Talk-Page of the Wikipedia article Israel, namely, on whether or not the journal "Archaeology" a bi-monthly journal published by the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), can be used as a reliable source in the said article. (See: Archaeology website). The discussion that we have been engaged in so-far can be seen here, in this link. The matter in question concerns an edit where its writer suggests that there has yet to be found archaeological evidence to the effect that Joshua and the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan. The current edit reads as follows: * The early history of the territory is unclear. Biblical archaeologists have yet to find archaeological evidence supporting the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs and The Exodus, although archaeological excavations in Israel have disclosed evidence of the conquest described in the Book of Joshua.

The suggestion has been made to amend the text, so that it will read as follows, with the above "Archaeology" journal being cited as a source:


 * The early history of the territory is unclear. Biblical archaeologists have yet to find archaeological evidence supporting the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs and The Exodus, although some archaeologists claim to have found archaeological evidence of the conquest described in the Book of Joshua, a matter that remains disputed. (END QUOTE)

The source taken from "Archaeology" magazine was written by Abraham Rabinovich, in an article entitled "The Burning of Hazor, dated 1998.Davidbena (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The journal reports on archaeology for a general readership. The article in question is by the journalist Abraham Rabinovich and the academic historian Neil Asher Silberman, whose name has been omitted in the citation. The journal is reliable; but the second version above bears no relation to what is written on page 51 of the text, which describes the second post-1990 excavations of the site of the ancient city of Hazor, headed by Amnon Ben-Tor. On page 53 there is a discussion of the original excavation in the 1950s by Yigael Yadin and his conclusions. This concerns the destruction by fire of Hazor — whether it was accomplished by Israelites or earlier by marauding Egyptians. This depends on more precise dating. This survey for non-experts was written in 1998; doubtless more recent articles, possibly in more specialist journals, have been written reporting on what has been learnt in the last 20 years from excavations of the site. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is more of a question of WP:BALASP than WP:RS (which this is).Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Archaeology" is a magazine, not a journal. Its sister publication American Journal of Archaeology is the journal. Silberman is not just a historian, he is a professional archaeologist with several publications concerning Near Eastern archaeology. He is also the co-author of the book The Bible Unearthed (2001), where he explicitly rejects the historicity of the Book of Joshua. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dimadick, Thanks. So, as a source, can the magazine be used to show that the matter is disputed between scholars?Davidbena (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, we have better sources. See Mathsci's post below. Doug Weller  talk 17:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote the wikipedia article omitted Silberman's name. A more nuanced discussion is given in Tel Hazor. One of the articles cited there (from 2012 in the newspaper Haaretz) gives a report on the views of the archaeologists Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman, both active at the site. The Bible Unearthed surveys in detail both work of archaeologists on various sites and of German textual scholars. It concludes that, "But what was in actuality a chaotic series of upheavals caused by many different factors and carried out by many different groups became—many centuries later—a brilliantly crafted saga of territorial conquest under God's blessing and direct command." Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think is what DavidBena who left out Silberman's name, which I thought odd at the time but forgot to mention. I agree that the issue isn't really whether it's a reliable source but how and whether to use it over other sources - WP:BALASP as Icewhiz says. Doug Weller  talk 13:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed
Not the usual RNS post, but relevant. I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there. At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.

These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.

A study reported in the Japan Times by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.

The New York Times published an article last month called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.

They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. See also this article.

There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.

An article last month in Die Zeit says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."

There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics.

This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?

Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if something could be done with the cite journal template and similar referencing templates to flag predatory journals? If you make a mistake with the isbn= field in these templates a note appears in the article to prompt editors to check the isbn is correct, and it should be possible to do the same if the name of a predatory journal appears in the journal= field. This would help to keep these publications out of our articles, and contribute to broader efforts to push back against this awful trend. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would require us to actually maintain a list of predatory & unreliable journals. Which may be problematic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that is a big requirement but the only two options I can think of a whitelist of approved journals or a blacklist of unapproved journals. Even though we would have to maintain it would it be less work than having to check every article for predatory journals and fake conferences? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but any blacklist would need to be carefully named as to avoid incurring legal action from the (extremely lucrative and well funded to give the WMF pause) fake journals on it. We cant 'whitelist' acceptable journals because *all* sources are of variable reliability in context. If we maintain a blacklist, the above problems appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a challenging issue for sure, but I'm not sure what can be done about it beyond encouraging vigilance and trying to educate our own editors about this. There are definitely a lot of fake & predatory journals out there, but it's really not that hard to spot them if you have decent knowledge of the subject area and aren't just lazily googling (which, I guess, is why this might be more of a problem for Wikipedia specifically, since unfortunately that's what a lot of editors seem to do). Maybe we need an essay about how to spot them? There are a lot of basic checks that will weed out most of them (ie, is it indexed, is it affiliated with a university or major publishing house, does the editor actually hold an academic post at a real university, etc). These journals are like whack-a-moles anyway so a list would be very hard to maintain. We just need people to be vigilant and exercise common sense.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy has an interesting proposal below, base it on an external whitelist, which would remove my concerns completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does it matter? I thought journal articles were in general unreliable sources. I have been avoiding them like the plague for most of my years in Wikipedia. There is no way to determine whether the POV in the journal fits the "significant views" required by Neutral point of view or belong to the extreme fringe in their field.

