Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 27

Museum exhibition as reliable source?
I recently went to an excellent exhibit on the photography and other work of Eadweard Muybridge at the Corcoran Gallery, a well-known museum in Washington, DC. I've update the article on him to correct the misperception that he never made any portraits, clearly shown to be false by the exhibit. The problem is... I'd like some clarification on whether a museum exhibition can be described as a "reliable source." Clearly, it's a well-regarded museum run by expert curators, but the impermanence of the exhibit may be problematic. Any thoughts on this? I've looked for alternative sources of this information, and have found none. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 05:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Verified Twitter Accounts
I looked through the archives, but found contradictory advice on the issue of using Twitter feeds as sources. WP:SPS indicates that self-published sources can be used under certain, specific criteria (not overly self-serving, only about the subjects themselves, etc.). One concern with places like MySpace in the past has been that there was no evidence that an account with the name of a subject necessarily had any connection with the subject. Twitter has (recently?) introduced "verified accounts," which presumably gives some sort of validity to the claim that a Person named "Mr. Joe Famous" is, in fact, associated with Joe Famous. However, Twitter's description of how exactly accounts get verified is a bit vague for me. On the information page, they state, "[A verified account] means we've been in contact with the person or entity the account is representing and verified that it is approved. (This does not mean we have verified who, exactly, is writing the tweets.)." To me, this seems to indicate that, though any given tweet may not be actually written by the subject, they are written on behalf of the subject. Furthermore, this seems to indicate that we can use information culled from verified Twitter accounts, so long as it meets the additional criteria of WP:SPS. Anyone else with thoughts on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As a journalist with a major metropolitan newspaper, we've been allowed to user Verified Tweets -- plainly stating that they are so -- in entertainment/celebrity stories. I haven't seen them used elsewhere &mdash; I suppose [Stanley A. McChrystal|Gen. McChrystal]] doesn't Tweet.


 * I'm of mixed feelings about this. The paper is OK using Verified Tweets for light news and ultimately inconsequential matters. But for hard-news accounts, the very fact that even a Verified account may not be written by the person named could be problematic. One can imagine a scenario where a publicist or other person misinterprets what the named person wanted to say; or is a disgruntled employee getting a last jab; or, as Michael Lohan claimed recently, someone has hacked the Twitter account.


 * While that latter can happen to any website, the former two scenarios should inspire caution as we proceed. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Searching at WP:RSN shows several discussions which have established that Twitter is not a reliable source (with occasional exceptions depending on the claim being sourced). A twitter post is not a thoughtful comment, and could well be a joke or simply a mistake. Also, WP:NOTNEWS means we should wait for good sources before reporting the latest news from some tweet. Re the "verified account": that would assist the rare exceptions when twitter is an acceptable source, but WP:REDFLAG indicates that a tweet by Joe Famous saying "X is good" should not be used to contradict sources that are actually reliable where Joe says "X is bad". Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Verified twitter accounts are reliable as sources for information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, but they should be used with caution. See WP:TWITTER.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, stuff that might "not be actually written by the subject," but is "written on behalf of the subject" is not a new phenomenon. Nearly all "quotes" in press releases were never written or said by the subject, and many were never seen or approved by the subject. And that's just scratching the surface. In daily journalism, I would have no compunction to write "In a message on the Twitter system, a 'Stanley A. McChrystal' said "Let's bomb them all to hell." The General did not immediately return calls." I'd make sure I have the tweet, though. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is that movie studio press notes or a press release is gone over by multiple sources who vet it, including the head of publicity, the quoted performers' publicists and agents, and in many cases the marketing and legal departments. There is such methodical vetting on personal (as opposed to commercial) tweets, which generally are rapid and spontaneous.


 * I'm not sure how useful the information would be to say "a 'Stanley A. McChrystal' said" such-and-such. Raising doubts in the readers mind over whether something is factual is the opposite of what we're doing here, which is to confirm and verify.


