Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 73

RSN on reliablity of 'MAIL-TODAY'.
Look 'mail today' is the prominent mainstram english daily of India. It is a part of the media conglomerate "TV TODAY" Group. Some users User:Tarc and User:Kkm010 are suppressing it as reliable source, please help... ....................

ORIGINAL CONTEXT Recently Mail Today has published a story based on the report of the Criminal Investigation Department that "All India Trinamool Congress"(a mainstream political party) has open links with Banned Maoist Organization. I've introduced this fact in the following articles: All India Trinamool Congress Suvendu Adhikari ..............................  Sources to be Proved Mail Today/India Today Story on the AITC-MAOIST NEXUS Story in CNN-IBN News channel over AITC-MAOIST NEXUS] ...................................  Differences AITC Difference Page Suvendu Adhikari Difference Page ................. It shall be highly appreciated if someone quickly responds on the issue. thanks. Basuupendra (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even a generally reliable source is not ALWAYS reliable. A glance at one of the sources shows that they are very much hedging the claims they are putting forth; and considering BLP issues involved in connecting individuals with terrorism, you really need iron clad sourcing and very precise wording of article content. WP:BLP --  Active Banana  &#x007C;   Talk  19:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

- So can you tell me which source to bring forward for this "Iran Clad Sourcing". If you think its a court verdict then my friend, In India "Nothing is applied on Law Makers i.e. Politicians". Press is exposinG truth about the issues, Many Opposition leaders belonging to both Right Wing and Left Wing parties have raised questions on this issue in the Indian Parliament. If as you suggesting we remove this passage from the biography of this person than dont you think that it will left some critcal information missing from that article. Following is one more Mainstream daily that carried the news over this issue: - Daily News Analysis Basuupendra (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Rod Moran’s book Massacre Myth citable as a reliable resource?
I apologize that this is going to be a rather long post but too much information is better than too little. I hope that people will have the patience to read through this as it raises an important issue for Wikipedia regarding academic vs non-academic historians. This is about whether a particular book can be used as a reliable source. It is in respect to an article The Forrest River Massacre.

This event has become reasonably well known in Australia but to give some background, in 1926 a man named Hay was killed by an Aboriginal man named Lumbia. A patrol comprising police and civilians went out into a remote area for several weeks on horseback, located Lumbia and brought him back alive for trial, along with several witnesses. He confessed and was convicted. Rumours began to circulate that the police patrol had murdered an unknown number of Aborigines whilst searching for Lumbia. An initial police investigation found no evidence to support the claim but because it involved serious allegations against police, a Royal Commission was established to investigate the matter. The Royal Commission brought in a determination that 11 Aborigines had been killed and their bodies burned, i.e. a massacre or series of massacres. Two police officers were put on trial but the case against them was dismissed for a lack of evidence, in particular there was a lack of evidence presented that there had actually been anyone killed.

In 1995 a historian, Neville Green Ph.D, published a book The Forrest River Massacres. (1995). Fremantle: Fremantle Arts Centre Press. ISBN 354063293X

To use his own words, in 2003 Neville Green wrote: “The guilt or innocence of the police party accused of murder at Forrest River could not be proven in court and cannot be proven now. In The Forrest River Massacres (1995), I tried to show that given the violent history of the Kimberley the massacre was probable.”

Please note: Green who has been described as ‘the principal historian of the Forrest River massacres’, clearly states that the alleged massacre at Forrest River is probable not proven as the Wikipedia article now definitely portrays it.

In 1999, Rod Moran, a journalist based in Western Australia also published a book. Moran’s book Massacre Myth: an investigation into allegations concerning the mass murder of Aborigines at Forrest River. (1999). Bassendean: Access Press. ISBN 0864451245.

The theme of Moran’s book, based on examination of the source documents, was that the Royal Commission had botched the investigation, that there was no convincing evidence that anyone had been killed and the alleged massacre was a myth or local rumour promoted by a deeply disturbed publicity-hungry local missionary with a known hatred of police and pastoralists (owners of sheep or cattle stations/ranches). Moran also commented on the earlier book by Green arguing that it relied too heavily on a memoir, journal entries and other statements by the missionary and failed to make proper use of other evidence such as the records of interview of witnesses which contradicted much of what the missionary, one Rev. Ernest Gribble, claimed.

The article contains the claims that: “academic historians accept that a massacre did take place but disagree over the number of victims” and “Most historians agree with the general conclusions of the Royal Commission, though without committing themselves to a specific number of victims”. The only source cited for those claims is an article written by one historian with the page number being cited as a question mark, i.e. unknown.

Here, I would like to point out; Neville Green argues that the massacre was probable which inherently concedes that it is possible that the massacre did not take place. Moran argues there was no convincing evidence and the alleged massacre was a myth or rumour. So the two points of view aren’t that far apart, Moran certainly can’t be classified as a ‘fringe’ view. If it is a minority view, than it is a significant minority view. I took the following from the Reliable Sources page: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered.”

Both books are on what is called the Forrest River massacres and they seem to be the only books specifically on the event although there are mentions in other works.

There is another book, on a related matter, written by Dr Christine Halse A Terribly Wild Man: The life of the Rev Ernest Gribble (Allen & Unwin, 2002) which is apparently derived from her doctoral dissertation, as cited by Moran from in his book particularly about Gribble’s unreliability and how Gribble “relished retelling the events of 1926-27 and with little regard for the truth”.

One issue I want disclose is that other editors on the article are arguing that Moran’s book was “effectively” self-published, in that it was published by a small press whose business model is to charge authors a fee for publishing their books and advertises that they don’t fact-check. I pointed out that the link provided regarding Access Press links to a page where it states that "Access Press is not a vanity press nor does it offer "Self Publishing" services." and also "Access Press chooses the books they publish very carefully because they must be able to sell them" as opposed to operations which will print anything because the author has to sell the books. I also pointed out that the book by Green was published by a small press which advertises that it will print books for a fee and arrange for distribution on a consignment basis, if required, also for a fee. The reality is that neither author is likely to have found a publisher on any other basis given that this is about a little-known alleged massacre in remote Western Australia in 1926, not exactly something that would be expected to generate much revenue for any publisher.

How do we establish that Moran’s book is a reliable source, short of finding a credible source who expressly states that Moran is an acknowledged expert on the events at Forrest River?

Rod Moran is a journalist by profession. However, he was invited to write the entry on Tommy Gray, a highly regarded Aboriginal identity in the 1930’s, for the Australian Dictionary of Biography, published by the Australian National University, Canberra. Moran also wrote another biography of Gray published as: Icon of the north: the legend of Tom Gray. Northbridge, W.A.: Access Press, 1995. The Australian War Memorial has placed this book on their reading list regarding Aboriginal servicemen and women.

Biography is commonly considered a subset of the study of history, i.e. the history of an individual. So, in particular, the fact that Moran has been previously published by the Australian National University in one of their most significant biographical works should count when we consider whether he is a reliable source.

The fact that Green, the Ph.D on the case, engaged with him and wrote two published articles in response to what Moran has written indicates that Green considered Moran’s work to be sufficiently significant that he had to respond and in his response he is quite specific that he does not argue that the massacre was proven, just probable.

In an article published in the magazine Quadrant, Moran states that he received a letter from the Minister in the Western Australia State Government responsible for the Western Australia Museum. In that letter the minister told him that Dr Gary Morgan, Executive Director of the institution, had advised her that the descriptions attached to a display regarding the Forrest River massacre had been revised and that Moran’s book along with Green’s had been examined in a study of a range of evidence about the alleged massacre. Rod Moran, Paradigm of the Postmodern Museum, Quadrant, Volume XLVI Number 1 - January-February 2002

Moran was cited favourably by archaeologist and historian Josephine Flood BA Camb MA PhD A.N.U., recipient of the Centenary Medal and former director of the Aboriginal Heritage Commission who has “published a number of books on Australian archaeology and history, including the influential Archaeology of the Dreaming and The Riches of Ancient Australia” Flood: “Moran’s disassembly of evidence establishes that Wood’s findings were a travesty.” ... “However, the myth of a Forrest River massacre lives on, although its historian Neville Green now sees it as neither proven nor unproven but merely as ‘probable...given the violent history of the Kimberley’. The extent of the violence in this region is uncertain, pending detailed studies but Moran’s research on this and two other alleged massacres shows it may have been exaggerated.” Flood, Josephine: The Original Australians: Story of the Aboriginal People, Allen & Unwin, 2006, p113.

Moran was cited favourably by historian Keith Windschuttle: ” …..in 2000 I was asked to review a book by Perth journalist Rod Moran about the infamous Forrest River Massacre in the Kimberley in 1926. Moran convinced me that there had been no massacre at Forrest River. There were no eyewitnesses and no bodies found. The charred remains of bones at first thought to be of Aborigines shot and cremated turned out to belong to kangaroos and wallabies.” Windschuttle credits Moran’s book as the inspiration for his research into the reliability of Australian Aboriginal History as published over the last 30 years or so. “On reading this I decided to investigate the overall story I had long accepted by checking the footnotes of the principal authors.” Windschuttle is a controversial figure in the field of Australian history, see the History Wars article. Flood isn’t.

Moran’s book was also reviewed ABR by Ian Duckham BE, MSc, MDiv, Grad Dip Arts, PhD and in it he points out that: "Former chief justice of Western Australia, Sir Francis Burt suggests in the foreword that, short of inaccurate or misused source material, Moran has demonstrated that the massacres were indeed mythical. Moran’s sources include Constable J.G. St Jack’s memoirs, the Australian Board of Mission’s archives, the Western Australian Police Service archives, archives of the Aboriginal Affairs Department and the proceedings of the 1927 Wood Royal Commission into Rev. Ernest Gribble’s allegations of a police massacre” Duckham’s review is not a 100% endorsement but he concludes “The book is marred by a polemical style and dense argumentation, but it is an important contribution to the ongoing debate. It cannot be dismissed out of hand unless further historical research can demonstrate that the smoke of oral history indeed points to the fires of massacre.”

If what is a reliable source comes down to a vote by those currently editing the page, then Moran will, based on the comments already made on the discussion page by the majority (3 editors) be declared not to be a reliable source.

So does anyone have an opinion? Does Wikipedia want to confine itself to only using the work of academic historians, bearing in mind that many of the major works of history of the past couple of thousand years were written by non-academics? Is Moran’s book citable as a reliable source or as proposed by another editor of the article, can references to it be cut to “a brief synthesis of his general theory and claims in a paragraph, at most two”.Webley442 (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Too much can be worse than too little (TLDR and all that). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. I actually tried to read your post, since no one else commented, but it is really, really too long.  Just say what sentence is being refed, what's refing it, and link to any talk page discussions on it.  And keep it shorter than you think is necessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you find this too much reading, please don't bother. I'm looking for comments from those willing to take the trouble. I believe that this kind of censorship, people trying to use their own opinions of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to exclude material that they personally don't like, is a wikipedia-wide issue. I tried to put enough in the post that users not familiar with the Australian History scene would not have to do a lot of research to understand what's happening.Webley442 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite are caught up on one side of an historical debate that has been politicized, and they come down in favour of a journalist's version. He has no grounding in the historical method, and no Phd, and published without peer-review. Several specialist historians of aboriginal and frontier war history, among them Loos, Reynolds and Green, don't think much of it. It is a minority view, and to use it on a par with serious historical works by specialists would violate WP:Undue. Josephine Flood is an archeologist, not an historian of that period.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

R.S. Both a reliable source & a significant minority position. 1. self-published issue: the reason for Wikipedia ‘opposition’ to self-published material is that anyone can pay to have a book printed, then sell or give away copies & claim to be an expert on that basis. Not the case here, as links in DP show 2. No PH.D: adequate material provided above & in links in DP that Moran is an ‘expert’, prior bio work & bio publisher = ANU is significant. Loads of major works of history by ‘amateur’ historians. 3. “almost all” “frontier” historians disagree with him – so what?.. that is what significant minority position are all about. Enough working/writing in the field agree with Moran, this is a very small field of study. The proposal to limit material from this source to a paragraph or 2 is unacceptable for a significant minority opinion. Someone seems to be dumping the entire contents of teh Green book into the article in order to swamp opposing view. Adequate representation of a differing opinion is critical. The Schoolteacher (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm . . .Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propably should have gone first to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia - but there is no accounting for places that can be found to place an argument in wikipedia... SatuSuro 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Historycentral.com
Historycentral.com is a commercial site for MultiEducator products founded by Amy Erani and Marc Schulman. There is no information provided regarding their editorial review process, or their specific professional qualifications. The article on the Six Day War has a "History of Israel from dream to reality" banner. 

The article is not attributed to any author and there is no bibliography to indicate the source(s) that were utilized. The general guidance for citing the site simply says "Site: Primary Author:Marc Schulman" It appears that Marc Schulman is President at Westchester Fairfield Hebrew Academy, where he teaches middle school history. He says that he is establishing a new organization called "Informed Choice for Israel", to redefine the relations between Israel and American Jewry. Amy Erani is the Director of Judaic Studies at Westchester Fairfield Hebrew Academy, National Education Director at Young Judaea, and attended Jewish Theological Seminary.

I've suggested that (at best) any unsourced information from historycentral.com be attributed as an opinion, and that Wikipedia editors avoid linking to unlicensed and unsourced commercial content in the first place. harlan (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a personal website and there is no indication that the author's views are noteworthy on this topic, so it is not an RS, almost certainly for any purpose, per WP:SELFPUB. --FormerIP (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears "self-published" (albeit by a corporation) although not the same as "personal."  Not RS for claims of fact, and very marginally for personal opinions of a person not particularly notable. Collect (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it makes much difference, but I think a site which you run yourself and is connected to your business counts as a personal site. --FormerIP (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Church "official publications"
So far as I can tell, virtually every Catholic diocese in the country has some sort of official newspsper about the church of that diocese. Some of the articles in these publications might be among the better available sources for information about the history of that diocese, its officials, activities, and what not. However, they will also, by virtue of being "official", probably be at least somewhat slanted/POV regarding larger issues. In several cases, they may be the best sourcing available on some of the subjects less well documented by other English language sources, for things like African or Pacific Islander missionary activity, for example. The same can be said for the smaller, but significant, number of official publications related to various regions or dioceses of other major religious groups.