Our article on the scholarly peer review process already has sourced sections of "peer-reviewed" articles which actually reflected biases, suppression of dissent, published fraudelent or fictitious results, used fake data to reach the desired conclusion, and plagiarized from other texts.

On a related note, one of the external links included a list of academic historians who have been accused of misconduct.: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1081

Among others: one of them plagiarized passages from over a dozen books and refused to change known errors in his publications, one of them "manipulated" data to to reach a desired conclusion and was actually a candidate for an award, one of them "manufactured" data on a research about political history, one of them plagiarized website content to use in his dissertations, one of them both plagiarized texts for a book on political history and paid hush money to one of the original writers, one of them used "phony documents" in a book about a historical assassination, one of them used "flawed" transcripts in his research on the Watergate tapes, one of them had plagiarized her original dissertation from various journals, one of them misattributed historical quotes and misquoted his sources on military history, one of them "fabricated" historical texts in order to support his views on 19th-century political history, one of them plagiarized over 50 pages from another book (quotting them verbatim), one of them both plagiarized texts and lied about his academic credentials, one of them plagiarized half of his history book from the history book of another writer, and one of them was caught plagiarizing from four different sources and claimed that attributing sources was not important.

You know what to expect when it comes to academics. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Veering into SOAPBOX territory here I see... proper peer-reviewed journals are fine, you're welcome to disagree with that personally but policy (and generally accepted standards outside of wikipedia) say otherwise, and there is no way that's going to change. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also we're starting to mix different issues here. WP is primarily interested in reliability and correctness of content in external sources, whether those external sources plagiarize however is not a primary concern, since that isn't necessarily an assessment of reliability and correctness of the content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"WP is primarily interested in reliability and correctness of content in external sources"

Which is why "peer-reviewed" sources with unreliable data are a big concern. In this case, most of the works passed the peer review process. Affiliation with a "real" university is not a guarantee for reliability either. S. Walter Poulshock is mostly known for academic fraud, but used to be affiliated with both Syracuse University Press and Rutgers University. And unfortunately his fabrications are still in circulation. :"Sternstein wrote in 2002 that he was concerned that the case had not been sufficiently publicised, meaning that Poulshock's work continued to be cited by historians unaware that it was fraudulent, and it had never been removed from the shelves of many university libraries. This concern has also been raised since. Indeed, his book and thesis have continued to be occasionally cited, as recently as 2013."

With some of the plagiarism cases, it becomes an issue of attribution. Philip S. Foner published about a 100 books and died in 1994. In 2003, it was discovered that he took "unpublished work" by various young scholars and published it under his own name. Foner was also affiliated with Rutgers University.

Leaving history aside, remember our List of scholarly publishing hoaxes? Several of them were published by open access journals. A relatively recent hoax by Maarten Boudry even managed to fool the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the University of Nottingham, which accepted his text without even basic fact-checking. He had introduced himself as an academic from the "College of the Holy Cross". That no such college exists escaped the notice of the reviewers. Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now the default is to include any journal article, and resist its removal. I have had endless pushback when removing poor quality primary sources making extraordinary claims. Often these are added by accounts that only Mary Poppins would fail to conclude were the authors themselves. It would be very useful to have a strong guideline that, by default, deprecates any open access journal or publisher that is not whitelisted by DOAJ, and puts the burden of evidence on the editor seeking to include a source.
 * In WP:MEDRS there have also been discussions of what to do with journals that are not predatory but have clear systemic bias. Example: Chinese journals essentially never publish negative results for acupuncture. A review of efficacy and effect size for acupuncture will obtain strikingly different results if Chinese journals are included versus excluded. There are also journals devoted to promoting political or economic ideologies, which weigh ideological consonance more highly than empirical robustness. Those are hard problems to fix.
 * So let's focus on the easy things first. I propose adding to WP:RS, wording along the lines of:
 * Due to historical issues of poor peer review, open access journals and publishers are not normally considered reliable unless they are whitelisted by DOAJ or have other independent verification of quality. Inclusion in indexes is not normally an indication of quality.
 * That's to close off the gaming and wikilawyering I see all the time: "X is indexed, it's reliable!" No, it is trivially easy to get a scam journal or article indexed, it happens all the time. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this proposed change - it would be a positive step forwards. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Guy's excellent suggestion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but I think the statement about indexing needs a different qualifier, such as "necessarily" instead of "normally" . The method of analysis used in a citation index establishes the degree to which specific other journals cite it, and can therefore be used to indicate what publications are considered acceptable. If a journal from a publisher that has published many scam journals succeeds in getting enough high quality articles that get substantially cited, it is no longer a scam. Guy indicates that there are exceptions to indexing indicating quality ,and he is right. But they are exceptions, and therefore necessarily is a better word.  DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support adding a statement about indices but oppose adding a statement about open access journals. (I think that trying to discuss both of these topics at the same time is a mistake that will lead to confusion.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, but conditionally, as per the suggestions of DGG. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Burkes Peerage
Is Burkes Peerage a reliable source for BLP's? Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes you suspect it wouldn't be? - Nunh-huh 18:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Self-published source claiming domain on "The Daily Stormer"
Hello ladies and gentleman. Many of you have probably heard of the infamous website "The Daily Stormer". The website changes domains frequently. These changes are noted on self-published sources related to the website. The four self-published sources we have are https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin the site founders verified account on Gab http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/ an onion website https://hatreon.net/Anglin/ a page on Hatereon and, https://vk.com/dailystormer14 an unverified VK account linked from the above.