 * I think A Quest For Knowledge puts it well: Tweets can be used, cautiously, for things a Verified account says about the verified account-holder him/herself. But if a Tweet is the only place where something gets said, then that should raise a red flag. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Discographies "reliable sources" ???
Simple question (hoping that there's a simple answer ;-): Can an internet site containing discographies for various record labels and artists ("American Music" ), that has itself been cited in encyclopedies and bibliographies about the same subject be a "reliable source" ? And - if so - does that opinion change in light of the fact, that the creator of that discography site also tries to cooperate here at Wikipedia ? (I ask because in this deletion discussion that has been doubted by a participant: "I don't consider discographies to be "significant coverage") StefanWirz (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I'd like to add, that the standard "Bibliography of the Blues" by Robert Ford has included a hundred of my online-discographies as (sometimes sole) entries for artists and labels, furthermore Ed Komaras "Encyclopedia of the Blues" has quite a few of my discographies as references ... Are these good enough indicators of Wikipedia reliability? Just curious ... StefanWirz (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ("American Music" ) is a selfpublished source. Unless your work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications it is not a reliable source. About being cited by other sources, this has recently been discussed and the conclusion reached was that being cited often does not make a source inherently reliable and there was no way to formulate policy properly to just allow the good cases and keep out the bad.
 * On a sidenote, the term "significant coverage" refers to primarily notability, not reliable sources. In this case the user states that just being mentioned somewhere is not enough to establish notability, which I agree with Yoenit (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Editorial control
I have found an editor arguing that it is not appropriate to assume "full editorial control," of blogs hosted by newspapers, written by paid professional staffers for those newspapers (not guest bloggers, actual journalists in the paper publication). I wonder if we need to change this guideline to reflect that the standard assumption about blogs hosted by newspapers written by paid professional staff are reliable, or if the editor I've run into is just being difficult without cause. Hipocrite (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases there is an initial article by a journalist or guest writer. These are similar to the comment pieces that appear in the print version of the paper - indeed sometimes they are the same pieces that appear in the print version. That's why we assume that they are as reliable as the comment pieces in the paper (not reliable in the same way as news but in a thread above I questioned the hard-and-fast distinction). But there may be some other cases too. This is one for WP:RSN isn't it? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess. I wonder if we should, however, make it clear that newspaper blogs hosted on newspaper websites written by newspaper employees can be assumed to be under "full editorial control." Of course, the other side in this full editorial control debate has now shown up to revert on the policy page, so I guess there's no chance we'll get any sort of clarification here. Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you've thought this through. If this change is made, that means that James Delingpole's blog is now a reliable source and can be cited all over Wikipedia.  Is that really what you want?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is. See . It was argued that since the Telegraph could get sued under British law for Dellingpole's statements, it is a reliable source. Of course, since Dellingpole is an opinion columnist, it's needs attribution to him. I wonder... When the premises of your argument change, does your conclusion change as well? Hipocrite (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't know much about British law, but I believe that Newsweek is an American publication. Does British law apply to the US? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew it! No, of course not. However, Newsweek could certainly be sued for the content on their website as long as said content was created by their employees. Hipocrite (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You knew what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That when you found out that your argument (X = Y, Y = !Z so X = !Z) had one of it's premises as flawed (Y acutally = Z), as opposed to saying "Oh, well then X = Z as well!" You'd instead say "Well, then X = !Y, so X ? Z" Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which premise was flawed? I asked you if you had any evidence that this blog is under their full editorial control and you haven't provided any as of yet.  We seem to be going in circles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has worked both sides (journalism and advertising) for more than 30 years in several countries, some remarks:
 * The vaunted "editorial control" is not what it used to be
 * Usually, pure advertising has better and more stringent editorial control than most newspaper outlets - it gets signed off by hordes of people, checked by lawyers etc.
 * In journalism, I'm off the hook if I can attribute something to someone, even if it's the "people close to the matter."
 * In advertising, I better make sure that every claim is triple-checked, if not, it can get expensive
 * If "liable of getting sued" is a criterion, then everything that is written or said is reliable, because you and I can get sued for libel, slander and even more egregious crimes, depending on the country -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary sources
At Manchester United F.C.'s recent archived FAC, one thing that came up was that apparently some of our sources were unreliable. The sources in question were: unitedkits.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk and prideofmanchester.co.uk. All of these sources are essentially fansites, but are excellently maintained and THE place to go to find out information on kits. They were used to reference manchester united's past kits. Anyway, I have been down to the Manchester United museum to check that the information is correct. So my question is, shall I just replace all the sources, or use the manchester united museum as an additional source and if so, how should I do this? Just add a footnote explaining that the sources have been checked at the Manchester United museum or add additional inline citation wherever one of these sites was used? Thanks, Tom 81.159.216.106 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this to the right location: WP:RSN. Please look there for the answer. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus
Scholarly consensus can be expressed or determined in many ways. For example, if all of the most commonly used university textbooks used in a particular field all state a particular finding as fact without qualifications, that is usually enough to establish scholarly consensus. If a literature review article states that the literature has agreed on a particular finding, or that it is commonly accepted by the literature that such a finding is true, this is also enough to establish consensus. Definitions given by established, widely respected, academic handbooks are also enough to establish scholarly consensus. The recent edits seem to want to restrict the understanding of scholarly consensus, so that it only occurs if a reliable source states specifically that "the consensus is ...". This type of wording is almost never used by scholars in peer-reviewed articles, and is unreasonably restrictive. Adopting such a definition would mean that there is almost never any scholarly consensus, which is patently false. I'm going to rewrite that section to state that RS must directly support the statement that scholarly consensus exists. LK (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your edit and I agree ScienceApologist's edit (see ) to restrict the use of the word "consensus" in articles. It's easy to say there is consensus but it's not easy to verify, and we shouldn't be adopting offhand statements as if they are reliable evidence of consensus. Such statements should always be attributed - if you want to say there's consensus without attribution, you need something which demonstrates the consensus. Generally saying "there is consensus" about this and that about basic facts is poor style anyway - basic facts just don't need to be attributed. II  | (t - c) 07:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with ScienceApologist's version (in fact, I prefer it to my own). What I disagree with is this edit, which is very restrictive about what is acceptable proof of scholarly consensus. (In case anyone doesn't know, 'e.g.' means 'for example', while 'i.e.' means 'that is', changing e.g. to i.e. makes a big difference.) LK (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think "it is usually believed that" or "the literature finds that" can be turned into "there is consensus that". The previous two examples are very ambiguous and much less firm statements than "there is consensus", and the authors' statements should not be distorted into firmer wording - it is not fair to the author of the statement or fair to our readers. One thing that is missing from ScienceApologist's statement which needs to remain is the explicit warning that collecting sources which state a particular viewpoint does not make a consensus, since this is a common error. I ran into it only a few days ago at race and intelligence. ScienceApologist's version is also ambiguous; I would interpret it as meaning that consensus must be demonstrated - that is, an actual survey of scientists or perhaps authoritative statements from scientific societies. II  | (t - c) 07:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see your point about "it is usually believed that" being ambiguous; but when an academic states "the literature finds that", "the literature shows that", or "the literature agrees that" something is true, this is a claim about academic consensus. I have edited the page to reflect your concern. LK (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would hardly say that because someone has claimed that the consensus favors their position in a literature review that it does: some fields are riven, with editors and reviewers permitting disparagement of their adversaries.  I think an absence of reliable sources to the contrary would be necessary before one could claim that the consensus is against a view, although I don't know that even this much suffices regarding verifiability.   RJC  TalkContribs 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the current wording really oversteps what the consensus of Wikipedia editors really is. "Academic consensus" is a term that should be used sparingly because it is so manufactured and something of a byproduct of wikiculture rather than being something which is truly good editorial practice. The specific example given, in fact, is offensive to those of us wedded to a simple formulation. There is no problem with stating the fact that the sky is blue. There are editors whose tactic is to attack a perceived lack of "academic consensus" to argue that such facts do not deserve plain statements in Wikipedia. That the wording currently included accommodates such activity is, in my opinion, not okay. I'm a little confused how it ended up reinserted after I specifically removed it. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was reinstated by FormerIP in this edit. I see three issues here:
 * We have to agree on guidelines about exactly what sourcing is necessary to establish something as a 'fact' that can simply be stated (per WP:ASF).
 * We should decide if the claim that "most scientists or scholars hold a certain view" is a different claim, and whether it requires different (perhaps stronger) sourcing.
 * We must make sure that what is written here is compatible with what is on the main policy pages (specifically: WP:ASF & WP:SOURCES).
 * In the mean time, is there any objection to going back to ScienceApologist's version? LK (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not by me.  RJC  TalkContribs 00:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO it is not good to write about consensus unless there is absolutely nobody who objects. Otherwise it feels like a hammer used to intimidate and to prevent the free development of knowledge; a propaganda tool.
 * As regards the formulation "most scientists or scholars hold a certain view" I find that equally objectionably, unless a time is added, to remind readers that the "established truth" changes as science progresses. I would rather write that "by 1960, most scientists had come to accept the theory of plate tectonics", for instance. Note that words like believe should be avoided.
 * The most appropriate and correct way of stating the scholarly position is in terms of when, who, and what, e.g.: "By XXXX, many/most/the vast majority of scientists/scholars/etc had come to accept/reject the hypothesis/theory of xxx" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorm (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam
This whole thing with "reliable sources" seem to me to be like re-inventing the wheel, or rather, science. The definition of what constitutes a "reliable source" does not seem to match the scientific criteria. Then again, in science the term is "reference", not "source".