Basically, I am raising this issue because I am trying to create lists of periodicals for the various religion projects which would be acceptable sources for relevant material. Would it be reasonable to include them in these lists or not? John Carter (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Do they actualy refect offical church possitions or just the views of the diocese? 2. Are they SPS? 3. They are not nuetral or third party. A lot of cource depends on what they are being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Official newspapers of diocese/parishes/churches/religious groups would have to be treated with care. They would, depending on the issue being covered, primary or secondary or even tertiary sources. They are not without value, but have to be used with care and generally need to be attributed. A lot would also depend on the specific paper. Some papers are "independent" and would have evaluated as to the degree of independence.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)1. They probably do both, to some extent, regarding issues like sex abuse scandals and the like. However, those tend to be a minority of the articles. Many others are about "history of the Church of Saint John of Wherever" and the like, or other material which tends to be of a more objective type.
 * 2. Most of them are self-published by the diocese or other body in question.
 * 3. Agreed. And I don't myself assert at all that they would be useful for all subjects. I am thinking primarily of them as useful for things like biographical, historical, and in some cases theological matters, and for articles about which the amount of readily accessible information elsewhere might be difficult to obtain. There are seventy churches in the state of Missouri which are on the National Registry of Historic Places, for example, and I have a feeling that, if someone creates articles on them, which I am not necessarily encouraging, publications of this type might be among the more accessible sources of reliable information for some of them.
 * In response to Balloonman, I would agree. Do you think that adding a caveat to the effect of what you said above at the top of a section of a page of RS periodicals regarding them would be perhaps sufficient to indicate that these are not inherently reliable sources for all issues, but useful on specific generally objective matters? John Carter (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.  All these sources would meet the minimal requirements for that section.  However some may meet higher quality standards, which would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  TFD (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not classify them as defacto SPS sources. These sources generally do have editorial oversight and some degree of fact checking.  In fact, I suspect that for many of them, they have a higher degree of fact checking than the typical newspaper/magazine.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Balloonman about the sometimes higher degree of fact checking, but in a lot of cases they literally are published by, at least in terms of Catholics, the diocese with which they are associated. Granted, in part because of, ahem, certain irregularities of behavior of some priests, some have become in recent years much, much more careful about what they say, but they still are published directly by the local diocese. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it depends on what they are saying, but I would not apply the same limitations to a diocese paper that I would to a SPS. EG I would deem it as a reliable source, although potentially biased, when it came to local politics/events.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No different than any other self-published source. Dlabtot (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SPS appears to have been written with the individual blogger in mind. If the diocesan newspaper has an editorial process, then it's a secondary source.  But it's still a primary source for facts about the diocese. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While there are probably a lot of caveats, "No different than any other self-published source" is way too strong a statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan and the use of atom bombs
I had edited the 'Controversy' section in the article on Wafa Sultan to add some quotes of hers that are recorded on video and posted on YouTube. There, she suggests the use of atomic bombs against Muslims. The exact quotes and links to the video were given in the section, but two other users claim it's unreliable and keep removing it, one even denying the correctness of the content. I may not agree with their reasoning, but as editing wars are hardly productive, I'll let other users decide on whether or not this paragraph is reliable, correct and worth posting. So please state what you think. Thanks.

The Sphinx (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an unreliable source for the quote (primary sources are obviously OK for quotes) but it is an unreliable source for saying she suggested the use of atom bombs against muslims. It can be interpreted that way, but also other ways. I think you may be able to find a reliable source that interpret her that way, and then saying something like "At XXXX she made a statement that has been interpreted like she suggested the use of atomic bombs against Muslims" and link to both the primary source and the source that interpreted her. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time thinking of ways how answering to a question "Atom bombs?" in the affirmative can be interpreted otherwise. Anyway, it's been talked about on some forums and blogs (e.g. here). I wasn't too keen on linking to blogs on Wikipedia, even though I like this one, but if you think that linking to this along with the video and quotes, pointing out the interpretation is a sound approach, then I'm fine with that.The Sphinx (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The youtube video is not a reliable source, it could well be a copyright violation, the uploader is not like an official channel uploading videos that it owns the copyright to at all.and adding quotes from videos is primary research which involes listening to the tape and primary reporting what the wikipedia editor hears, that is not what we are here as wikipedia editors to do. We are here to report reliable referenced reports of issues that other people have reported on. Off2riorob (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Think the problem with this video is that we don't know its provinence, so it is not clear it passes WP:V. YouTube shouldn't be linked to in this case because it is not clear whether there is a copyvio. So where would someone go to verify the information? If the video has ever been broadcast on TV or by an Internet source with a reputation for fact checking (yes, I know there's very little to be checked here, but that is still our standard), then that can be our reference. Or, if the video has been quoted in a reliable source, then we can use that. But we can't use a video without knowing where it came from. --FormerIP (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alumni of academic and military institutes
In sourcing the education of the subject of a WP:BLP article, what sources can be used to establish that he or she graduated from a certain school? Would a biannual printed journal published for the alumni of the academic institute be a reliable source for the fact that the person attended or graduated from the school? In particular I am interested in this source, a journal published by the Marion Military Institute. Starting from page 23 there is a four page section containing "Class notes" or bits and pieces of biographic data sent to the editors. The follow-up question is this: Can this biographic data provided by the subjects be used in the article without any attribution, or is it necessary to state something like "Xxxxx claims he has retired in lives with his wife in Venice, Florida?" -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "X claims" wording is too harsh, unless it really was for some extraordinary claim, like if Mr. X's biography said after graduation he moved to the North Pole. To use it to say the person attended or graduated from the school, then yes, the school's alumni journal would be a reliable source for that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, as a general matter, with Squid. "Claims" is a word to be avoided outside of litigation matters.  Though it is a favorite of POV-pushers.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Review of Books
It is being proposed that the Scottish Review of Books be used as a source for a review on The Hockey Stick Illusion article. It appears to me to be a self published magazine which is delivered free on a quarterly basis by The Scottish Herald. The review is also being attributed to Alastair McIntosh although there is nothing in the source making this connection.


 * This is why i believe it to be a self published magazine PUBLISHER: Scottish Review of Books Ltd and on the about us on the website PUBLISHER: Scottish Review of Books Ltd There is a single editor who is also the owner. The main issue here of course is that User:ChrisO wants to link this interview to Alastair McIntosh even though there is no way to know if it is the same guy, this seems to be to be a blp issue. He also wishs to use this interview to insert that the books author is a conspiracy theorist, this seems to me to be also a blp breach. mark nutley (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the relevant talk page discussion regarding Scottish Review of Books (SRB). Wikispan (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that editors look at the Scottish Review of Books article (which I notice Mark has avoided linking to above, no doubt because it demolishes his claims). It's a prestigious literary journal (see its website) that's a joint project of Scotland's leading newspaper, The Herald and the Scottish Arts Council, which is part of the Scottish Government. It's funded by the SAC and sponsored by the University of Aberdeen. It's available on a subscription basis and the Herald distributes it as a supplement every quarter. It's partly managed by Argyll Publishing and has a conventional editorial and managerial structure. It's well-reputed and has been cited in dozens of newspaper articles ; some of its articles have been run in national newspapers, such as The Times, and it's been reported on by the national press, the Scottish press and academic authors. The idea that this is somehow not a reliable source is ludicrous. Marknutley has already been told by multiple editors that it is a reliable source but refuses to accept that. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There`s three for the price of one. It was once published by Argyll Publishing, it is no longer it is now self published as can be seen in the online version of the magazine. It is not a joint project with the herald, it is distributed by them, that`s it. It has a single editor and that`s it. You have still to provide your source that the guy you wish to wikilink to is the guy who did the interview mark nutley (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and read the article I just wikilinked rather than making ignorant claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this. One the one hand, Mark complains that Scottish Review of Books is not an acceptable source; on the other, he has no hesitation linking to personal websites whose author's views he agrees with. Wikispan (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Scottish Review of Books appears to be a reliable literary magazine source from a reputable publishing company. I see no cogent rationale for why it should not be considered a reliable source. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that it is a RS. I can't see where this idea is coming from that it's a one-man-band SPS; the Website clearly lists four staff (editor, assistant editor, designer, managing director), which is quite typical for a small magazine. (In any case even if it only had the one editor it would not be a SPS because the writer of the review in question, Alastair McIntosh, is not the editor!) And the involvement of Argyll, the Scottish Arts Council, the University of Aberdeen and the Herald speak volumes to its credibility. However, without further info there is no way to be sure which Alastair McIntosh is the author of the review, and we shouldn't make presumptions there (it can't be an uncommon name in Scotland). Barnabypage (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy enough - look at Alastair McIntosh's website. His review is listed there. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then - what is the (perceived) problem? That it is OR to link the two mentions of Alastair McIntosh? Or that the review could be by another Alistair McIntosh and this one is trying to steal the credit?! Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that McIntosh's review is critical of a book that Marknutley likes. He has no problem with quoting self-published sources when it suits his POV (e.g. ). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikispan, you have the wrong North, and please note that is not a critical review and it does nto attribute words to an unknown person. Cirt, the issue is one of is the person this review is being attributed to actually him? There is no way to know, hence my belief there are BLP issue`s and it can`t be a reliable source for Alastair McIntosh views mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, I did not mention the surname North, therefore it is not possible I have the wrong one. Wikispan (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Richard D. North writing on his personal website" is quite clear. Marknutley even acknowledges the self-published nature of it. I've therefore taken it out, since it's clearly not a reliable source. And yes, it does rather clearly show that Mark applies different standards according to whether a source suits his POV or not. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, do you see that review being used to call a person a conspiracy theorist? or to rewrte the synopsis like you propose to do? do you fuck as like. wikispan why link to that diff if you did not want to mention north? mark nutley (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And look at the diff you link to, that review praises Hulmes book. And yes it is OR to use this guys personal website to tie him to a review on another website mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying? We have an Alastair McIntosh, a notable Scottish writer on environmental issues, posting a pre-publication summary of the SRB article and attributing its authorship to himself. Are you claiming that he's stealing the credit from another Alastair McIntosh from whom he somehow obtained a pre-publication copy of the article? In what universe is this not a tendentious argument? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No i`m saying there is nothing on the source being used as a review to link it to the self published site of Alastair McIntosh it is wp:or to do what you are doing. And your proposel on the article talk page to use this review to rewrite the synopsis of the book so you can call the author a conspiracy theorist ain`t on either mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the above illustrates why it's a complete waste of time to discuss things with you. There's nothing further to be gained from this discussion, as the initial objections have been proved to be groundless. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * mark nutley please refrain from further spurious postings to this noticeboard. It is disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable ... clearly. Any arguments about being "self-published" are wild speculation, with no apparent factual basis (and certainly with no evidence provided here). BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, the author of the article in question, Alastair McIntosh, has posted a comment at Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion to refute Marknutley's tendentious claims. There really is no more to be said on this topic now. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana
This user keeps blanking and adding Unreferenced tags to BLPs, even when there are more than 30 reliable references. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to, I just removed the BLP ref tag, as it already has a nofootnotes tag which describes the problem. However, you are behaving in a way that suggests you aren't completely familiar with the various guidelines and policies, as seen here, where you are edit warring with User talk:Active Banana over the correct use of a tag. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library
Is this an acceptable use of JVM as a source? I had a quick look at the archives here and it seems to be a case-by-case jobbie. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source seems to be this page. No hints at any references, no author given. I would say no, this isn't a good source in this case. Unomi (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A similar passage can be found at Bar_Kokhba's_revolt where it is unsourced. Unomi (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

JVL has been discussed several times here and its a totally unreliable source, it has for example tons of articles sourced from wikipedia articles that contradicts reliable sources, there is no indication of editorial process, no indication of authorship etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it is a reliable source for the viewpoint of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, so if the text is properly attributed with "According to the Jewish Virtual Library ...", that would be okay. But then the issue becomes one of due weight. --Martin (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this should be fairly easy to find a better source for. Unomi (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine, at minimum as described by Martin. For Gods sake, we've used Electronic Intifada as a source -- this certainly qualifies, and is superior (though I expect Supreme and Uno may disagree).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could use it per Marting, what I am wondering is why such a notable and basic event couldn't be sourced to something more authoritative. Unomi (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That specific claim or a similar one could be sourced from The Holy Land in History and Thought although apparently this article (which I can't access) takes the view that it was simply a naming rationalization. So, I guess that means it would be a good idea to look for several sources to cover the various views. Also, don't forget the interesting and somewhat surprising RSN entry on Electronic Intifada as a source here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In some cases it can be source for opinion but not for facts. --Dezidor (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Each usage needs to be weighed on a case by case basis. The JVL uses many different sources for the infomation it presents, and some of it comes from RS. E.g. this is taken from Encyclopaedia Judaica. Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Machete (film)‎
Can someone please keep an eye on this page? Some guy keeps adding a couple "controversy" sections, backed up by blogs and YouTube videos. I've already reverted twice, so I can't do much more. BLGM5 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Fox News Channel
I am starting a Request for Comment on the specific issue of whether, due to the recent missteps of Fox News, (like the Shirley Sherrod case), in combination with the other longstanding bias evident in the programming, Fox News can be treated as a prima facie source. By prima facie reliable, I mean presumed reliable, needing no verification. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not going to go anywhere with this. If the above discussion with sources widely viewed as partisan is turning into this much of a shit storm, than you are going to have a helluva time trying to get FNC listed as unreliable. Soxwon (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, please relax and feel the love, man. Just chillax and let mother nature take her course.  Peace, Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm relaxed, in fact, I am quite happy with a cup of tea and some Bruce Springsteen on. However, I am simply stating my opinion, you are going to get a mountainous headache and accomplish nothing with this RFC. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sox, you were the one that originally suggested an RFC below. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the one who suggested Fox News, I've said from the beginning it will be a disaster, and this is as much as I will comment on this until the actual RFC is underway. Soxwon (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