The article in question is The Daily Stormer

has noted that they are not reliable sources in general, but I believe that they are exempt from this under WP:ABOUTSELF.

The claim is simply to state what the current URL, dailystormer.hk, of the website is. I know we usually deal with exact statements here, but I was wondering if the answer for this could be applied for future domain changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is usable, especially since the changes in domain are actually of some significance.  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with DGG, and aboutself covers it as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me, I'll revert my revert, which will list the current URL. Rockypedia (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Mind Control
In our article at Project MKUltra I found this:


 * In 1973, amid a government-wide panic caused by Watergate, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKUltra files destroyed.

This appears to be this source: http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/files/MindControl.pdf

Is this source reliable for establishing this claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not for an assertion of fact. Could easily be wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably better to remove the phrase about Watergate-related "panic" and just use the Washington Post as a source: "Former CIA director Richard Helms had ordered papers concerning the experiments in Montreal destroyed in 1973, but in 1977, acting on a Freedom of Information Act request by writer John Marks, then-CIA director Adm. Stansfield Turner announced that some files had not been destroyed". . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good shout. This is a project that attracts conspiracist nutjobs like flies to shit. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

hostkingdom.net


FYI, if this ever was a reliable source it isn't now, it's been hijacked by domain squatters. Actually I strongly suspect an old linkspamming campaign. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be the new home of at least some of the content. No indication of authorship, it's a pseudonymous monograph. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Astonishingly*, this turns out to be in no small part down to a single user whose username matches the pseudonym of the site owner:.

[*] Not really.

Hot Mess Press
After having an edit dismissed on the assumption that my source "doesn't fact check," I reached out to the source via their contact page and received the following link via email: http://hotmessanonymous.com/submission-validation-policy/ -- In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann_Louise_Gittleman#Erroneous_removal_of_credible_source. The note on a recent deletion of my content was to "take it up" here. Not sure what that means exactly, so here I am to "take it up?"Analyst737 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, it's a website that's so poorly organized that their prominent "Disclaimer" link at the bottom of each page is not linked to any information.
 * As far as I can tell, hotmessanonymous.com is run by http://vertu-marketing.com and http://www.tylieeaves.com, used for promotion and finding clients.
 * I can find no evidence that hotmessanonymous.com has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are engaged in persistent attempts to whitewash the biography of a well-documented charlatan. That's not a great idea. Gittleman is wrong, that is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

El Austral de la Araucanía
I am not very familiar with Chilean newspapers, but would this article be sufficient to source a small section on geothermal prospecting at Sollipulli? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics
Someone familiar enough with the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia to judge whether this journal article is published by them? The websites look fairly different and the university website has no obvious link to the journal domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

worldstatesmen.org


There are a lot of references to this site, but as far as I can see it does not meet our criteria for WP:RS. It's a monograph by one Ben Cahoon, but the site does nto show why he should be considered an authority. It does seem to be a well curated list of usable sources, but not a usable source in itself I think? Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is referenced a bit - . Quite a few books cite the site -  - so this does have some recognition. The site isn't open to everyone - and is reviewed by the public (e.g. if we are to take  as faithful). The site itself isn't open to anyone to edit. I think this is borderline (per WP:RSSELF) but it isn't a clear cut absolutely not. It is WP:TERTIARY.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"a well curated list of usable sources, but not a usable source in itself I think?"

It seem to be a chronicle-style list of names and dates of various office-holders. It does not go in depth about the events of their terms. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blogspot a RS?
Hi. Apologies if this has come up before, but is a site with "blogspot" in the URL a RS? This is in relation to this BLP, with an IP user citing this source. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, SPS applies Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not mean it is not reliable outright (most of the time they are). It means it can sometimes be used in line with WP:SPS. For a BLP, WP:BLPSPS applies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case as its reporting a death, give it a day or so. But its showing up here. (Original in german here) Die Welt is a German national newspaper. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For fans of dodgy sources

 * deprecated source
 * deprecated publisher

So renders as: I am tracking increasing numbers of these on my userpage, hence the template. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)



If anyone feels inclined, I acknowledge my template-fu is weak, and would welcome help with tidying this up. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Know Your Meme for emoticons
List of emoticons is generally using bad, inappropriate, questionable or unreliable sources because good ones are rare. For emoticons (and probably other internet phenomena) you will find mentions in sources that should be reliable by Wikipedia's standards, but the author was actually just curious or clueless and thus did not compile a list of somewhat established emoticons, but mostly of ones they saw once and found funny or ones they came up with themselves.

Anyhow, the Lenny Face, i.e. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) or a minor variation thereof, is (or was) undoubtedly used quite widely in some subcultures. In that article, which is currently the target of the redirect at Lenny Face, the reference used is its entry at Know Your Meme (KYM). This is actually a useful resource for anyone who wants to know more about its history. Alas, the reliability of KYM has been questioned here before several times, e.g. in May 2011, and is currently challenged by user:Otterathome (also see my Talk), because at least its basic content is user-generated and thus would fail the WP:UGC criterion at WP:IRS. However, after editorial review, their confirmed articles may qualify as reliable. The Lenny Face article is indeed confirmed.

While I totally agree that the list article needs better sources, can we agree that KYM is sufficient here? Otherwise, can someone suggest something better? — Christoph Päper 10:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * KYM remains a user-generated blog (even though there's some paid-editor oversight) so would be inappropriate as a source. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mnangagwa
Is a reliable source to show that Emmerson Mnangagwa is now President of Zimbabwe? 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état, Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe are also pages where the result of this discussion will be of interest. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless we have multiple, independent sources to the same conclusion, I don't think it's reliable right now. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. Whomever is president post-coup is always in legal / diplomatic / legistlative / policing / combat flux.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The president of Zimbabwe is currently Chaos. Which is, to be fair, not much of a change from the kleptomaniac bastard Mugabe. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you must know,, that your remark is a BLP violation. Please strike it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad: I meant, of course, murderous kleptomaniac bastard. I have friends from the region. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's times like this I miss the "like" button. Sadly, it's not clear he'll be replaced by a government that's much of an improvement. - Nunh-huh 21:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While your sources confirm that Mugabe is widely regarded as a very bad ruler,, none of these sources confirm that Mugabe is either a "kleptomaniac" or a "bastard". Even if his parents were unmarried, it would be a BLP violation to use that fact in a pejorative fashion, as you have done here. His parents were devout Catholics with six children so I see no evidence that he is a "bastard". BLP policy applies even to aging dictators. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  22:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not going to argue, old friend. Bastard is a colloquiallism which he meets in spades, and his thefts are ell documented, as is his murderous regime, so that's all I have to say about it. There is a reason there was a public outcry when he was named as a goodwill ambassador recently. He is one of the last of the classical African dictators. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that describing Mugabe as a "very bad ruler" is both inadequate and misleading—a lie by omission, if you will, and not a précis worthy of inclusion in an actual encyclopedia article. We should be aware when policy leads to ridiculous results, and either change that policy or choose that time to invoke our Überpolicy: "ignore all rules". - Nunh-huh 21:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Geocities
Have a guess how many links to the defunct Geocities we have.

If you guessed "over 10,000", congratulations.

Many are in mainspace, though few of these would ever have met WP:RS.

It's far too large a task for me, does anyone know a botmaster who could perhaps fix this plague? Guy (Help!) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are likely to be valid links among the many. --Izno (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that some would likely be valid among the many. Also, Many could be rescued by the Internet Archive bot, (if that makes any difference). Huggums537 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Most of them are random opinions by random people. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That might very well be true. However, (most of them = all of them) is not true. I think "a few bad apples spoils the bunch" is a stupid old saying for more than one reason. First of all, bananas come in bunches, not apples. Also, I grew up very poor, so a few good apples among a bushel (the correct collective noun) of bad ones has always been a treasure to me... Huggums537 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory journals
I have a little list. User:JzG/Predatory. Alphabetically grouped, with search links and everything. I am filling in ISSN, DOI and other identifiers as I get time. I am also checking agianst DOAJ and other credibel sources, with a view to removing any that are currently considered OK. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a hot topic lately. I noticed several other discussions on different policy/guideline talk pages. I can't remember exactly where I saw them, but there are people interested in this subject to be sure. I will post a link to hook you up with them if I run across those discussions again. Huggums537 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Are books by an ex-Nazi writer of fringe books on Atlantis, etc RS for military history?
I raised this at the MilHist talk page 3 1/2 years ago. There I wrote "I just came across The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. Descriptions of him by the publisher of his other two books, Helion, are equally or even more misleading."