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


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


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


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


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


 * Not an RS by default – So, Blueboar, you don't think a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is required? Given these well publicised instances, you seem to be claiming that they've only lied a little bit, and your default assumption is that they don't lie. What evidence have you to support that? They clearly appear to be questionable, and each report should be cross checked and considered on its merits, not blindly accepted. . . dave souza, talk 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I most certainly do think a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is required. What I don't agree with is the idea that simply because Fox's lawyer has made an argument that a news outlet has the right to distort of falsify reporting, this means that Fox has now suddenly lost its reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  For that, I would need evidence that they routinely falsify or distort their reporting.
 * I totally agree that news reports should be cross checked and considered on their merits, and not blindly accepted. However, I think this is true for all news reports, not just those by Fox.  As the amicus briefs demonstrate, Fox is hardly alone.  It can not (and should not) be singled out from the practices of the other major news outlets.  All news reporting should be questioned, and checked... not just that by Fox. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that it applies to 'all news reports, and as WP:NOTNEWS why rush to get something in on only one questionable source? Having said that, if it publishes prompt retractions of misinformation it's doing a lot better than Murdoch's UK newspapers. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Today FoxNews reported that the the US Military does have plans for an attack on Iran if the option is necessary. Are we really taking seriously the idea that because it is Fox that this lacks prima facie reliability or that we should comb the New York Times for the same story instead (it doesn't currently have one)? Or that any quotations from the Arizona governor that appear in this story but not other sources must be removed?   RJC  TalkContribs 16:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I am pretty sure that the US has plans for attack lying around for a number of countries, like fx. Canada, and 'US has plans with to strike Iran' stories broke in 2005, 2007 and 2008 and likely before that as well. This round sees The Telegraph, AP, The Guardian and many others reporting the same story, so it doesn't really seem like there is that much combing which would have to be done. Then consider the foxnews story compared with the Guardian article and Telegraph article- even if FOX has not gone to court to defend it right to lie and distort, the lack of nuance and context in the FOX piece does not really inspire the greatest of confidence. As for the AZ Governor, which quote would that be RJC?  Unomi (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that there was one. I was merely pointing to the absurdity of what this RfC is attempting to accomplish.   RJC  TalkContribs 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Fox News is the only news organization I'm aware of that claims a First Amendment based legal right to lie and distort news, yes, I seriously doubt any claimed reputation for reliability, neutrality, and fact checking. At least on stories that they have a political or cultural POV about. I don't think that particular news blurb about Iran is suspect, but I would very carefully examine the Arizona story. — Becksguy (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RS Clearly so by WP precedent and policy - this RfC has no bearing on what the policy is.  BTW, it has been made clear that Fox "broke" the Sherrod case after the adminstration forced her resignation.  Opinion shows can be cited for opinions (just like the MSNBC opinion shows), but the news reports meet WP:RS.  Even the NYT cites Fox! Collect (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a RfC on whether Fox meets the criteria specified in policy, not what the policy is. No one questions the RS policy or guidelines. The policy on reliable sources, WP:SOURCES, says that RS publishers are: ... reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and also says In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.  There is a four pronged test (short version): Is a particular source (1) reliable, (2) independent, (3) with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and (4) with editorial oversight. So the question at hand is: Does Fox News clear the bar as set by policy and guidelines for reliable sources, or not? Or does it depend? — Becksguy (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say: Yes, FNC clears the bar. That said, I do think there is a valid argument for saying that it does not clear the bar when it comes specifically to the Jane Akre story. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Requires additional scrutiny I agree with the other editors here that Fox News articles need to be looked at more closely than the average article, even though I used a Fox News article just a few days ago on the financial reform bill, but when I did so I did some additional research to confirm the article. Fox News recently ran an article on how "pedophilic" Wikipedia is, in the process naming a Wikipedia editor as pro-pedophile who was actually the exact opposite. They consistently deny that global warming is a problem. This is an organization which goes beyond most news organizations in drawing attention and pursuing its political agenda. I would be interested in hearing more explanation from RJC and Blueboar as to why a question like this is somehow unapproachable. II  | (t - c) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it was unapproachable... my argument is that Fox is no different than other major news outlet, so it should be treated the same as the others. I don't think we should blindly accept any news outlet.  All news outlets should be scrutinized and checked.  And I firmly believe that when we do use a news outlet as a source, we should attribute the statement to that source in text ("According to a Fox news report, blah blah blah"... "According to a report in the New York Times, foo foo foo") so readers know who says what, and will take the reporting with the grain of salt that all news sources deserve. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Such requirements of attribution across the board is something that I would wholeheartedly support. Unomi (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that one source might be reporting something not reported elsewhere or wherein all of the other media outlets are reporting, "According to FNC/CBS/NBC/ABC", I would have no problem with that. To the extent that all of the media outlets are reporting the same thing, then no, specific attribution would not be required.  E.G. you would need a source to mention Mel Gibson's recent tirade in an article, but it would not matter if it was Fox/ABC/CBS/TMZ/NY Times/etc.  In those cases specific attribution would make articles unbearable to read.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly - This is silly. Lots of news sources get things wrong.  Some even have journalists caught plagiarizing, etc.  Some, like some of those in Journolist, are actually pulling for one side and making up stories to attack the other.  It is wrong to single out FoxNews for something innocuous as a means to use Wikipedia for further the political goals of a number of Wikipedia editors, and it is silly that anyone would waste good editing time writing here. I'll comment here no further (unless attacked). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be hard to argue that Fox News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - in reality,isn't their reputation exactly the opposite? I can't think of another source that claims to be a straight news source that is so roundly denounced as partisan, biased and inaccurate.  I don't watch TV but I myself can clearly remember being in a "Taco John's" a few years ago that had their TVs tuned to Fox and the chyron clearly and unambiguously declared: "WMDs found in Iraq".  That said I think they could be an acceptable source for unvarnished facts in limited circumstances. Dlabtot (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS and NY Times both have such stirling reputations... they would NEVER be accused of bias in their news reporting.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your mention of CBS and the NY Times has to do with my comment. Do you have any comment to make about what I actually did say? Dlabtot (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are kidding me aren't you? CBS and NY Times are two of the more biased (to the left) media outlets.  Both are known for interjecting opinion into their news articles, but you do not see people clamouring about removing them as reliable sources.  Their integrity may be questioned, but that does not make them any less reliable source than FNC.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you don't actually have anything to say apropos of my comment, but rather just chose this place to make an off-topic rant. Thank you for clearing that up. Dlabtot (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment See New York Times arguing that foreign libel judgements should not be considered in the US. Specifically "public figures have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making a false statement."  And that false statements without malice are therefore quite acceptable -- and "But these protections, rooted in the First Amendment, do not exist in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore, where the burden is often on the author, once accused of libel, to show that a statement is true."  " No one in either country wins if writers cannot express themselves freely. "   Actual example at  where the NYT falsely accused a person in the anthrax scare, but no actual malice was shown.  I guess the NYT is therefore no longer RS at that point (a number of suits have been lodged, for which "malice" is the NYT defense, and not truth). Collect (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, I am sure that you can perceive a distinction between defending your ability to be unintentionally wrong about something, and defending your ability to deliberately lie and distort. In this case I support you in the former and find you toeing the line in the latter. Unomi (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Reliable At first I thought I'd leave any judgment on Fox to others, but after a couple of days of review, I've changed my mind. As RJC pointed out above, Fox has a few blemishes, but they're of the sort that any large scale news operation experiences now and then. Fox is a partisan source, no doubt about it; but so are The Guardian and The Independent, and both are used regularly here. It needs to be used with some degree of care, but it can be used (particularly in cases where there are no political overtones, such as the trade of Ted Lilly to the Dodgers). My issue is with hyperpartisan sources, that deal with almost nothing except politically "hot" stories, and inject their partisan distortions and spin without exception, such as World Net Daily. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the arguments which speak against the presumption of RS in the case of FOX is that a jury unanimously agreed that FOX 'acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiff's news reporting' and that FOX successfully appealed that with what amounts to 'so what'? I think you may be continuing a discussion which is disconnected from this one. Unomi (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unomi, I've read this and this. That's "CeaseSpin.org" and an op-ed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Salon. Do you have anything published in a mainstream newspaper, or on a mainstream news site about this? Furthermore, the events that are complained of occurred more than 13 years ago. Do you have any proof of anything more recent than that? (Besides the Shirley Sherrod episode, which was the fault of Andrew Breitbart rather than Fox News?) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * You seem to assume that people who do not regards FOX as an RS are doing so on grounds of not matching their political bias, this seems to completely ignore the arguments presented against the presumption of RS in their case. Presenting polls of the general populations perception of FOX or what they are looking for in their TV experience is not relevant. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess facts do not matter then? The fact is that of the network news agencies it is the most trusted news network and if by some abomination a super majority on WP says otherwise, it will not change that fact.  Other news agencies are just as dubious, but you don't see people pushing to have the NY Times or CBS delisted as a reliable source.  Sorry, but this notion is simply a dumb idea.  Newsflash--- the media can not be trusted to give objective facts!  This is well documented and numerous books and expose's have been written on each of the major networks.  None of the networks is reliable---it is the nature of the beast.  But within the framework of news, Fox News is consistently seen (by a larger population than just the people whom have commented here) as being the most trustworthy (eg reliable) of the lot.  Because all I see in your poll is "Fox got it wrong, and I don't like it, therefore I think it should be viewed as unreliable."  Without any consideration for the fact that Fox CONSISTENTLY outpaces the other media outlets for trust.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a poll for you: "[For the 3 issues studied] Fox News watchers were most  likely  to  hold  misperceptions — and were more than twice as likely than the next   nearest   network   to   hold   all   three misperceptions." Empirical evidence > uninformed public perception BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Network news agencies"? Do they still matter in present-day U.S.? How many people still rely on TV as their primary info source? (I don't know, I don't watch TV of any kind. The whole affair seems to be glorified beyond any reason.) East of Borschov 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A smaller and smaller percentage of mostly older Americans rely on tv news. That being said, when it comes to online news sources, I suspect that most Americans will check out CNN or Fox News or MSNBC or ESPN for their news coverage as the more objective sources.  And I suspect that the vast majority of sourcings in WP are not to specific episodes that were broadcast on specific dates, but rather to the accompanying online source.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am absolutely fascinated to discover that in the US, news sources have a constitutionally enshrined right to lie. I guess this does make all US sources less reliable than European sources, particularly in BLP issues where - as others have pointed out - the burden of proof in libel cases is on the defendant to show that the statement was true. This does not make European papers any less weaselly, biased or given to spin, but it does make them much more careful with who they tell lies about, and what they say. If a UK paper alleges that a politicial has committed a criminal offense, they would have to be very sure of their ground before they did so, as with the Telegraph and the MPs expenses.  Every one of those allegations had to be accurate, because if they were wrong the paper would pretty much automatically lose the libel case (or their insurers would have settled way before the paper even got to present its side of the story) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US, and I'm not a lawyer, in order to prove libel/slander, you have to show that the person making the statement did so knowing that the statement was not true. (So using the recent Dept of Ag case, Fox didn't realize that the original source had distorted the facts) AND show that the person making the statement is doing so with malicious intent. The original source will argue that it's intent was not malious to the Dept of Ag worker, but wanted to make a tangental observation wherein the ag worker got caught in the cross fire.
 * You also have to make the statement one of fact and not opinion, which is why talk radio/opinion pieces are blooming. They can say, "X is a dirty snake" and that they "believe X to have committed certain sins/crimes/etc" because they do so under the umbrella of "opinion." An opinion editor could say, "it would not surprise me if senator so-n-so raped little boys" and get away with it, because they are not making it a statement of fact. A news anchor has to be careful because if they are "reporting the news" the same exact statement that an opinion reporter can make as an "opinion" might become a statement of "fact". What this means is that various shows on FOX/NBC/CBS/ETC can legally make statements that are "opinions" and not get in trouble. The news shows, however, are held to a higher standard....but it has long been known that the fail to achieve that standard which is why nobody trusts them. Less than 1 in 4 people (OMG a poll result) trusts the media reporting.`--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * As I understand it, the whole point of an RS is that editors can assume the facts are true, unless there is a particular reason to suspect otherwise. Your proposal seems to me somewhat self-contradictory. If Wiki editors are required to scrutinize every FNC report, they must rely upon their own judgment to determine if the news is true, which is definitely not a sound policy. Or they must confirm the FNC's reports with other sources. But then the FNC ceases to be an RS, since information found there must be verified using a separate, more trusted source.Dontnod (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "my proposal". But anyway, I'm not aware of any place where there's a list of "approved" reliable sources that editors can use without exerting any judgment. This RfC is about declaring that Fox is never to be used as an RS. Seems to me that editors who are being careful will look for all available sources, and, yes, I think there will usually be better ones than Fox. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Right here on WP is an article about a movie (and book) entitled Outfoxed, a 2004 documentary that has as the first paragraph of the lede: "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a 2004 documentary film by filmmaker Robert Greenwald that criticises the Fox News Channel, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, claiming that the channel is used to promote and advocate right-wing views. The film says this pervasive bias contradicts the channel's claim of being "Fair and Balanced", and argues that Fox News has been engaging in what amounts to consumer fraud." Note also: Fox News Channel controversies. — Becksguy (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Becks, your point? We also have an article called,  "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News is a book by Bernard Goldberg, a 28-year veteran CBS news reporter and producer, giving detailed examples of what he calls liberal bias in television news reporting. It was published in 2001 by Regnery Publishing."  We also have an entire article on Media bias in the United States.
 * Nobody is disputing that the media is biased and interjects bias into the news coverage. But this RfC is clearly biased and disruptive because it is singling out Fox News.  You can find books and articles on media bias that goes back long before Murdoch ever contemplated creating Fox.  Arrogance: Rescuing America From The Media Elite where the book apparently talks about "how news organizations bully interviewees to eliminate anything that might contradict what they broadcast an act of arrogance transcending ideological lines".  The Washington Post's own omnbudsman concluded, "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts." Media bias happens, but the only reason why this RfC is started is because a few people want us to believe that Fox is so much worse than the other media outlets, which is not commonly accepted by the public at large, and to make a point.  I'm sorry but the fact that this RfC is open is an attempt to make a political point.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Yes, it's reliable come on, it's a news organization with editors etc. Is it biased?  Hugely.  Are there areas it should be used carefully?  Of course.  But heck the Christian Science Monitor, which is a great paper, has it's own wacky flaws (I'd never ever trust it as a RS on anything health care related for example).  Hobit (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Of course the above poster thinks TMZ is a reliable source as well.  (see below).  I think something is wrong if we are setting the bar for reliablity so low that TMZ is deemed as reliable as the BBC.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When we are choosing a Boolean value to map values that are a continuum by necessity the groupings will be odd--we only get two groups. Are you claiming stuff written on a bathroom wall is as reliable as TMZ or Fox News?  In general we can't use non-reliable sources here.  I think both TMZ, Fox and the BBC are all reliable enough for use on Wikipedia.  A random blog or the bathroom wall are not.  Hobit (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, I think this RfC is fine. It should have been proposed in a more neutral way, but otherwise this is exactly the right way to hold the discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Should not be presumed to be RS, per recent events. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To which recent event (or recent events) do you refer?  Horologium  (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest tha,t with regard to topics in which FOX is frequently introducing a particular point of view into its news (e.g. health care reform), an inline citation may be appropriate, and in this cases editors may build a consensus without taking a footnote citation as the default. Cs32en   Talk to me  16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All news outlets have a bias, should we also stop using the BBC? or the Guardian? This is a ridiculous RFC and ought to be closed mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

--K10wnsta (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable Preventing the inclusion of one of such a large news provider (both internet and television) sounds terrible to me. Some of their programming are loaded with entertainment instead of what is generally considered neutral reporting and those programs and hosts need to be addressed on their individual merits. And if we are not mirroring those more biased sources within Fox then much of the concern over Fox as a source goes away. And yes, you will find stories reporting inaccuracies. You can find those for MSNBC and CNN as well. 24 hour news with such a dose of entertainment and political division is bound to turn up some claims that are disputed somewhere but any such concerns should be handled on a case by case. What is the ratio to reported mistakes to just general news? It is reasonable to assume that it is not very close.Cptnono (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RS with additional considerations Fox does fine reading from the newswires, but any stories they break, and especially any of their coverage relating to political matters, should be heavily scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.  That being said, I don't think such conditions would have prevented us from being duped in the Sherrod case because Fox was essentially duped as well (although they failed - possibly willfully - to maintain journalistic integrity in initially presenting it).
 * Not a RS anymore, sadly. Take a look at this recent article about Wikipedia. THe entire thesis of this article is false, although there are some statements that would have been true five years ago. I don't know if they don't check their facts or they simply ignore the reports of the fact-checkers or what, but the result is the same. This is not an issue of political bias but that they just don't seem to care anymore if what they say is true or not. It's a sad situation and hopefully they will turn it around, but for now they just aren't reliable. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't know if they don't check their facts or they simply ignore the reports of the fact-checkers or what, but the result is the same. "
 * The problem with this statement is that while you may disagree with their opinion they did not actually cite any incorrect facts. I may be wrong, but please show me something from there that was factually incorrect.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to start with the lede: "Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms." In fact, Wikipedia has not become a home base for any worldwide network of pedophiles, etc. When I joined Wikipedia in 2005, there might have been some merit to the statement (although even then it would be a considerable overstatement). However, I founded WP:PAW and helped (other editors did much more) to rectify this situation. So it is no longer even remotely true, if it ever was. The rest of the article is peppered with stale data ("Three years ago, on Annabelleigh.net...", with the text following up taking up a good portion of the article) or outright misrepresentations ("....other Wikipedia pages edited by pedophiles, including 'Child Sexuality'..."; At one time Child Sexuality was indeed problematical. I rewrote it myself from the ground up. In 2006. They quote Xavier Von Erck who is, in my opinion (based on my interactions with him when he briefly edited the Wikipedia), a monomaniac, but they apparently never even called anyone at Wikipedia, or if they did I guess they decided their response was not interesting enough to include or even describe. I could go on. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * I would say that we should direct the closer of the RfC to also consider relevant arguments made in the MtC section, asking the authors of arguments to repost them in this section if they haven't already could also be appropriate, alternatively you would be free to quote any of them with attribution and state your opinion of said arguments. I collapsed it solely to ensure that we didn't suffer topic fatigue within what should be a fairly narrow RfC. Unomi (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those comments should be sufficient if everything related to the RfC doesn't get moved up out of the box. Regards and thank you for collapsing it. — Becksguy (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing the section silences too many people who put in comments there. Anybody who agreed with closing it agrees that this is a bad rfc.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * Not so. Please see Consensus Can Change.


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * quote truncation and misrepresentation.
 * misrepresentation.
 * anti-intellectualism at its best
 * Jimbo says that FOX is wrong and apparently made no fact checking efforts

This seems beyond what might be attributed to 'innocent' political bias' which we do embrace. Unomi (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Unomi's four points. Despite the often claimed argument that this RfC is biased by focusing on Fox News, it is clearly appropriate to bring up an issue with a specific source, as do most, if not all, the other threads at WP:RSN. In fact, the purpose of RSN is to inquire about the reliability of specific sources, whether here or on the talk page. It says at the top of WP:RSN: "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page." And yes, we definitely should find some academic study. Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), or the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that has an excellent reputation, or any other universities with journalism schools, might be likely places to look as a start. — Becksguy (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Not an RS – Fox can be used per WP:NEWSORG only in non-controversial issues. However, when confronted, anything said by Fox should be independently confirmed by other reliable sources. Specifically no argument should be made, that something from Fox should be included in the article based on the "fact" that Fox is a reliable source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri, could I get you to clarify your statement? Namely, to reconcile it with your comment below, where you wrote, find it unconceivable that we would label Fox a "questionable source" – and issue a blanket ban on its use on Wikipedia.  The RfC is calling for just such a declaration or are you saying that "Fox News meets our guidelines for what a Reliable Source is, but isn't always reliable and should be checked?"  The later I can accept, the former I disagree with.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Close
Per Long standing Consensus at RSN, that it is reliable as any source and has its flaws as any news outlet does Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Consensus can change. And certainly here, there's no overwhelming consensus about declaring FNC to be an RS without exception. There's no reason to prevent this RfC from being explored. BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not going to go anywhere.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that [w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis is sufficient and singling out one news organization seems WP:CREEPy. —Ost (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FFS, You've got to be joking. Close this with prejudice.  Horologium  (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close as nonproductive, without merit, and at odds with established practice.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with close for reasons I already stated above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep open and keep calm. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Balloonman Soxwon (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close. This is simply about politics and not liking the bias of Fox News. JASpencer (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close. Salt as needed. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid rationale to claim a source is not rreliable under WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus can change, but there is long standing consensus its reliable enough and a group that finds this whole thing ridiculous. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The group that "finds this whole thing ridiculous" can say so; their disgust does not give them rights to terminate the discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Unomi its is perfectly acceptable to make a motion I am not closing it merly making a motion for some one uninvolved please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTTHAT Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, August 3, 2010
 * Please to read WP:RFC, if you have thoughts on the discussion topic then engage in it, the behavior you are currently engaging in is borderline disruptive. Best, Unomi (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a motion, that is not a disruption. This RFC by far a the bigger disruption Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was moved here. Also, WP:RFC does not have anything in it about motions to close. I'm not sure where this motion notion came from. Dlabtot (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is at the top of the page on the previous location of this. it was moved here as the proper venue to discuss proper sources Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you are reading instructions, you might try reading those at the top of this page, and those at WP:RFC. Dlabtot (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep open. I checked the archives a few days ago, when I was contemplating creating a discussion about FOX's reliability; I, personally, couldn't find a discussion ending in a consensus one way or another. That, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus here that FOX is an RS, so closing this discussion is inappropriate. Sceptre (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "There doesn't appear to be a consensus here that fox is a RS"? Er, perhaps you have failed to notice something, Fox News is already considered a reliable source, thus the burden is to show consensus has clearly changed to move away from that position... which would mean a clear conensus in the neighborhood of 70-75% in favor of removing it.  As is, the current !vote is at 7 people saying to change the status to unreliable, 19 people saying to keep it as reliable, and 6 others who are saying some variation on "partial trust"/"use discretion"/"handle with care"---e.g. that you can't cast a blanket on FNC a unilaterally declare it unreliable.  Thus, at the current situation, we have seven out of 32 voices saying that FN is by definition not a reliable source.  In other words, by my count which could be wrong, around 80% of those who have chimed in, support the notion that Fox News is reliable to some extent or another.  Now what are the odds of this turning around and a super majority declaring that FNC should be reclassified en total as an unreliable source?  It ain't gonna happen.  There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that this RfC will result in a change, thus there is no reason to keep it open.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your vote-counting is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RFC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * !vote counting isn't "completely irrelevant," it is a quickie means to garner an initial assessment as to where/what people feel on the subject. Strength of argument ultimately comes into play, but generally in order for strength of argument to prevail over numerical counts, you need to have weak arguments on one side and absolutely devestating arguments on the other side.  There has to be a clear reason why 20% of the sample's opinions would matter more than the 80% who oppose making a change.  Sorry, but IDONTLIKEFOX is not a compelling reason to degrade FNC from the list of reliable sources.  This RfC isn't going to amount to a hill of beans.  Fox has messed up, but so too have each of the other major networks... often intentionally.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess if you want to pretend that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RfC are not established Wikipedia policies and there is no established long-standing consensus about these policies then you would have a point. It is a pretense in which I don't care to engage.  Dlabtot (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh??? your comment makes zero sense. Consensus on this RfC is clearly in against the notion that Fox News is an unreliable source.  As for Consensus, consensus has always been that you have to show a substantial change to move away from existing practice, otherwise you lead to abuse of process.  Currently, we have roughly 7 people supporting the notion that Fox is by definition unreliable and 25 people saying that (to some degree or another) that Fox is a reliable source.  Clearly not enough to move away from existing practice.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple really: you are counting votes, but it's not a vote. Nor are RfCs closed with a 'motion to close'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only "counting vote" insofar that the vast majority of people disagree with the proposal---which is why I use the !vote when talking about !votes... because it ain't a vote, but it is clear (barring some miracle) based upon the number and quality of comments that the proposal is going to fail.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are counting votes, whether you put a ! in front of the word or not. And it is irrelevant and frankly, disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am pointing out the obvious fact that this RfC is not going to go anywhere. This RfC is the disruption.  Not only is it clear to just about everybody who has posted here, the trend is clearly in favor of Fox News---note that 4 of the seven people supporting were early !votes!  If this RfC, which is wasting people's time, were to pass then it would have a cascading affect through numerous other project---FAC/GA/FLC/BLP just to name a few.  This RfC is poorly conceived with zero chance of passage, thus insisting on keeping it open is the disruption.  Do you honestly expect Fox News to be declared defacto unreliable?  Idiotic.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not taken the time to review WP:CONSENSUS or WP:RFC. There exists no mechanism to close RfCs with a 'motion to close' no matter how many people vote on it.  Continue to count votes if you want but you are simply wasting time - yours as well as everyone who has this noticeboard watchlisted.  You really do not seem to understand what a Request for Comments is all about. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are obviously a wikilawyer who thinks that just because an RfC is opened that it has to stay open for 30 days. Opening this RfC was WP:POINT as no reasonable person could honestly expect to garner enough support to declare FNC unreliable.  As this is strictly opened to create a point, it is a disruptive waste of time.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the RfC policy, the place to discuss that change would be WT:RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "generally reliable". We do have a general consensus that on non-political stories, it would be considered reliable... but I don't see such a consensus on political stories. Most of the "reliable" opinions (and I say most) tend to be either a rant against liberal bias, "the others do it too", or "it's a popular source of information". On #2: my argument comes from the fact they've had two infamous incidents where they've confused the political affiliations of prominent Republicans—and possibly a third; I've heard that they labelled McCain as a Democrat some time in 2008—something which, I believe, its competitors haven't shown (political lean doesn't come into it). On #3: popul/arity is no indicator of reliability. Looking at the circulation figures for British newspapers, the reliable sources at 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th. Hell, the Star explictly said regarding a Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury, game, and I quote, "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story". Still... Sceptre (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (@Sceptre) I hate to use the "you are too young to remember" trope, but you are too young to remember that at least two US media sources (C-SPAN and the Los Angeles Times) misidentified Representative Gary Condit as a Republican during his scandal in 2002. (You were about 11 at the time.) Since the LA Times is distributed throughout the San Joaquin Valley, it was a particularly spectacular error on their part, but it doesn't make either of them unreliable sources. Someone mentioned the New York Times and Jayson Blair; how about Walter Duranty? Those two reporters and their multiple transgressions don't make the NYT non-RS. We could also mention an idiotic article in The Observer (this one) which thoroughly and totally misrepresents a hypothetical scenario, turning it into an impending ecological catastrophe. You have to read the actual report to understand that what the report suggests is an extreme global cooling incident, and one of the suggested actions is radically increasing hydrofluorocarbon emissions. Stupidity like that doesn't make The Observer an unreliable source, either. Please get over the whole "Fox News is the suxx0r" thing, and recognize that even a couple of errors don't make a source unreliable. Stupidity like equating FNC with WorldNetDaily or Pravda is just nonsense, and it makes it very difficult for me to take editors who advance such positions seriously.  Horologium  (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood your comment right up until the final word. "Still" what? Dlabtot (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, non-political stories are now deemed reliable. It's the political stories you are challenging.  You still don't have the support to make a change in status, the current status is the default position, and you have to show that is no longer true.  Which would still mean getting a supra majority.  Currently, using the numbers identified above, there are 7 people who label Fox News as unreliable by definition and 6 who put caveats saying that it is and isn't reliable.  Assuming that you can get those six to agree with the seven, you still have only 40% of the sampled population calling for change.  Not nearly enough to make a change on something this big and Impacting.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: while I agree that it is just as reliable as most mass-media news sources, and that this is much "about politics and not liking the bias of Fox News" (in fact, the local version of Fox News in my town is completely unbiased), I see no consensus. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Open Referring to the below motion to close, I agree it's premature. While there have been other "Is Fox News reliable" discussions at WT:IRS here and at WP:RSN, this RfC has been open only two days out of 30 potential days. And the legal claim issue seems new. — Becksguy (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep open, per Becksguy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close, not proper venue for this kind of question. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close This is exactly the proper venue--what could possibly be better--this is a board to get decisions on just this sort of question, rather than scattering them one by one at multiple article talk pages and AfDs. The consensus seems to be as stated, that it is somewhat reliable, and meets the technical requirement of being a RS for the purpose of notability. When in conflict with other sources, relative reliability needs to be considered, and among US news sources, most national level sources would probably be considered more reliable. That it sometimes lies does not mean it always lies. That it often distorts, does not mean it always does. The reliability depends, like other news sources, ofn the subject. Anyone who fully believes it in US politics is in my opinion a fool, but if it covers a story even in this area, it makes for notability.    DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Open. This discussion is going well and there is noting wrong with shaing our ideas.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close as an entirely invalid RfC in the first place: it was not neutrally worded, and it's clear that there are two camps: partisans who would love to see everyone but Fox News' POV represented, and those who can't even believe that this is being discussed seriously... which it's not. No matter how large the shrill minority, there's no convincing way Wikipedia can make a serious claim to be NPOV without treating it as a major news player. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't fit into either of those two camps. Fox News, like Pravda or other obviously biased and inaccurate sources can be considered a reliable source as the term is used on Wikipedia in certain circumstances. It's all about the details: what specific citation is being used to source what specific text in what specific article. But the idea that people should not be permitted to discuss the topic goes against the very heart of the concept of collaborative editing by consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true with ANY source and nobody disputes that. FNC has to be used with care... just as CBS, NY Times, or any media outlet.  NOBODY would dispute that, the premise, however, that we can discard an entire network (the most viewed and per numerous polls most trusted one) simply because a few voices is ludicrious.  The problem is that this RFC was created simply because some people want to make a WP:POINT which is disruptive.  There is zero chance that FNC will be categorized as unreliable and if it were WP would become a joke.  Disruptive threads need not be continued... NOTHING will come of it.  Snowball closes occur all the time all over WP and I daresay that if it wasn't for the political nature of this RfC, it would have been closed already as it is obviously nothing more than an attempt to make a political point.  Oh yeah, as far as !vote counting... that's five four more people who agree that this is a waste of time.  I think consensus is pretty clear on this.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to amend the RfC process to allow them to be closed by a 'Motion to Close' followed by a vote, the place to discuss that change would be WT:RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, the process already exists to deal with wikilawyering.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started the discussion: WT:Requests_for_comment Dlabtot (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't close; leave open here for rather longer, or (if this is the wrong place) move somewhere more appropriate and leave open there for rather longer. It's not harmful, the participants are remaining cool, and it may even be productive. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Close per DGG. No, the presumption should be that it is not a reliable source.  While a particular story or citation may be useful, there has been a longstanding and growing consensus here that Fox News is not reliable, and I see no reason to change that.  Its editorial staff is not hired, trained, or proficient at fact-checking.  Its chairman is a former partisan.  I can't add any more than what Becksguy wrote above. As far as process is concerned, this is as good a forum as any other, and is linked to WP:AfD, making it highly visible to regular users. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see that at all. There is a majority of editors who support it as a reliable source. A supermajority would be needed to change that, and there is not even a plurality, let alone a majority or a supermajority. As for the whole "partisan" thing, I suppose you support allowing Media Matters for America as a reliable source, despite the fact that its founder is a rabid partisan. Becksguy wrote that there is a documentary film which claims to document FNC's bias. There are at least two books which allege and two websites which track bias at The New York Times, yet nobody seriously suggests disallowing them as a RS. FNC is no more biased towards the right than the NYT, CBS, and MSNBC are to the left.  Horologium  (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FNC is no more biased the everyone else? Let's just say _that_ I disagree with.  Fox is reliable, but remarkably biased.  They rarely get facts wrong, but boy do they spin them.  NPR is perhaps the closest to the leftward spin, but one gets the sense they try to not be biased.  Hobit (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