Sadly he is still being used in almost 20 articles although there was more or less agreement with me. I'll ping them and notify MilHist. . Doug Weller  talk 17:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they're not.  Volunteer Marek   17:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any use of the books or other writings by this thoroughly discredited author are either sadly naive or POV-pushing. Either way, they should be removed.  Even where the material cited is non-controversial (e.g., Focke-Achgelis Fa 223) there are almost certainly better sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The moral questions aside, and that is a great big heap of moral questions, this isn't like using, say, a former SS writer on German weaponry, or Bigeard on interrogation tactics, etc. And it's not just the fact that several categories of his writing are lunatic fringe, albeit in different lunatic fringes. It's someone who wrote, over his whole career, to a selected commercial audience...i.e., potboilers. That sort of thing is never any use, except for locating better sources, with the other baggage putting the nails in its coffin. The problems with it, IOW, go beyond the squicky sleaze, and that might have already been enough on its own. Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * These are clearly inappropriate sources; thank you, Doug, for noticing them and bringing them to attention. Please let me know if you encounter any issues while cleaning them up. MastCell Talk 18:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We should avoid rejecting him as a partly Jewish nazi convicted child molester with some fringe views, but rather judge his milhist work by its reception, which seems negative.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment in addition to the aircraft and submarine facts of questionable accuracy, Joseph describes the Italian Vendetta battalion as fighting well at Anzio. From other sources it appears its companies did, but dispersed among German units. That's not a trivial difference. Anmccaff (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, these should all be cut. Neutralitytalk 01:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"rejecting him as a partly Jewish nazi convicted child molester with some fringe views"

The neo-Nazism and the child molestation have little to do with his writings. But most of his writings have to do with the historicity of Atlantis and Lemuria, and theories about pre-Columbian colonization of the Americas. He is at best a fringe historian, if not a writer of pseudohistory. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * His track record as an author is terrible. I don't see how he could suddenly transform himself into a historian. He's been a big proponent of the hoax Burrows Cave which managed to earn him the disapproval of a number of pseudohistorians as being transparently a fraud. He's got a 2016 book called Our Dolphin Ancestors - why should we trust someone who writes such nonsense to write good military history? There's also an article in the very respected Antiquity (journal) which discusses him. Doug Weller  talk 13:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dolphin ancestors? Did you come across that book by accident? Or was it on porpoise? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and removed the references to the two books Doug identified, as best as I've been able to find them. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the links and the discussion here, it doesn't seem that this guy is much of a reliable source for virtually anything. There might be specific cases where claims in other specific topic areas would need individual evaluation, but this is pretty much a no brainer, and should effectively be a blanket ban on using him as a source. I don't care what about the details of his life, but this is like citing Giorgio A. Tsoukalas. He's clearly not a reliable source, and WP:FRINGE,


 * Thank you for noticing this, Doug, and thank you to those involved in cleaning up these references. . Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue here is probably how reliable sources judge this person's historial writing. Have experts in the field and/or professional reviewers judged the books reliable? There are a number of instances where the early works of good historians who later became sloppy or went fringe are still considered reliable, and I guess that the reverse applies. From the above, this doesn't seem to be the case here. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I raised this issue back on 25 August 2013 on User:Peacemaker67's talk page. He is not reliable. Srnec (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I take a different view. Frank Joseph's book was published by Praeger Publishing, which is the general interest imprint of the Greenwood Publishing Group, a prominent educational publisher.  Presumably they thought the book was sufficiently accurate to publish.  And note they don't publish books on Atlantis or the occult.  While this is an extreme example, we could open the floodgates to challenges of lots of books and articles from reliable publishers based on other things their writers have done or published or said.  TFD (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am afraid I do not understand the logic of this discussion. As notes, it is not like this author is the only one writing on the subjects cited. There is plenty of choice for alternatives and, given this particular author's record and his absence professional accreditation (to put it mildly), it is surely a clear fail of WP:RS. Unfortunately this is only the fringe of a much more widespread problem in MilHist, especially in less-travelled articles connected to the Waffen SS. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * They messed up. I don't know why they didn't fact check his claims: ""professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." So far as I can see, someone at the publisher's just copied that from Joseph himself, possibly from here. If there is a Savant Institute in Japan it is very obscure. The website for the Midwestern Epigraphic Society is here. What self-respecting publisher would really see that as a recommendation for an author? Victor Moseley formed the society as a branch of Barry Fell's Epigraphic Society. An example of what Moseley wrote is here. Again, why would a publisher want to mention this? Unless they hadn't done any due diligence. A review of his two books on military history is here  on the Society for Military History's blog. Ah, almost forgot, the publisher mentioned that he'd written a lot of books. Some can be found in his article: Frank Collin - I see he has a book about America's first bomber pilot, but look at the . There are times when even a normally reliable press messes up.  Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worse than I thought. See "about the author" in his book about the Axis Air Forces. "Joseph served as editor in chief of Ancient American, a national popular science bi-monthly, from its inception in 1993 until his retirement in 2007. Today a feature writer for The Barnes Review (Washington, D.C.), where his articles deal primarily with military history". Here's a review of Ancient American - a sometimes racist rag filled with "they all came to America" etc rubbish. Not popular and definitely not science. And of course Joseph would be at home with the holocaust denying Barnes Review. I found this in a review of the book. Why would a publisher allow this to be written about him? If the simplest things about him were ignored, how well was the book edited? Doug Weller  talk 19:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yupper. Far from the Praeger imprint "rescuing" this source, this source calls for some questions about Praeger.  (Me, I think Praeger has been on a long slide since Praeger himself left it; even the respectable academic stuff is often niche, to the point where only a limited subspecialty would be comfortable with it.) Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, editorial control and review at most commercial publishers has been steadily deteriorating over the last couple of decades as a cost-cutting measure. Enough so that I don't think that we can give any book an automatic RS or non-RS simply because of the publisher; they're each going to have to be assessed on the merits of their authors and whatever outside reviewers we can find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller, I know all that and also that he served time for sex crimes. But the issue is not whether we like him, but whether the books he published through reputable publishers are as factually accurate as the other similar books they publish.  His book on Mussolini's war was published by Helion & Company.]  He says he has written articles for military magazines, including FlyPast.  It's not as if his book on axis warfare makes any unusual claims.  While this is an extreme example, lots of editors question the accuracy of sources based on their perceptions of the writers' opinions.  It's actually easy to challenge any source that way.  After all, Newton wrote about the occult.  A better case might be made that we should not use general interest books as sources.  TFD (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