We're approaching this from the wrong direction
We don't get to decide whether Fox News is reliable or not based on our individual opinions, because there is no way we will ever come to an agreement simply because of our political biases. Given the prominence of Fox News as a news source for many Americans and given the longstanding and not-unjustified skewing of its "Fair and Balanced" tagline, there have got to be academic studies that have looked at this very issue. I certainly imagine that somebody somewhere has asked the question: How often does Fox News make mistakes? How does that compare with other major media outlets? And when they do make mistakes (as they inevitably will), do they issue retractions and corrections? If the quantity of errors is greater than other media outlets and if they don't retract/correct themselves, then they cannot be prima facie considered a reliable source. Is there anyone here who can find such a study?  howcheng  {chat} 08:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You also have to consider the PR on this. If we rule that Fox is no longer reliable, that is going to be big news and widely reported, so we had better be able to back up that decision with solid facts.  howcheng  {chat} 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliability varies at Fox. As I explained previously, aspects of the Fox News apparatus, such as original reporting on its website, are reliable. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Figureofnine (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A curate's egg, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since academics are rightly or wrongly considered "left wing"; any academic study stating Fox News is an unreliable "right wing" forum would be labeled POV. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if Fox news was in the politicaly poler possition to "left wing". If it were not it would be lableed that surley?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but that might call our source selection into question, if we selected a study on the basis of it arguing something specifically in order to avoid POV issues, if other sources did call Fox right wing. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that if some one who is 'left wing' calls something 'right wing' theres a fair chance that the 'right wing' thing is left of the 'left wing' thing.It would be hard to imagine (but not imposible to be sure) to imagine a situation where a 'left wing' accademic (and this idea that all accademics are 'left wing' is a rather borad bursh assumption) (you know the sort if person, leather patches on the sleaves, bnuys the big issue from a news agent, eats Humous) would call a 'left wing' news organisation right wing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't buy the Big Issue in newsagents. I would suggest you are seeing hypocrisy where there is none. Other than that, I think the general point you make is correct. lw wing sources are generally unlikely to be biased in identifying things as rw. In fact, they are likely to be reliable. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, buys the big issue from a street vendor whilst telling his collegue how "important it is that those of us blessed in life with succes should help those unfortunate enough not to have our chances, Ohh and will you and Jocasta be joining us for the African music and cheese festival at the Gastro pub tonight" Bloody intelectuals. Also I am quite happry for us to state that any source were clear political bias can be shown should not be countd as RS. All I am saying is that we aply that to all sources, not just Fox News. We make it a new policy restriction something like "If claer political bias can be shown then a source is not considerd reliabel"Slatersteven (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you see me through my computer screen? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, that’s what all intellectuals look like, its a law or something. Like the fact that all Fox viewers wear string vest and put their bare feet up on the coffee table (strewn with copies of Razzle) to watch Fox whilst beating their children with belts with an Oggaden no.5 hanging from their drooling lips.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Intellectual, ha! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RS - are we trying to become Liberalpedia or to stay Wikipedia? It is a reliable source with a basically conservative view, just as the NYT is a reliable source with a basically liberal view and the WSJ is a reliable source with a basically conservative view.  You can find errors in all media sources - i.e. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Timothy O'Brian, etc.  It doesn't mean that they are no longer a RS.  GregJackP   Boomer!   17:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im partialy agree. Not with the sentiment, but with ht idea that all sources (espeicaly media sources) will have a bias. If we no not allow Fox then we should not allow any source htat has a clear political agenda bias.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try an evidence-based approach, and look for what other sources say about Fox News. I found some studies of this: "We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News;" "Compared to the CNN audience, Fox News watchers are less likely to follow stories that are critical of the Bush administration but more likely to follow entertainment-based news stories. The findings also suggest that Fox News watchers enjoy news that shares their personal views, while the CNN and network news audiences prefer news that has more in-depth interviews with public officials"; "Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress;" "A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks sought to find out how well informed consumers were about the war. It found that 48% of Americans believed that the US had identified links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, 22% thought that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% thought that world public opinion backed the US going to war on Iraq. As many as 80% of Fox viewers believed at least one of the statements, compared with 71% of CNN viewers; 61% of ABC viewers, 55% each of those who followed the war on either NBC and CNN." Also see news sources, such as this in Newsweek: "Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored."; Miami Herald: "Fox forfeited any expectation of being taken seriously by serious people when it made itself an echo chamber less concerned with reporting news than with affirming the ideological biases of its viewers;" Media Alliance: "Fox News should be seen for what it is, not as a news outlet.". These sources are just scratching the surface. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of these sources do not say that Fox is bias; they seem to say its viewers are (or at least less critical). As to political bias I would again say that if Fox is banned as RS so should all the other sources where there has been criticism of political bias (for example the BBC has been both accused of anti-Labour and Anti-conservative, based on which source you use). I am fine with this idea, as long as it applies across the board.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir, were you a bit high when you typed that, or labouring under the handicap of English not being your first language? I was not able to comprehend your post. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I am dylexic.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice survey of some of the extant materials of the reliability and reputation of the Fox News Channel, Fences and Windows. A few of the sources that you cited also addressed Fox's reputation among the other major news agencies, with publications such as Newsweek and the Miami Herald having voiced criticism of Fox's integrity.  That brings up the issue of whether a news agency's reputation among other news agencies is relevant to the overall issue of whether Wikipedia can afford to treat Fox News as a prima facie reliable source. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And sorry about the intemperate comment above, Mr. Slater. I thought better of it and struck it out.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And other news sources have similarly been criticized. CBS and NY Times in particular are oft criticized for their bias.  As for being respected.  What about the fact that FN is now on the front row at the white house?  Why is Fox News gaining usage on various media outlets?  Why is Fox News oft cited by other sources?  Other sources see Fox News as reliable enough that they will take their stories and run with them.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Schroeder: So we should not trust CBS because of Dan Rather's use of fake docs to go after G.W. Bush, the faked gas tank explosion, etc? GregJackP  Boomer!   22:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The seating arrangement of the White House Correspondents Association has nothing to do with journalistic excellence, such as journalistic integrity, ethics, fact checking, neutrality, responsibility, newsworthiness, or editorial oversight. The NY Times won 104 Pulitzer Prizes. Although the Pulitzer doesn't apply to broadcast journalism, how many awards has Fox News won, awards that deal with journalistic excellence, that is. The WP article on Fox News doesn't list any. But it does list Criticism and controversies. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the gas tank thing was Dateline NBC back in the late 1980's. And yes, Dan Rather's involvement in the fake documents fiasco was a black eye for CBS, but fired their veteran icon.  The distinction being that Fox News does not have the track record of disciplining its reporters for getting it wrong the way other major news agencies do.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hardly claim that CBS has a "track record" of disciplining its reporters. O'Reilly went on the carpet for it, took the blame, and apologized. The error would have had virtually no consequences had it not been for this administration's actions in relation to it.  They jumped the gun by immediately firing her without even giving her a hearing.  At least Fox News had planned to have her on TV that evening to give her one.  The administration showed their incompetence, and now some liberal-leaning Wikipedia editors are looking to find a scapegoat for that incompetence, and not only blame FOX News, but have it declared incompetent. I can't wait to tackle the New York Times and Reuters!  JuJubird (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call O'Reilly or Beck objective reliable sources. I have zero doubt that when you look at Foxes commentary shows, that bias and problematic issues arise, which is probably a large part of the reason the PIPA study reached the conclusions that it did.  Those two shows are not reliable sources.  That being said, the question at hand is not whether or not specific shows on Fox are reliable, but whether or not the entirety of the Fox News can be discarded whole hearted as unreliable.  Such a preposal is preposterous and thankfully with the exception of a small handful of people, has not garnered much support.  If it were to, then it would again show not a problem with FNC, but rather our sampling methodology.  Fox News, despite its biased talk shows, remains per virtually every poll performed the most trusted news network in the country.  That is a pure simple fact that nobody can or has disputed.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Fox's viewers having inaccurate beliefs ≠ Fox is inaccurate. You are making a false connection.  Horologium  (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that does not prove Fox is any more bias then say The Dailey Mail. All it proves is they might not listen that well to what they hear if they don't like it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unomi, I don't dispute Beck or O'reilly being unreliable sources. I don't think anybody here does.  If they were ever used as a source, they had best be prefixed with "Per Beck/O'Reilly".  But the fact that there are two unreliable OPINION shows are on Fox News does not make EVERYTHING on the channel unreliable.
 * Plus, in all reality, the discussion isn't on the TV programming, but rather the website. Let's get that clear, this RfC really is not related to the TV programming, but to the reliability of the website.  Very rarely do people cite or quote something from a TV program, they are much more likely to goto the associated website and cite the website, so viewership of Fox News Channel is really a red herring.
 * As for the polls, of course they have merit. Only a fool would believe that the media is without bias.  I have never claimed that Fox News is unbiased or 100% reliable---that would be ridiculous.  The fact is that all of the major media outlets are biased and cannot be fully trusted.  Given that each of the networks/radio stations/newspapers are questioned as for their reliability, the question becomes which news agency do people trust/respect the most? Given that you have to question network reliability, which network do people see as being more reliable?  The answer to this has been a resounding "Fox News Channel."  The polls don't show that Fox has been the most respected network once, but repeatedly for years over numerous pollsters.  It doesn't matter who is conducting the poll, Fox News is consistently viewed as the most reliable source within a sea of corrupt media outlets.  CBS, MSNBC and (sometimes) Fox News are viewed as the least reliable sources. So given that each of the networks introduces bias into their reporting, Fox News is perceived as being more reliable than others.  The attempt to paint the entire channel with a broad stroking umbrella creates an untenuable position.
 * As for the single study that has been produced... that in what appears to be a scientific study... it's a smoking gun, but it is not conclusive or final. It is a SINGLE study based upon three questions.  Let's repeat that, this is a single study.  Even if it were a "scientific study" it's results cannot be viewed as authoritative of final.  Seems like you are relying too heavily upon a single study.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I tried to clean up the links as reading the full http code was hard on the eyes, hope you don't mind.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope thats OK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * Keep in mind please that this story was broadcast during a Fox "news" time during the noon hour, and not during one of its popular opinion-based shows! This non-story didn't contain a single verifiable "fact" or "source" in it, but only served as a fabricated platform for the Fox anchor and reporter to alarm the public about some Obama-hatched conspiracy to deny our combat troops (read: born Republicans) the right to vote.  Its just little things like that, when repeated all day, every day, that may lead some to question the journalism of Fox News.  Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important to note exactly what Fox reported: "Critics say that..." The report does not say that the DoD actually did what the critics are claiming. Fox may have hyped the claims, and given them more air time than we think they deserve, but we have no reason to doubt that the story, as reported, is untrue (ie that "critics" did not make the claims Fox has attributed to them)?  Fox remains a reliable source for the statement that "According to Fox News, critics say that...".
 * Does this mean we have to include a mention of these claims, or even the fact that Fox reported on them? No.  We have to remember that WP:RS is not the only policy/guideline on Wikipedia. Given the nature of the report (such as the fact that Fox did not tell us who the critics were, or present any additional facts to show that the claims made by these critics have any basis in reality), I would say that mentioning this report by Fox would give both the report and the underlying claim undue weight.  But that is a NPOV issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The story consisted of a reporter repeating some accusations that overseas troops may be pressured by the government to vote a certain way, or have their ballots not counted. (remind anyone of anything yet?)
 * Well, it has reminded me (for one) to look with a jaundiced eye at someone paraphrasing (with no link to a transcript) a purported Fox News faux pas. In fact (with some minimal research), this story has been on Fox's front-burner as an EXCLUSIVE story that commenced (and has been developing) since July 28...and it is NOT the Pentagon they are targeting (as you suggested) but the Department of Justice...
 * EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military By Jana Winter, Published July 28, 2010
 * Department of Justice Playing Politics?, July 31, 2010
 * Is the DOJ Failing to Ensure Troops' Voting Rights? By Shannon Bream, Aug 4, 2010
 * Who these "critics" were was never mentioned,...
 * Perhaps so (in this segment), but you'll pardon me if I hold out for a transcript on that point as both the progenitor of the story, a former DoJ lawyer (whistleblower?) J. Christian Adams, was identified in at least 2 Fox News segments available here and here, and Senator John Cornyn, co-author of the "Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act" is now pressuring DoJ for answers. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, pardon me, but just a thought. If refusing to name sources is now grounds for dismissal are we to scrub all information that is attributed to persons "who don't wish to be named" now? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Jake inadvertently proved a point I made above. If Dave Don attempted to use the episode as a reference, it would have NEVER been accepted as a reference.  Dave saw on August 8th an episode wherein he purports outrageous claims, but nobody can view the episode again.  It will probably not be archived in a manner that people can pull it up (Whereas Beck/Oreilly and other opinion pieces are often replayed the "news" segments are unlikely to do so.)  Thus, if Dave Don were to attempt to put something into an actual article, then somebody would ask for an actual link to transcripts or some other article.  THe person would have to do some research into it to get additional information and those articles referenced by Jake would be the ones cited.  This is true for not only Fox, but MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC---the odds of a specific news broadcast being accepted as a reliable source are slim to none.  The, real question is can Foxnews.com be accepted as reliable?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is Dave?  Horologium  (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hes from Hypertheroical, its just outside parrable.Slatersteven (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I used the wrong name.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A touch of humor is always welcome... :-) Thanks — Becksguy (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to think that this issue is just with Fox News's Internet division and not about the reliability of the television news. They report the same things and are part of the same organization. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IOW, journalistic misdeeds don't count if they are not archived online. Interesting viewpoint. Dlabtot (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawman. Those are YOUR words, not OTHER words...and I don't see anyone, save for you, drawing that conclusion. Nor is there any way to determine (at this point) that "journalistic misdeeds...not archived online" have even occurred (perhaps you can provide an example where "journalistic misdeeds" that would rise to satisfy WP:V/WP:UNDUE have been kept out of this medium?). That being said, and if there's anything to this allegation, I think you can expect that MMfA (who most likely records every nano-second of Fox New's programming) or some other like-minded "watchdog" entity will attempt to capitalize on it.
 * Interesting viewpoint.
 * What's more interesting is that you apparently find WP:V/WP:UNDUE to be an "interesting viewpoint". JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Donald Schroeder as to the issue being with both broadcast and online venues. However, I don't see that Balloonman is saying misdeeds don't count unless they are digitally available online. I respect Balloonman and listen to him, even when I disagree. His point is really about source reference accessibility and even more importantly, verifiability. We tend to mostly use online sources on Wikipedia due to their ease in locating, quoting, and linking. Which means they are easily verified. As he pointed out, using a broadcast version requires finding a transcript that's verifiable (or maybe a video clip that's verifiable), and that process is significantly harder, and sometimes nearly impossible without going back to the source, because the broadcaster doesn't release them. And if someone else provides a transcript, how do you know it's accurate. As an aside, I remember being involved in a discussion where an editor seriously suggested that dead tree citations be disallowed, so that all citations could be checked online. I can see the frustration in checking books, but if we adopted that, the vast majority of written history would become unavailable.  — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference with books is that there is the ability to obtain them. For example, when I worked on the Military Brat article, I used a book as one of my main sources.  The book is not widely available, but if you wanted to, you could get it through inter library loan to verify it.  But yes, the problem with network news is that unless there is a transcript (and there rarely are) then reporting things from CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX is hard to do.  Donald may have watched the segment and it may have been exactly as he described.  Or I might see things that he didn't (or if we cynically ABF) could be completely different from what he reported.  But since I can't retrieve the exact exchange that he says he saw, I couldn't refute/validate it if I wanted to.  (The named shows---Beck/Oreilly/etc are a different story.)  But I suspect that whenever somebody sees  something on TV or hears something on the Radio, they attempt to find a print or electronic medium to cite as the source.  Just take a look at some of the major sports trades/news.  Jay Cutler in particular comes to mind.  When the news of his trade first broke on the radio, people cited the radio program on which they first heard the news.  But as soon as reputable websites, which might be the radio station cite, published the story, the spoken announcement disappeared from the article(s) in favor of more reliable sources.  TV/Radio news programs are already, by practice, if not deed, already deemed as less reliable sources.  Nobody is defending Beck/Oreilly as reliable sources.  So the single study by PIPA is more or less a red herring to the real issue.  The real issue to which this RfC is attempting to say, is "Can anything with the Fox label be unilaterally discarded as unreliable?"  The answer to that is no.  We cannot discard the largest, most viewed, most (and admittedly least) respected news agency in America because some people on Wikipedia think it is more biased than other news sources.  (I agree it is biased, but so too are CBS/ABC/NY Times/Reuters.)  A universal ban on everything Fox would be purely political in motivation and short sighted.  And would make WP loose a lot of credibility.  This RfC continues to be a huge mamouth waste of time and energy.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that a Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, who is referred to as "One of the Senate's most conservative members...", at one point called Fox News information "biased". The quote is: The senator continued, telling told the mostly conservative crowd to not be fooled by the "biased" information from Fox News. Source:Coburn: Pelosi is a 'nice lady,' Fox News is 'biased' from the Hill (April 6, 2010), a newspaper written for and about the US Congress. I think everyone will agree that this is not a left wing spin, coming from a conservative source. — Becksguy (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has argued that Fox does not have spin/bias... just as nobody has tried to say taht CBS/REuter/NY Time/NY Post don't have spin/bias. Hell, the Washington Post Ombudsman herself reported that the paper had a liberal bias!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of Fox News smears and distortions as published by Media Matters for America (MMfA), a progressive press watchdog organization that monitors conservative misinformation: Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points in an article dated October 13, 2009. From the lede: "Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for America  has compiled a non-exhaustive list -- from this year alone -- documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points." — Becksguy (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh goody...an MMfA "non-exhaustive" list (can you imagine what an "exhaustive list" might look like?)...but isn't that "alleged" smears and distortions? I'm always amused browsing MMfA to see which hyperbolic characterization will decorate each lede of (cough) "research".  Do they have a drumfull of these from which they can mix and pick one at random to relieve them of that tedious task? Here's today's smorgasboard...
 * ...fearmongering about same-sex parenting; ...contradicts economists; ...falsely claims; ...falsely claims; ...furthers myth; ...keep funding the virtual fence that doesn't work; ...baselessly smears; ...relentlessly attack; ...absurdly compare; ...silent on who nominated; ...forwards whitewash; ..."favor religious freedom," but; ...falsely portray judge; ...falsely claim; ...advance false attacks; ...rewrites history; ...dress up political attacks; ...falsely suggests; ...hammer teachers, teachers unions; ...distorts...to attack. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, here is a specific item from MMfA. Fox falsely claims Dems are proposing to raise taxes only "on Red States" as reported on August 06, 2010. the MMfA lede is: "Fox & Friends falsely claimed that congressional Democrats are proposing to raise taxes "only in Republican red states." In fact, the year-old proposal discussed on Fox & Friends would lower taxes on areas with a high cost of living, regardless of how they vote, and would include areas represented by Republicans." The Wall Street Journal runs an editorial on August 4th.  Fox picks it up via a Washington Examiner opinion piece and runs it as if it was news on Fox & Friends.  The bill, H.R.1943, says: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for adjustments in the individual income tax rates to reflect regional differences in the cost-of-living." Fox ran it because it fit their political agenda, it attacked the Democrats and Jerry Nadler, and it adds drama to their news. The original source was an opinion piece from a editorially ultraconservative newspaper, not a news story. That is an example of the disinformation Fox News practices, IMO. — Becksguy (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, we are going to start citing the ultra reliable source MMfA now? Talk about a jaded perspective, but if we really want to get into citing media watch dogs shouldn't we start citing conservative watchdogs as well?  As for the MMfA "reporting".  Was the Fox News report accurate?  More or less.  It was definitely tilted, but the facts are that high cost of living states were almost uniformily democratic in the last election---there may be exceptions (like Alaska).  And thus, Fox News accurately reported that the bill would favor Blue States, using the term "only" was a definite mistake.  IMO they should have reported what the change was and then shown how that change affected primarily Blue States.  They went the other way and the anchor used an ill advised word (only), but the bill would benefit primarily Democratic states.  Fox News explicitly stated that this was looking at a state by state level and that Republicans and Democrats would be affected based upon the Cost of Living per state.  MMfA, however, decided to take another tack. They refuted the Fox News piece not by pointing out Republican States, but rather talked about metropolitans/districts/regions that were republican that would benefit.  Areas such as Honolulu, HI, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA, and San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA.  Nice little spin there MMfA.  Fox reports one thing.  MMfA creates a strawman and attacks the strawman.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Question What are the criteria that can be applied by Wikipedia editors in an objective, neutral manner, to determine if a source on the scale of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. is reliable? patsw (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria are those detailed in WP:Identifying reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd that no one cited that criteria in the discussion, because on its face, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC satisfy the criteria. patsw (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right, which is why this is a problematic RfC. The guidelines already discusses how news sources are generally regarded as reliable, but that with ANY news source we have to weigh the accuracy and suitability of the story.  This is true with ANY news source---whether it is the Guardian/CBS/FOX/Israeli News/etc.  Once we start disecting individual news sources, we are entering a slippery slope wherein we will have to start making judgments on all news sources because they are all biased.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying again
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone actually responded with data to howcheng's post at the top of this section? - jc37 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * The handful of people who want Fox labelled as unreliable have cited a single study from 2003 and provided anecdotal evidence.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And conversely those arguing for reliability have cited no studies whatever and likewise have provided no evidence. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have only cited policy. Those who argue to eliminate FNC as a source can't do that.  Horologium  (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. There are numerous studies/surveys above showing that Fox News is consistently viewed as the most trust worthy of the US Media outlets. Nobody is arguing that it is perfect or unbiased, but within the universe of Media Outlets, it consistently is viewed as the most reliable.  A handful of editors here, can't change that fact.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a leap of logic. People might trust Fox because "it counteracts liberal bias in the media" or because "it asks the questions no-one asks"; likewise, Fox might be the most trusted because it's the most popular, or because ABC/CBS/MSNBC(/NYT/WashPo) split the "liberal" vote. Hell, one of the studies you cite says that FOX is also the least trusted. Just because the public trust a news source doesn't mean that it's reliable under our guidelines and policies; a lot of people trust the Sun and the Mail in the UK even though they demonstrably talk shit all the time, but perhaps the most salient argument against yours is last year's TIME poll that found Jon Stewart to be the most trusted newscaster post-Cronkite. Yet no-one seriously suggests that the Daily Show be used as a reliable source. Sceptre (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out elsewhere that one survey did find Fox to be the least trusted... but others have found it to have the largest differential between trust and lack thereof, and others have said that other sources are less trustworthy. As for John Stewart... full little poll. I can see why people would trust him more than others---you know that he's twisting the truth and he makes no bones about it.  The others, you know that they are twisting the truth, but they pretend they ain't ;-)  ANother key point, that Times poll appears to be an internet poll where people who visited the website responded.  It was not a scientific poll and offers no margin of error or anything.  It is merely a popularity question asked at Times.com; the polls I've cited are actual polls performed in a scientific manner with statistical viability and reliability.  So the times poll has about as much reliability as a poll here at RS/N.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You see my point, though? I don't believe that public opinion should be an indicator of reliability of the source. Reliability should be derived from an academic view, where people who know what they're talking about research reliability, trustworthiness, quality of reporting, factualness of its stories. Even polls administered scientifically as possible can be totally wrong; see the 1996 presidential election, where Clinton's poll numbers were above what they were, or this year's general election in the UK, where the aggregate toplines of around 33/28/28 were totally wrong. Sceptre (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, polling is never perfect---especially in one time polls/samples--- and especially when the sample is self selected as it is in your times poll. Scientific polling is not fool proof either, but it does say something when people consistently say that you cannot trust the media.  Polls show that roughly 75% of Americans believe that the media deliberately lies to them and fabricates stories.  They consistently show that the public believe that media networks put their own political/financial interest ahead of reporting unbiased news (hell the Salon article that was oft cited above mentions an anti-green bias among all the news outlets.)  They consistently report that the media will twist the facts.  Within that realm of twisting facts, Fox News is consitently viewed as the most trustworthy.  NOBODY is claiming that FN is perfect, but even those who question the media the most, Fox News is consistently (regardless of the polling agency) viewed as the most reliable.  We can disect why, but only in one poll was it viewed as the least reliable. Before we dare declare FN unreliable, we had best be prepared to have enough of a consensus that we will whether A) the storm of people who are unaware of this RfC and B) the general public who will mock us.  This is a politically driven rfc.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Polls showing that Fox is trusted by a sample of the public may establish that belief (depending), but it has no relevance in establishing that Fox is indeed actually a reliable source. Being trusted does not equal intrinsic trustworthiness. See Bernie Madoff as an example. In his case, the difference between being trusted and actually trustworthy was about $65 Billion. As another example, in 2004, apparently 78% of the American public believed in angels, despite the lack of any scientifically verifiable evidence of their existence. Polls or surveys cannot establish the actual existence of angels. Word of mouth, impressive but fabricated monthly financial reports, and high level connections did not establish the actual trustworthiness of Bernie Madoff. Just as polls and surveys cannot establish the actual reliability of Fox News. — Becksguy (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but anecdotal evidence is still evidence. And really? The people who are saying that Fox should be kept reliable are either taking the reliability of mainstream sources as a given (as I've pointed out above, some publishers in the popular and mainstream press in the UK have explicitly stated that sometimes they don't even attempt to check their facts, and we should not assume reliability of MSNBC/ABC/CBS either, where journalism standards are less strict) or are making a bias issue out of this where there is none.
 * That said, I can source examples of Fox either not doing research or distorting simple facts: this story (AOL) about "Mark Sanford (D)", and this story (MMFA) about mislabelling prominent Republicans in the run-up to the 2006 midterms. While there's a bias question about the second, I doubt there is about the first; AOL's editorial stance is generally right-leaning. In addition, there's also this from 2008, but I'd be wary other the screenshot's veracity (given it's on an openly anti-FNC blog). But really: labelling one prominent Republican a Democrat is an honest mistake. Twice, it's suspicious. Three times? You've either got careless fact-checkers or producers, or you're deliberately distorting the news. Sceptre (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Or as Goldfinger (and many others) have said: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." — Becksguy (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think one can cultural bias here. In the UK Fox were officially considered impartial and accurate in 2004 ruling by the Independent Television Commission. In that ruling they stated that "Fox News could justifiably claim to have achieved a level of accuracy and impartiality that was appropriate to its audience in the US, where different rules apply." Nastytroll (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the article you cited, and in the article Fox News was cited for blatant disregard for the truth. Perhaps you were mistaken in your appraisal of the article. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so. The point being that Fox were primarily addressing a US audience, and whilst their piece was contrary to UK rules it was acceptable to an American audience. IOW that impartiality and accuracy is a cultural thing. But all that is really besides the point because outside of the bare reporting of facts all news outlets are biased and opinionated. In general Fox gets the bare facts right, they may then wrap those facts up in bias and spin but then so do all the others. When using any of those organisations as a source one shouldn't be referencing the polemic only the facts. Nastytroll (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox gets the bare facts right? Wow, I had no idea that John McCain participated in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. This is the point: we're, or at least, I'm not bringing the question of bias into it. I'm citing specific examples where they've labelled, in three different examples over four years, three prominent Republicans as Democrats—two of which had been in sex scandals. Four, if you count Specter, but he was always willing to cross the floor. There's only so many times you can do that in a given period of time before people say "hang on, wait a minute...". Oh, and off-topic for this post: Fox News in the UK is a stream of the US channel; i.e. we get Beck at 10pm. Sceptre (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a link where CNN labeled the area that was formally Czechoslovakia as Switzerland. They all get stuff wrong from time to time, one has find ratio of the number of facts wrong vs the number of facts right. The BBC reporters sometimes get the party a politician belongs to wrong too. But hey if someone is going to any single source for facts their is something wrong there from the outset. Nastytroll (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG Sceptre's right, the left leaning MMFA cited examples of Fox News mislabelling party affiliation. This NEVER happens and is bound to cause problems in WP. BTW, how many articles did you have to go back and fix because of this mistake? But back to the point of media reporting party affiliation wrong. I wonder how hard it will be to find examples of CNN. Associated Press, ABC, and NBC of making a similar gaff? Oh wait, they all did so in the same week as Fox. News sources can never be deemed as infallable---even with their fact checking, they are produced on the fly. Those are trivial mistakes that happen all the time. The fact that five news sources made similar gaffs in the same week speaks to that! So, 3 times in four years is a clear sign that the source can't be trusted.CBS had better watch out. The NY Times doesn't even know how where Mississippi/Alabama are. MSNBC intentionally cropped a video of a black guy carrying an AR15 to hide his race so that they could make a speil about white supremist! MSNBC/LA Times and other sources mistakingly ran a photo of an innocent man as an accused pedophile. And again MSNBC messes up. Here's a beauty, CNN identifies Obama as Osama Bin Ladin. Or how about where CNN fabricated racist comments attributed to Rush? The point is, Fox makes mistakes and so does EVERYBODY else... nobody doubts that, that is why news sources are not viewed as infallable as sources! That's why we our guideline on identifying reliable sources reads, Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are few other examples of errors: The above examples are (for the most part) only those where corrections, apologies, or retractions were issued. They do not include the numerous calls for retractions or demands for apologies---such a list would be too long. In other words, the news agency itself recognized the error/lie/mistake. Notice, that several of these stories are fabricated. CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN each have examples of creating evidence or manipulating evidence to create a story. If Fox is removed as a reliable source, then so too should these! Anecdotal evidence won't get us anywhere, there is a reason why the public does not trust the media.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS, Washington Post, and MSNBC falsely accuse David O'Keefe of trying to "bug" Senator (D) Mary Landrieu’s office---Jan 2010.[http://bigjournalism.com/retracto/2010/01/29/correction-request-cbs-news/}
 * Later CBS incorrectly reports the crime for which O'Keefe admitted guilt---May 2010.
 * CBS' Dan Rather used completely fabricated documents related to Bush's service. Ref's not needed.
 * Time Magazine and CNN had to retract it's "valley of death" story in 1998 alleging use of nerve gas in Vietnam.
 * As mentioned above earlier this year, CNN/MSNBC had to retract quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh related to Slavery.
 * What about that CNN report wherein the Coast Guard was erroneously accused of firing weapons on the Potomac? (Sept 2009)
 * When the ban on assault weapons was going to expire, CNN had to issue a correction on a story they showed where they incorrectly used images of fully automated heavy machine guns and implied that would be legalized.(2000)
 * ABC had to retract an allegation related to a prisoner in Guantanamo. It accused him of planning a terrorist activity 7 months after he was arrested.[abcnews.go.com/Blotter/correction-al-qaeda-leader-surrendered-february-2009/story?id=9449636]
 * In March 2010, a piece similar to the exploding GM truck, ABC rigged a section for it’s runaway Toyota segment to make Toyota’s look dangerous.Breaking: ABC News Admits to Faking Part of Toyota Acceleration Video
 * In 2001 ABC had to retract a false story linking Husein to the Anthrax attacks.
 * ABC apologizes for a piece it did on the cigarette industry.1996
 * NBC’s famous coverage of the exploding truck---just use firecrackers.
 * National Organization for Women call NBC’s Chris Matthews a sexist for some of his comments and “apology”.2008
 * NBC animated recreation of an accident shows the wrong company involved with the accident.
 * NBC in covering problems in forest management, NBC used “dead” fish from one lake and claimed that they had died in another lake. Not only were the fish from the wrong lake, but they weren’t dead, but rather “stunned for testing purposes.”1993
 * NBC had to apologize for reporting that Scooter Libby served time in jail.2007
 * Newsweek had to retract story about the Quran being desecrated
 * MSNBC had to retract a story that said that Sarah Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent2008 You have to love the CBS article which states, “Sometimes, the network has seemed to be wildly undisciplined, where anchors in prime time are all but encouraged to throw any kind of broadcasting style or editorial concept against the wall and see if it sticks.”
 * MSNBC Retracts Story Sourced By Hoax 2008
 * NY Times retracts accusations of Israeli War Crimes in 2009.
 * NY Times had to correct charts that incorrectly showed a hospital failing in key statistical areas.2008
 * In an article on Abortion in El Savador, the NY Times “public editor” concluded, “Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.”Dec 2006
 * Balloonman, all you have shown is that there is material for questioning the other news outlets. And I agree there is room and maybe need for questioning those outlets. I also agree that time and resource constraints impact all breaking news, including those with no apparent agenda or bias issues. But this is an RfC on Fox News and other outlets should have no bearing on this one. That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and has no legs in this RfC. Showing that other outlets have problems does not let Fox off the hook. — Becksguy (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, offense, but in the immortal words of Colonel Potter, "Horse Hockey." This RfC is all about OTHERSTUFF.  You want to anecdotal evidence Fox News to death, it's time to go on the offensive.  Everybody except a few people have said that every news station has problems in reporting.  Everybody else has sais, yes there are problems, but Fox ain't alone.  But the few of you who don't like fox, seem to be deaf to that fact and want to cite every little foible as if it an unheard of precident.  I mean, citing the fact that Fox mis-identified party affiliation---when the same article cites four other news network who made the same mistake in the same week!  Also, note many of those stories are NOT breaking news, some of those stories are investigative reports wherein EACH of the major networks fabricated evidence to suite their story.  I mean, ABC's 2010 story on Toyota is not just bad reporting, but the total fabrication of a evidence for a story.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a University of Michigan website entitled News bias Explored. It's not about Fox News specifically, but it does have an illuminating side-by-side example comparing a Fox News story to a Washington Post story on the position of Americans relative to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 here. Overall, it's more about looking for potential bias in all news sources. From the website intro page: After you have made your way through the sections on the left, we hope that we will have equipped you with the tools to read news more critically and intelligently. — Becksguy (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, anecdotal evidence. Becksguy, you are beating a dead horse.  It's been conceded that Fox News, like the other news sources, A) makes mistakes and B) has bias.  This has been acknowledged by others.  But the handful (roughly 10 or so of the 60 people who have chimed in on this RfC) don't want to admit that this is an issue bigger than just Fox and that the other media outlets are similarly guilty.  You (generic) want to single out Fox, for what others in this RfC have call politically driven motivations.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As someone not from America I know Fox is fundamentally biased . However I think the arguments being put forward about Fox not being reliable can be made about nearly all American networks and probably networks across the world. If someone uses a source from Fox which you think is incorrect find 2 other sources to challenge it just like we do with any news network Gnevin (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait... you're citing Big Journalism as a source about distorting the news? Seriously? Breitbart is one of the reasons this RFC started in the first place! Sceptre (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I was very careful to include an AOL affiliate in my post about mislabelling prominent (key word here) Republicans, to diffuse the issue of bias in sources; AOL have a right-of-centre lean, in my experience. Saying that an obscure Senator or Representative is an honest mistake. Saying that the chairman of the Republican Governor's Association is a Democrat is suspicious, especially since said chairman had been involved in a sex scandal. Sceptre (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And CNN identifing Osama Bin Ladin's picture as Barak Obama is better? Mistakes happen all the time by the media in identifying people and their party.  I also find it interesting that I cited about 20 examples of corrections, apologies, and retractions, and you attack the credibility of one example.  The one example that provides screen shots of CBS's retractions/changes.  But what about the roughly 20 other examples---especially the ones showing complete fabrications of evidence?  Here is an example of 112 cases wherein the Washington Post had errors/demonstrated violence.  It is from a watch group that targets the post, so the objectivity is questionable, but so too is the list provided by media matters against Fox.  I suspect we can find similar lists if you want for CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/MSNBC---because the fact still remains that media is biased.  But notice in some cases, the Post changed the wording from the original AP source to make the story more inflamatory.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the other networks don't do it; I'm just saying that FOX appears to do it more. Especially so, seeing as ABC and CBS have been around since the forties, and CNN since 1980. Again, the fact I cited MediaMatters doesn't really matter, as it's corroborated by the AOL story (as is the crooksandliars cite). And I'm not bringing bias as the central issue into my arguments; I'm arguing about the veracity of their stories. On an related point: is there a reliable source about CNN/CBS/ABC/(MS)NBC having history of doing this to the level FOX does? As far as I can tell, the AOL story is the only one given in this discussion about a news network appearing to make a habit of it; the rest appears to be synthesising sources to make a conclusion. This is Wikipediaspace, so the rules are relaxed... but it's still not a good way to make a point. Sceptre (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS all have LONG histories of media bias and reporting issues. There have been books written on the them as well as numerous academic studies showing a liberal bias in the media going back to at least the eighties.  Hell, the Washington Post has been called "Pravda on the Potomac" for years because of it's liberal bias.  NY Times is routinely criticized for various issues.  Type in "ABC retract" and do a web search, and you will see scores of articles asking ABC to retract various stories.  (You see the same thing for the other networks, but ABC isn't dominated by one or two stories like the others.  If you goto NBC you have 10 pages of Toyota demanding a retraction for NBC's manipulation of test results in the March 2010 story.)  The reason why Fox is in the news more is because it takes a stand opposite of what the other mainstream US media outlets take.  They are also the top dog when it comes to public support and trust (largest viewership and highest approval ratings in numerous polls.)  I am in no way shape or form defending Fox News; but it is a mistake to single it out when the other networks are similarly culpable.  If we declare Fox News Unreliable, then we have to rethink our entire policy about News Sources.  If we went on a similar witch hunt that Becksguy (whom I generally respect) wants to do with FN, with the other networks, then we can anecdotal evidence each of them all to death.  I mean, nobody suggested in March that we remove NBC as a reliable source, despite their fabrication of evidence.  Nobody has posited removing CNN/NY Times/CBS as reliable sources, despite their long tract records as liberally biased sources.  As for the Biggovernment source, there are other sources as well that collaborate the event, but Biggovernment was the one that showed the links.  As for synthesizing news sources... er one of the sources was the Post concluding that the Post was systemically biased in its 2008 election coverage, another was a CBS article criticizing MSNBC saying that the anchors at MSNBC are prone to throw things up against the media wall to drive up ratings to see what sticks, most were self admitted mistakes.  The history is there that if one wanted to, we could go after any of the media outlets.  The false dichonomy created in this RfC is that it is targetting one news network to make a political point.  I would not be surprised if there isn't somebody watching this RfC hoping that we don't conclude that FNC isn't reliable, so that they can plaster it across the globe that "wikipedia declares FNC unreliable."  Even if there isn't somebody actively watching, if that is the way this is closed, which would be against consensus IMO, because of WP's prestige/size it would become news.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)  Oh yeah, Sceptre, TV news and especially Newspapers are on the decline.  The internet and speed with which alternative sources can get info out is part of the reason they are on the decline, but their tract records have been cited as part of the problems.  Americans simply do not trust the media (polls consistently show the level of distrust for TV and print medias to be rising compared to where it was a decade ago and between 70-75% distrust the media.)  This is across the board.  The polls I've cited aren't simply out of the blue, they are based upon the fact that the various networks have a histories and people have lost faith in the media.  Again, if this were an RfC on the media as a whole, I would have a different position, but as this targets Fox only, then I have to state (as many already have) that it is a problematic RfC to begin with.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Just as a side note, ABC/NBC/CBS have been around since long before the 40s, they were radio stations before TV came along.
 * I think you're missing the point: I'm not even bringing up the issue of bias. The fact that most American press is liberal is something that I can agree with, but I'd cite an ultraconservative or ultraliberal newspaper if the veracity of the stories was nevertheless good. Hell, I'd cite Fox on most things outside their political reporting, as, outside politics, they have a track record comparable to the other major news sources (and for what it's worth, I don't believe that any source has inherent reliability on all stories for this exact reason; I personally go case-by-case from general impressions). I simply asked for a reliable source that ABC/CBS/(MS)NBC/etc have a comparable track record of mistakes/deliberate untruthfulness to the extent Fox do. The issue of retractions is a bit murky, as, especially in a deregulated market such as America (are news sources required to issue retractions like they have to do in the UK?), as all it shows is that the NYT etc have a record of admitting they goofed up when someone catches them out. I'd much prefer scholarly analysis, such as the kind Al Franken did in Lying Liars (although, admittedly, giving he's staunchly Democrat, there's a neutrality question there). Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) By the way, I got the dates from the Wikipedia articles on the news divisions of each network. Don't blame me.
 * Lets face it this is going nowhere, and its not going to happen. So why not just drop it and lets all go play somewhere eslke.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS has a long history of fabricating news stories to boost ratings. In 1938 they created a panic with a bogus news broadcast. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you are being sarcastic.Slatersteven (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was funny. And we can always use humor as a reminder to not take ourselves overly seriously. — Becksguy (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I know I lolled, and then I decried the whole thing as evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy. Unomi (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slater, this wasn't going any where from day 1. Starting this RfC was merely Balloonman ''' NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, yes, there is a long history of persistent bias, manipulation, and twisting of the news... even fabricating news stories or failing to do due dilligence. As for retractions, yes and no. The FCC can require a network to issue a retraction, but they usually don't act unless there is sufficeint pressure (either public or governmental) to do so. Many stories go uncorrected/retracted (on both sides) even when clear objective evidence shows the story to be biased beyond credibility. Again, Americans have lost faith in our media outlets. CNN/CBS/NY Times/Washington Post are all sources whose integrity has been repeatedly challenged. Bias does matter when it distorts the truth. It biases Fox News, but it also biases the other major networks and newspapers. The degree and frequency to this bias is harder to quantify---and often depends on one's personal position. Asking, if "ABC/CBS/(MS)NBC/etc have a comparable track record of mistakes/deliberate untruthfulness to the extent Fox do?" Is not a simple "Yes/No" question. We are barraged with so many contradictory stories, that it depends on who you believe. Conservatives will tell you, "Yes, CNN/CBS/NYT in particular are every bit as bad as FNC, if not worse and that FNC is needed to balance the lies elsewhere." They will then be able to cite numerous sources that "show" this to be so. Liberals will state the exact opposite. This is what the numerous polls have consistently shown. Conservatives trust the tract record of FNC more, liberals don't. Liberals trust the tract record of CNN/CBS/NYT more, Conservatives don't. As pointed out several places above, when somebody wants to add a controversial detail, one news source generally isn't enough. I challenge you to try to add something controversial to Bush's article based upon a single CNN/CBS/NY Times article or to Obama based upon a Fox Report. If the story isn't picked up by the other networks, you probably aren't going to be able to do so---and if you can, it will be with the caveat, 'CNN/CBS/NYT/Fox report X.' The various news media can rarely be used as sources unless the issue is already covered elsewhere. Again, this RfC is not about truth, but rather an attempt to make a political point. Keeping this open and spending how much time and nearly 200KB of written material on this RfC is an utter waste of time. Again, those supporting FNC have nearly a 5:1 advantage, with every new voice since 5 am on August 7 supporting FNC.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An RS. But I, for one, am fascinated that a newbie did such a good job spurring such a long string on this noticeboard.  Anyway, time to close this thread, fun as it was, and all go home.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation, which pretty much supports those of us who have declared this a partisan issue. He makes one edit in late June, returns in late July and almost immediately starts an RfC.  I wish I had noticed that before when everybody was calling for this to be closed, except I had assumed that Donald had been around longer, just being able to find these pages and start this discussion within his first 20 edits.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read his user page, Donald_Schroeder_JWH018, you will find out he has nothing better to do than ingest synthetic pot JWH-018 and I guess stir the pot here. A third of his 150 edits are about reliable sources. Time to close this thread -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen this movie before and know how it ends. The lame date delinking dispute was stretched out for 6 months with the help of single purpose accounts. It ended in arbitration. The person who was running two socks left Wikipedia. (Not totally by choice.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * original user name was User:DeepAgentBorrasco. Borrasco is Spanish for disturbance. (If Webster's Online Dictionary is a reliable source?) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a Reliable Source?
We may need a more refined categorization of sources that the two step hierarchy of "Reliable" and "Questionable" outlined in WP:SOURCES and WP:RS. As an extreme example, there is an WP:NEWSORG out there that makes the very specific claim that the real life me is a member of a secret FSB murder squad. At the same time I have used it as a source on several Wikipedia articles. I would hate to see a blanket ban on using it on Wikipedia. Generally it is quite well informed, and on certain issues the most reliable source – quoted by all major international news organizations.

On the question of Fox News I find it unconceivable that we would label Fox a "questionable source" – and issue a blanket ban on its use on Wikipedia. On the other hand there is clear argument against its reliability. As I said above, when in doubt, anything said by Fox should be independently confirmed by other reliable sources. I find it unacceptable that someone would argue – based on a finding here that Fox is a reliable source – that something from Fox should be included in the article. When confronted, Fox should not be used. The thing to do is to find the right words in the policies to specify the limits of reliability, without issuing some blanket ban on Fox News. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri, on a controversial piece of information, the same is true for any news source. And that is already covered in the section dealing with news sources.  It reads, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting."  This is true for FnC, CNN, WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, the Israeli Times, Pravda, etc.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Concluding the RFC: Summaries of Arguments and Closing Statements
I am the originator of the Request for Comment. I have mostly stayed on the sidelines while this discussion has grown over the last 17 days, however, since the "close" of the RFC is in dispute and searching for a "third party" view, I will supply one and opt for not closing the discussion just yet. However, I think the main arguments on both sides have been adduced, and it is time to start concluding the discussion, perhaps. That is why I'm posting this "Conclusion" section, where various editors can make their summaries of arguments and closing statements. I hope to be posting mine tomorrow afternoon. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (moved from the top section): Discussion was on the question of Fox News being a reliable source. Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source. WP:NEWSORG already contains sensible advice regarding news sources potentially containing errors, and that care should be exercised when using a news organisation. If people feel that the advice contained in WP:NEWSORG needs stiffening then that should be raised on the WP:IRS talkpage - though that discussion should be about news organisations in general rather than any specific organisation. SilkTork 16 August 2010