About my first article: need sources review
Hello Wiki fellows,

I'm currently working on my first wiki page submission. It's a biographic one, about an australian futurist named Dr Stuart CANDY. I've collected several secundary sources in order to prove my submission's reliability. Based on your experience, are these sources reliable ones?


 * 1) Association of Professionals Futurists
 * 2) Findability.org
 * 3) Desktop.com.au
 * 4) Openstate.com.au
 * 5) Mukha.be

Thanks in advance for your answer. Best regards,

Bappyh Bappyh (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why don't you start your article in draft space or in your user sandbox so we can see how you're using the refs?-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * None of these sources establishes the significance of the subject. Most of them are not independent. The only one that is substantive is desktop mag, which is not exactly Time. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good start,, and the fact that he has a work in the Museum of Contemporary Art, Antwerp is promising. Your ongoing sandbox draft is a good start as well. You might want to paste at the top of your sandbox, and click on some of the links to find new sources (by replacing his name inside the quotation marks after you click on a link). Good luck! After you finish, remember to trim you article to make it compact and non-promotional, making it concise, since the person is not massively notable. And remember to include a citation for each and every fact. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

themoneytimes.com
I found a dead link of themoneytimes.com (itself was found from the internal link to Money Times, that NOT related to the website) The site was currently dead, displaying text "hosted in wordpress", but looking in webarchive (example), it may be an online newspaper that may or may not reliable. Any idea to deal with ? Replace all link with archive or another reliable source? Matthew_hk  t  c  17:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It had a Chief Editor and Sub Editor according to the about page as well as news desks in both India and the USA. Looks like it definitely had something going and was not just some random guy doing a blog or similar self published site, however I am not sure if it would be an RS. My view would be that we should err on the side of caution and remove, especially as the link search shows it is used in BLP's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The New Atlantis


I failed to find mention in RSN archives. Appears to be a conservative advocacy group. What brought my attention to it was. We currently have in mainspace. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More Libertarian than Conservative... but yes, an advocacy journal. Material can be used with attribution, keeping UNDUE in mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm some sources describe EPPC (who publishes it) as conservative. Thanks for the tip, — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Think tanks and ideological magazines are a plague on Wikipedia. The Cato Institute (funded, of course, by the Koch brothers as a source for policy-based evidence making) has set the pattern. In my view we should not include content from any political think tanks, left, right, or anything else, unless a reliable independent source establishes that their view on a subject is objectively significant. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I will not check the other instances right now, but I've just removed this new addition.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the content is opinion pieces, which are not reliable sources per "News organizations." I don't think we should have a blanket policy against think tanks and partisan publications.  They present both information and opinions ignored in the mainstream.  They are sometimes good sources for articles about topics with limited mainstream coverage, but rarely for topics with wide coverage.  Sometimes they push issues into the mainstream, in which case we should still use mainstream sources.  TFD (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed think tanks and similar partisan organizations are often important sources for presenting a balanced and WP:Neutral point of view. The key is to use them with attribution, so the reader knows that what is being presented IS a viewpoint and thus potentially biased.  To put this another way... While WE need to remain neutral, our sources do not need to be neutral.  Indeed, one of the ways that WE remain neutral is by presenting what a range of biased sources say about an issue.  Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Cross BLPN/RSN issue
Please have a look at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, where two alternative statements and their sourcing are under discussion, with regard to a statement about a person from Singapore. The reliability of one of the refs in Wikipedia for the statement is under discussion, so there is cross RSN/BLPN relevance. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

EmbassyPages
We have a significant number of links to this website, mainly used as sources in articles. I don't see any evidence that it meets WP:RS.

It claims: "EmbassyPages.com is the most complete and comprehensive directory of diplomatic and consular missions ever created. More than 26,000 embassies, high commissions, consulates and other missions worldwide are listed at EmbassyPages.com, and frequent and constant updating help maintaining EmbassyPages.com's position as the world's leading embassy resource." But there's no obvious sign of who is behind it, what fact-checking processes are in play or anything else.