IMO, This was properly closed by Silk and improperly reopened by Donald. Silk made an accurate assessment of the RfC in his closing statement and it should not have been reopened without discussing it with him.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * erall I agree. There is no question that this has run its cource and that consensus will not be achived. Leave the horse alone its not going anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I am one of the more vocal members of the minority viewpoint in this RfC (in fact I cast the first non-RS !vote against Fox News), I think SilkTork's closing rationale was reasonable, cogent, appropriate, and his interpretation of the RfC consensus was accurate in which he found: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source." It was within admin discretion and I endorse it. And I thank him for closing a difficult RfC. Although at this point, it might result in less drama to just let the RfC close on its own, as it seems to be doing in this subsection. — Becksguy (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Donald Schroeder's original user name was DeepAgentBorrasco. Borrasco is Spanish for disturbance. (If Webster's Online Dictionary is a reliable source?) If you read his user page, Donald_Schroeder_JWH018, you will find out he has nothing better to do than ingest synthetic pot JWH-018 and I guess cause a disturbance here. (His talk page is not safe for work.) A third of his 150 edits are about reliable sources. This quacks like a knowledgeable single-purpose account. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a cultural anthropologist a reliable source for a claim about human genetics?
Section in question: "Today, many anthropologists consider race, with respect to how individuals in society interact with each other, to be a cultural construct independent of biological or genetic variation. Having arisen as an ideology about differences between peoples, race is something to be analyzed apart from biological or genetic considerations."

Source:

Discussion:

The source used, Audrey Smedley, is not a biologist. The statement is a rather extreme denial of any correlation between self identified race and genetic patterns, which is not supported by mainstream biology (such as expressed by Francis Collins in Nature Genetics "As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection." The Smedley source used is referenced from sources on the history of slavery, nothing on genetics. This appears to be the promotion of a fringe view. mikemikev (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A cultural anthropologist is a reliable source on race, its your POV to try and confine the subject to biology -- Snowded TALK  19:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway she is not cited as an expert on biology or genetics but as an expert on the anthropological viewpoint about an issue that also touches upon genetics and biology. You are also misrepresentaing the view of Collins who is not in general disagreement with Smedley, but maintains that while selfreported race can be useful in medical practice because it correlates with gene frequencies to some extent the correlation between genetics and race is a series of surrogate relationships.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping for some uninvolved opinions. mikemikev (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as if the arbcom case doesn't maintain sufficient eyes on the topic. Forumshopping desperately in order to find someone who shares your POV is more like it.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom seem concerned only with their "diffs". mikemikev (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the text being quoted, it explicitly states the anthropological view. Quite frankly, I can find you piles of texts from 50 years ago that state exactly the same thing. Whether slavery or later colonialism (umm, all of Africa, India, the Far East,...), race served the subjugation of peoples to Europeans and those of European descent. Directly after, I quote the view of a geneticist. This is a red herring contending I wrote something I did not. Mikemikev is not listening. Really, the passage ends with "something to be analyzed APART from biological or genetic considerations." It can't be more clear that a statement regarding genetics is NOT BEING MADE and that our (empirical) use of race in society today is agnostic as to whether there are, or are not, genetic differences. This is not talking about superficial (appearance) genetic differences, we all look different, it's only by how much, standing beside another person. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any RS question here. A paper by a professor of anthropology is clearly an RS for an article about race. I agree with others that the characterisation of this source as "extreme" and "fringe" does not appear to hold water. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with FormerIP, and note that this is especially true when speaking of "self-identified" race or ethnicity, which inescapably involves areas of study beyond biology or genetics. If you ask someone to identify themselves based on a social construct, you will get an answer that will necessarily be influenced by that social construct.  Anthropology has a long history of addressing these intersections between biological and sociological forces.  Steveozone (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This was never a legitimate RS question in the first place and it has been answered sufficiently above. Please consider the actual nature of your question before posting to various noticeboards. Forum shopping is disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenCRS is not a source
I'm mostly to blame for this, but OpenCRS is (hopefully) not a source for any information at all. So every article that uses this non-source needs to have a wikilink to Congressional Research Service please. Hcobb (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The term "source" is broad and can include authors, publisers, and re-publishers. Project Gutenberg and, apparently, OpenCRS, are re-publishers. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you say that Gutenberg wrote Little Red Riding Hood? And PG at least is somewhat selective in which version of the story it publishes.  OpenCRS on the other hand simply passes information through and is no more a publisher than Google is for hosting AFP news.  Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds more like a debate over citation format than over the source itself. And there's a couple of ways to go about this.  If you're sure that the source you read is an exact reproduction of the original, then you would cite the original publisher but the convenience link would be to the archive.  Otherwise, you can credit them both with a cite to the original publisher, then "via" and cite the archive provider.  FYI, if it was one source quoting another, the guideline would be WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Musa E. Mazzawi on UN resolution 242
Musa E. Mazzawi was a well-known university professor, lawyer, and BBC broadcaster who was trusted by British politicians and civil servants alike. In "Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict (Garnet & Ithaca Press, 1997, ISBN 0863722229) he cited the published remarks of George Brown as reported by the London monthly magazine, "The Middle East", in its May 1978 edition. That information is well-sourced and third-party verifiable. It represents one of the published views of a party to the negotiation of UNSC resolution 242. It is in substantial agreement with the details of the negotiations contained in journal articles authored by Glenn Perry and a book published by Prof. Arthur Lall, a member of the UN delegation from India in 1967 "The UN and the Middle East Crisis, 1967" (New York and London, Columbia UP, 1968.

Brown's remarks in the magazine interview are also consistent with his statements on British policy that were recited for the record on the day resolution 242 was adopted. See S/PV.1382 (OR), 22 November 1967, paragraphs 50-54, and 57.

WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA require that the views of all the parties to the dispute be included. Some Wikipedia editors have removed the Mazzawi citation and have challenged its reliability. Others have claimed it is inconsistent with some of the views Brown expressed in other publications. However, there is abundant literature on the subject which attests to the fact that George Brown and other statesmen did make contradictory statements. For example, Glenn Perry wrote "Subsequent statements by particular statesmen who were involved in the drafting and passage of the resolution (e.g. George Brown and Lord Caradon) are not conclusive, particularly when they contradict what they said during the UN debates in 1967." See Glenn Perry, Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, Middle East Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 413–433:see page 415;

Glenn Perry and a number of other authors have written about the use of cherry-picked inconclusive and contradictory quotes to support Israel's view of the meaning of the withdrawal clause in UN Security Council resolution 242. Some examples are:
 * Donald Neff, The Clinton Administration and UN Resolution 242, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter, 1994), pp. 20–30;
 * The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Volume II: Readings, John Norton Moore, Princeton University Press, 1974, pp. 1024–1144;
 * John McHugo, Resolution 242 – Why The Israeli View Of The Withdrawal Phrase” is Unsustainable In International Law, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001, Note 1 pages 89–90. harlan (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the Mazzawi citation is OK, the source reliable. It shouldn't be removed unilaterally, but only by agreement to get a balanced selection.  To be impeached, it would have to be challenged by another RS, or far more outlandish - like mentioning intervention by aliens from Sirius.John Z (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK primary sourced quote farm, because a few editors are edit warring to keep published analysis from secondary sources, like the ones above, out of the article. harlan (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a coatrack quotefarm for a long, long time. In wikipedia's defense, reliable sources on it tend to be a bit coat-rack-quotefarmish themselves.John Z (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

boar.org.uk &mdash; The Bourne Archive and Gesta Herewardi
Hello, I'm looking for help with something which I think isn't a reliable source, and also involves WP:COI.

I recently found something which struck me as odd in this version of the article Gesta Herewardi: there, the subject of the article is said to have been written by Hugh Candidus, and as far as I knew, the only thing known to have been written by Hugh is a history of Peterborough Abbey. I posted an initial enquiry on the talk page for Gesta Herewardi, but did some rooting around myself. Incidentally, in the process, I found a very reliable source which attributed the writing of "Gesta Herewardi" to someone else, and this also led me to move the article and talk page.

As I indicated in further comments on the talk page for Gesta Herewardi, I found that the article, as it still stands at the time of writing, seems to me be a clear example of WP:COI. The article had (and still has) no inline citations, and the only EL was to this page of website The Bourne Archive. While the WP Gesta Herewardi article is mostly the work of editor "RJPe", The Bourne Archive is the self-published work of "R.J. Penhey", and the similarities between the article and the website are also striking - e.g. the attribution of the "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus, as mentioned above: for R.J. Penhey's attribution of "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus, based on a statement made in the preface to a 19th century edition of the "Gesta Herewardi", see here, especially "RJP’s Footnotes" no. 2, on the same page, here. Note that I also believe "online texts" at The Bourne Archive to be self-published sources, on the basis of R.J. Penhey's incorporation of his/her own footnotes into this text, and, for example, that the "online texts" here and here are both the product of R.J. Penhey's own work: both include the statement "Web page transcribed from [Fenland Notes and Queries] by R.J. Penhey." In other words, they are effectively self-published editions.

As The Bourne Archive seemed to me to be a self-published source, I removed the EL to it from the Gesta Herewardi article in this edit at 02:18, 16 August 2010. Then editor RJPe enlightened me about his/her attribution of "Gesta Herewardi" to Hugh Candidus with this comment on my talk page, 10:14, 16 August 2010. And, at 20:54, 16 August 2010, editor RJPe effectively restored the EL which I had removed, albeit in different form and with two different links to The Bourne Archive (these being the last two "online texts" cited by me above), with this edit. In the process, editor RJPe left behind some hidden text from my earlier removal of the EL.

Sorry if that's all a bit complex, I've tried to be as clear as I can, and I hope I've brought it to the right place! Any thoughts regarding "reliable source" status for The Bourne Archive, and WP:COI at Gesta Herewardi, gratefully received, and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing. Nortonius (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't really want to rewrite another article today, and may not have time, but clearly the article should not state it was written by Hugh Candidus. It's clearly an editor's personal opinion, while on the other hand we have sources such as "Anglo-Saxon England, Volume 28 By Michael Lapidge, Malcolm Godden, Simon Keynes" which we should be using. The Bourne archive is not a reliable source by any criteria I can see. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response - yes, the Google Books search result you give is for the same paper I linked above, by Elisabeth van Houts - I'll try to have a crack at the article today! Cheers Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep with caveats. I am going to gently disagree here. On the one hand, whilst expressing unsourced or poorly sourced views within wikipedia violates policy, the loss of contributions from editors will hurt the project in the long run. We should strive for high quality sources sure, but not at the exclusion of content which can be fixed by more experienced editors. The Bourne Archive is not a learned resource. However, it does not pretend to be:
 * "The aim with the The Bourne Archive is to publish archive material with some of the small historical and geographical studies I have been gathering, so that the information in them can be seen and developed. I have set about the job in a reasonably formal way so that others have the information they need for pursuing subjects but I have tried not to be so formal that only trained academics can penetrate the jargon."


 * For this it should be applauded. I agree it would be better if the website was more WP:NPOV; it is the job of the person writing the wikipedia article to ensure that such resources are used sparingly and with care. To deny such a valuable resource to the careful wikipedia editor I feel is setting too high a standard. There are far worse web resources out there. In my own small corner of Wikipedia, apparent WP:RS websites have been proven wrong &mdash; one ODNB entry (wrong birth village); two IoE entries (photos not of indicated building); five CHER db entries (various from wrong reference to incorrect information) &mdash; all for people, buildings or archaeological events within a 5 sq mile area of East Cambridgeshire.


 * To be honest, I am not WP:NPOV myself here; this incident has come at a time when I feel too many uncaring administrators are turning away (using overly aggressive AfD's) potentially useful (though very inexperienced) content contributors; a trend I, even as a new contributor myself, feel needs urgent action. --Senra (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate your concerns regarding "uncaring administrators", and the sufferings of "potentially useful (though very inexperienced) content contributors": I've had negative experiences myself, and (hopefully!) you'll have seen how I've put quite a bit of effort into explaining things, trying not to be negative. That is an issue, as you say; but this issue is strictly about "reliable sources", and, as well as the comments I've made earlier here, and at Talk:Gesta Herewardi, I would point to Verifiability, e.g. where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (note that the bold type isn't mine, nor is the wikilink). I'm sure I've strayed from that in my time editing WP - we're all only human - but it won't have been intentional, errors can be reverted, and this is policy, and includes the word "must". And, the quotation you give from The Bourne Archive does indeed show laudable intent, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is a self-published source, and is therefore unsuitable for WP. Whether or not something is easily accessible isn't a criterion - do bear in mind, that there are many edits that I too would like to make, but can't because I don't have access to the sources.


 * By the way, are you aware of WikiProject Resource Exchange, and e.g. Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR, through which you can ask someone who has access to JSTOR for assistance? It might help you, though not necessarily with the immediate issue. You can find a few similar resources by searching WP for "Category:Wikipedians who have access". Hope that helps. p.s. I've taken the liberty of tidying preceding entries, only for clarity. Nortonius (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See also recent changes at Gesta Herewardi, and on the article's talk page. Nortonius (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is plain wrong. This is straying into POV-pushing and the use of policy to deny reasonable access to the readers. The The Bourne Archive should be allowed qualified use. The above debate, to deny even external link exposure to the archive is against current practice. See for example Lendering, Jona and Kurtus, Ron in this Demosthenes featured article or A contemporary account of the executions of the plotters in the Gunpowder Plot's more recent featured article. In these examples, self-published sites are used in the external link sections and are not central to the body of the article. I repeat. Removing the Bourne Archive from the external links section is wrong --Senra (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been as civil as I can, pointed to reliable sources and WP policy, and gone to what I think are considerable lengths to interact with Senra over the last few days (later: i.e., not just here), so I really think that talk of "POV-pushing" is unreasonable - I'm surprised, to be honest, and, if that continues, I foresee Godwin's Law coming into play here. This discussion risks moving from seeking opinions on RS to content dispute, which was not my intention. Further comment on the actual issue is good though, and if this discussion resolves in The Bourne Archive being restored as an EL, so be it - I just don't think we've got to that point yet, especially since another editor has provided excellent alternatives, at Talk:Gesta Herewardi, one of which I've already added to the article. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the reliable source question goes, I'd say this is more or less resolved. The personal website, however interesting and useful, simply does not pass our criteria, especially given that published scholarly sources are easily available. Of course we should be able to incorporate material from the reliable sources that the site uses, and Senra should be encouraged to continue work on the article to turn it into a great resource. Whether to include it as an external link is, to my mind, something that ought to be resolved at the article in question.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add that the fact that an EL link exists in another article doesn't mean that it should exist in that article, you can't use that as precedent (I'll probably remove at least one of them). Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Nortonius (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the above, fair enough. The Bourne Archive is not a WP:RS. I was wrong to accuse anyone of POV-pushing. I apologise. I actually meant to write risk of; a comment which was meant to reflect the almost single POV up to that point. Other editors agree the archive is not WP:RS and therefore I accept the consensus. I do not accept the clear removal of the EL before this WP:RS had run its course, an action which could have helped to over-dramatise this discussion. That removal was despite the statement "... and in the meantime I'm holding off from any related editing" made 13:24, 17 August 2010. Indeed, as is clear, I do not accept the removal of the archive as an EL anyway. I will hold that discussion elsewhere --Senra (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to the preceding comment briefly on my talk page, and plan to give a more considered response there later. Nortonius (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Conference papers
Where do we stand on conference papers that are not collected or published? Are they considered SPS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer really depends on the field of study. Can you specify the particular article/subject of interest ? Also, by "not collected or published", do you mean there are no conference proceedings, or (at least) published abstracts ? If so, the "source" may simply fail verifiability since an independent editor cannot confirm that such a paper was even presented at a conference, and said what is claimed. PS: I am pretty sure such questions have been raised and discussed on this board before; a search through the archives may be the quickest way to judge where RSN consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd think even conference proceedings wouldn't all automatically become RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. In my field one of the purposes of conference papers is to get reactions from one's peers to findings that are incomplete or speculative. We accept everything that isn't completely off-topic or obviously insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the information sciences (don't let the word science fool you it's on the soft social sciences side), specifically knowledge management. There are public abstracts on a conference website but as far as I can tell the paper was never published or the abstrast published anyway. The paper can be found here and the conference it was presented at can be found here. Brigade Harvester Boris - I publish in the information sciences area (which has quite a bit of overlap with the Knowledge Management area) and it's the same. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, only the abstract should be regarded as "published", although it too would lie at the bottom of the totem pole of reliable sources. Ok to reference non-contentious information, accorded little (if any) weight, and replaced by a better source as far as possible. Essentially, while I don't think we should have a blanket rule forbidding use of such abstracts, involved editors should question if the information is indeed needed in an encyclopedic article. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question (to satisfy curiosity): Is the whole paper reviewed before acceptance to the conference, or do the reviewers only look the abstract ? Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the conference page, it looks like they simply look at 'proposals' - which is pretty vague. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside: To see how conferences are judged differently in (certain areas) of computer science, see reports such as:
 * Evaluating Computer Scientists and Engineers For Promotion and Tenure
 * Research evaluation for computer science
 * Conference and Journal Publications in Database Systems and Theory
 * which conclude that the best conferences in the field(s) are better than journals in terms of prestige, timeliness, selectivity, and novelty of their publications while the journals have the advantage of allowing longer papers, allowing multiple revisions, and being weighted more heavily by some lower ranked schools who have yet to catch up with the changes in the area! The world can look really different from different academic silos. :-) Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say Abecedare has it right. Another thing I'd say, is that even in cases where a conference paper wasn't demonstrably reliable on its own, it could still fall into the category of self-published sources that we can use if the author is an established expert in the field.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it depends very much on the field. As usual the broad question "Is X a reliable source?" isn't very meaningful without further details. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is The Skoda Prize worthy of being carried in the Wikipedia?
I have opened an article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_skoda_prize

The Skoda Prize has just been announced yesterday and is one of the most prestigious awards in Visual Arts in India. The prize which was announced at a major press conference on August 17 in New Delhi has been widely reported in the Indian Press http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=the+skoda+prize+indian+contemporary+art+award&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Let me know what else needs to be done.

Thanks in advance.

Unni


 * I'm not sure this is the right forum, Unni. I notice that the article has been proposed for deletion. If you want to keep it, you will need to add the template to the article and explain on the talkpage why you think its should be kept. After that, I would suggest adding some references. The prize is not something I know much about, but including in the article references such as this one:  might save it from deletion. At the moment, just the fact that the article has no references may mean that an admin feels entitled to get rid of it. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted some possible sources at the AFD--looks like it's notable enough if the sources are reliable. I'm headed for the beach now, but I will follow up later here if there with particular sources if that's required. Nuujinn (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)