I would be inclined to view this as a non-authoritative source, a personal project, unless there is some evidence otherwise. Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 10:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Guy. Neutralitytalk 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If it helps, the domain was registered in 2004 and is owned by CPH Keyword ApS of Soeberg in Denmark. I don't read Danish, so I can't comment on what they do or how reliable they might be. Txantimedia (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Kworb
I have seen nothing from http://kworb.net/youtube/video/wIft-t-MQuE.html to indicate that it is not a reliable source for the page I want to use it on, but another editor is saying it's clearly bad. Before I get into 3O or other dispute resolutions, I figured I'd see what the experts think. Please ping me on response. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac, it seems reliable to me at first blush. I'm no expert though. How do you intend to use it, and why does the other editor contend that it is "bad"? Huggums537 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm using it to verify the "first 24 hour views" at List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. The other editor feels that because the dates are different it's not suitable. While I do concur that YouTube says the video was released 26 Oct, the fact that kworb says it was released 27 Oct leads me to believe it's in a different timezone and thus still accurate. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The website is based in the Netherlands, which lends credibility to my argument. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is listed at the page Record charts under the "Websites to avoid" section. The FAQ suggests it is by one person and therefore their probably no other person fact checking. Therefore I am inclined to say that the source is not reliable. However this seems to be a simple mathematical calculation and so WP:CALC could apply. Furthermore it seems like, who has little edits outside of this page and looks like a possible WP:SPA, seems to be confusing the day of release for 24 hours. In their open statement they say a different day than the one it was published on, that means that "Ready for it" didn't get 20 million views during its 24 hours on YouTube, a different day can be a matter of second such as from 23:59:59 to 00:00:00. The different timezones are irrelevant as the page is not about opening day views but views in the first 24 hours. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mainly listed in the "websites to avoid" section "to particularly avoid using the "sales estimates" page since they are only estimates" [paraphrased]. However, I disagree with this listing since there is nothing wrong with an editor providing sourced estimates until better sourced figures are found as long as the claim states that it is in fact only an estimate. I tend to agree with Emir that it would be useful for simple calculations and other simple data sourcing. I also think that 100 people doing fact checking could potentially be more unreliable than 1 person doing fact checking if the 100 people are always changing things by compiling from different sources and contradicting each other, while the one remains stable compiling from constant sources. Still, it might be better to find an alternate source, if possible. I also agree with Emir that timezones are irrelevant, provided we can establish the exact time of publishing. Otherwise, timezones are relevant if we can only establish the date of publication, and not the exact time. I'm not sure if I said that correctly or not since I get the basic meaning that a 24 hr. period is a 24 hr. period, regardless of timezones, but timezones can still quite literally make the difference between night and day depending on how they are used in a situation... Huggums537 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ARC 100
This chart posted by Hrvatski Radio is being placed in song articles for chart peaks in Croatia. I was hoping to get confirmation that this is a notable and reliable chart or should I get a second opinion from the Croatian Wikipedia. Many thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Science Moms
A recent article went up about this short documentary. There seems to be an over reliance on low-quality sources, especially ones that are directly related to the film or to those who are appear in it. I have seen the film and liked it, and am generally amenable to the film's message, so perhaps I am not the best person to lead the effort in fixing the sources. Perhaps someone here can browse the sources and chime in. I suspect the film does not meet GNG (WP:TOOSOON), but the high number of non-RSes makes this judgement difficult to make at this time. Delta13C (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I listen to half those podcasts and would not consider any of them to meet WP:RS, not even Opening Arguments (which has a very good record for fact checking and public corrections on the rare cases of error). I would start by pruning the sources. It may be tat some normally considered reliable (e.g. CSICOP) fail independence in this case, I haven't checked yet. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Kamla Raj Enterprises


This is listed in Beall. There are a number of uses as sources in Wikipedia. Journal titles are very generic, searches do not show any evidence of impact factor, ISI listing, DOAJ or any other obvious counter to Beall. A sample of linked sources does not show DOI numbers for these journals. Before I clean this up, does anyone know of any evidence that this publisher is actually valid? Guy (Help!) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the Kamla Raj website, Taylor & Francis Group UK are co-publishing fifteen of their journals as of 2017. T & F confirm this on their site. That would seem to give some credibility to those particular journals. First Light (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Instantcheckmate and mylife
I wanted to add a source to Wilmot Collins that verifies that he was born in 1963. I could only find 2 sources that seem like they might both be unreliable, but because I'm not sure of whether this is the case or not (eg for a simple year of birth), I wanted to open up discussion on this issue. The sources are Instantcheckmate.com (see third record "Wilmot James Collins") and Mylife.com. Everymorning (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not be doing our own research. Better to leave an age out than to 'find out' the age by internet sleuthing and getting it wrong.  Newspapers routinely provide ages and when they do it can be added to the article. Martinlc (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martinlc, there is currently no reliable source available (or discovered) for this person's year of birth, so it should not go into the article. WP:BLP makes this very very clear. So does WP:V. First Light (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be very easy to mistakenly get the identity of the wrong person from these sites. Often times the sites themselves will mix up the identities, and so they are very unreliable. If you look at the 3rd record on instantcheckmate, you will notice that the age is listed as 21, but the DOB is listed as 1963. This obviously doesn't add up and must be considered totally unreliable. Furthermore, the 5th record lists the same name and city, but different age with no DOB to source it to. See how mixed up it is? Lastly, as mentioned, our policies prevent us from doing our own research. See WP:OR. To be perfectly fair though, mylife seemed possibly reliable as a source to me. instantcheckmate is a definite RS fail, but mylife could be an RS maybe I think. Huggums537 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything on the mylife.com website to indicate that it is even close to being a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY if you want to learn what that means. It may well be that this particular birthdate is accurate and it may be reliable, but this still is not a reliable WP source, and the information is part of a WP:Biography of Living Persons. Very clear and strong "no" in my opinion. First Light (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that mylife is unreliable. I also disagree adding the birthdate is a BLP violation per, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." See WP:BLPPRIVACY if you want to learn what that means. Very clear and strong "maybe" in my opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Online poll as source for "widely regarded"
The article on handball player Ivano Balić states that he is "widely regarded as the greatest player in the history of the game", with the only source being an online poll. The poll was effectively a popularity contest and the historical significance of such a poll is particularly small in handball where former players are not as well remembered as in e.g. football. The source gives no indication on what actual experts on handball think. I don't think the poll should be used as a source in the article at all, even less to support the statement in question, but I don't want to remove it without a second opinion since someone would probably just re-add it. BlueSwede92 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even in Wikipedia fame is fleeting. Nikola Karabatić was just two clicks away and apparently in the same poll which is 7 years old?  I'd attribute it or remove it.  I know nothing about handball.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Academia.edu
There's an ongoing AfD in which one participant states, to support the subject's notability, "You can also use Academia.com [sic] to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers". The link is paywalled, and I'm not inclined to fork over my valuable coffee money to Academia.edu, of all places. I strongly suspect the number is meaningless (and maybe cherry-picked: "551 papers" sure sounds more impressive than 1 follower). Does anyone in these parts have the capability to look beyond the paywall? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Academia recently rolled out a new feature where they track "mentions" of your name, but make you pay to see them. Looks like that's what we're looking at here. NB this not the same thing as being "cited" - its basically an algorithm/bot that counts instances of your name. There is tons of room for duplication and error there. So in short, no: this is not an indication if notability and the "mentions" feature should not be regarded as a RS. If someone is actually widely cited, that will show up in actual research databases, google scholar, etc. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I had a hunch that something like that was the case. (I also had a hunch about what would happen if I geolocated the IP for the anonymous "keep" !voter &mdash; it goes to Traverse City, Michigan, which by an astonishing coincidence, is also the address given in the Academia.edu profile. I'm shocked, shocked.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Mention" counts at academia.edu don't mean much. I get email from academia.edu about "mentions" of the non-human name I use on my wikipedia email account. In any case, in academia mentions without citations are usually insignificant. Zerotalk 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That accords with my impressions. I've been hanging out around the Academics and educators deletion discussions for a few months, and I don't think I've ever seen "mention" counts invoked before; they look to be roughly as meaningful as, e.g., Twitter followers. Or less. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I got 12 "mention" and keep on bombarded by the company by email. It just seem fake to fish people to subscribe to check who is actually "mention" me. I know i use my real name in facebook and leave comment in some newspaper, but if the website count it as "number of cite", it just too sick. For the upload thing, in theory i could just upload pirated company report that usually require to pay in order to download from company register, to get many "cite". The whole site just can't be a reliable source itself. Matthew_hk   t  c  21:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Academia has recently changed ownership; it has certainly changed it's behaviour from being a dull but quite useful tool to being a Linked In style monetising-dominated annoyance. I deleted my profile last week after I changed my email settings to reduce the number of unwanted alerts and it then defaulted to sending them all.   As an RS, the best you can say is that a profile requires a valid institutional email and so presumably shows that someone is a member of staff.  If you want to that someone is widely cited, use Google cholar, although I'd be very dubious of using that as some sign of significance.Martinlc (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowadays lots of ebook at google were "reprint" of wikipedia content. I don't know why Google consider those junk in amazon were actual "book". It just more junk in Academia.edu / scribd.com because a paywall on publishing in amazon store. But all were not a reliable source. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Academia.edu has become a sort of academic version of Scribd or LinkedIn. Apparently my name is mentioned numerous times in papers on the site, but I'm not very notable. Mentions or cites on Academia.edu don't mean very much and should be looked at askance if they are used as citations.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentions on acamedia.edu are not much important when deciding notability, though it can be used as a source for non-controversial information. Excelse (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are numerous mentions of my name, but I only have one paper there and the vast majority of the mentions are about someone else. At the moment I don't see why it is an RS for anything, any paper there that can be used is surely published somewhere reliably. Doug Weller  talk 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)