The only reliable sources are observations. Newspaper articles are not reliable sources for anything except themselves. Example: if I say that NYT wrote that so and so happened, the only thing I have added with my reference is that NYT wrote that so and so happened. I have not shown that so and so actually happened.

To accept what NYT writes as having credibility, but to dismiss as lacking credibility that which Mr X writes on his blog or website, is an Argumentum ad verecundiam, and thus a logical fallacy.

Yet that is exactly what the Wikipedia policy does.

The truth is of course that the writer should stick to subjects that he or she masters to such a level that the author knows what is notorious knowledge, and can evaluate data and analyses encountered in any source.

Let me just take one example of how absurd it can get if the rules are followed to the dot. Assume that a book states that Mrs X has blue eyes, but our Mr X can see for himself that his wife's eyes are brown. Following the rules he cannot use that knowledge for correcting the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorm (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. We can use self-published sources for information about their author. A blog post by the subject of an article about the colour of their wife's eyes would be fine as a source (though the information would be unlikely to find a home in an article).
 * When you write that "if I say that NYT wrote that so and so happened, the only thing I have added with my reference is that NYT wrote that so and so happened. I have not shown that so and so actually happened", you restate in a long-winded manner "Verifiability, not truth". We know that what we refer to as "reliable sources" sometimes get things wrong! This is something we have to live with. Scientific articles also get things wrong, so the problem for scientists writing review articles is no different to our own problems in this regard. And yet, Wikipedia made the decision a few years ago to write articles based on sources with a reputation for fact-checking, enshrined in the policy Verifiability. This policy is now very well established; if you don't like it you can start you own site with your own rules.
 * The problem with asserting that "observations" are reliable is that 1. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, see Eyewitness memory; 2. Are we just supposed to take it on trust that random editors did actually make the observations they claim?
 * "the writer should stick to subjects that he or she masters". And how, pray tell, do we get editors to do this? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for conflict of interest among sources?
I don't see anything here about handling reliable sources with a potential conflict of interest. For example, what official policy prevents citing predominantly conservative Republicans on a matter of conservative economics? Or liberals on whether socialized medicine increases public health? Or Christian academics on whether the fossil record verifies Darwin or a historic Jesus really existed....and so on? The question isn't scholarship, per se, but a predisposition to favor one side. Noloop (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you are looking for is: WP:Neutral point of view. It isn't just a guideline... it's one of our core Policies upon which Wikipedia is built. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles should be based on primarily on reliable secondary sources. In matters of politics, you would not usually directly cite a Republican or Democrat politician or pundit.  Instead you would cite the Washington Post or the Washington Times (for example).  All sources have a bias, so the fact that WP tends to be liberal and WT tends to be conservative isn't really a COI for Wikipedia's purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ::The straightforward answer is that if reliable sources conflict both views are included. Without extra commentary from us. We try and balance in proportion to what reliable sources say. In relation to your theologians example, I personally think we should start each article by identifying in what field of knowledge it belongs. If it is an article about Christian doctrine, then theologians would be a very appropriate source. But if it is an article about biology, they wouldn't be, because that's not their area of expertise. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:Neutral point of view specifically addressing this. It's also not about primary vs secondary sources. A typical example of what I mean occurs here. I noticed that the sole source for a factual claim was a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian. I felt readers should know this, added the information, and was promptly reverted. I'm looking for a guideline on such situations. Note, I'm not interested in removing the source. Conflict of interest isn't the same as unreliability. Noloop (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue is covered in WP:ASF. Since there is only one (biased) source, one cannot assert it as fact, but instead attribute it to the person who's opinion it is. LK (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have added two more Christians as sources to the article. Noloop (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a very odd example. The sentence referred to doesn't seem to be controversial. You could take this to RSN and get views on whether the author is appropriate (if he is an academic theologian, he definitely is), whether he needs to be attributed (probably not for this) and if so, how he should be described. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PhD dissertations - wording is too broad
I think this is too blanket a statement at the moment. All PhD dissertations are not of equal quality, and some are pretty abysmal. "They have been vetted by the scholarly community" may be true, but there are different scholarly communities. Some are simply not as good as others, some may have a considerable pov. I wonder what percentage are "routinely cited in footnotes"? Any that are, fine. But if a dissertation hasn't been noticed by anyone, I don't think we should use it except in exceptional cases. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the statement regarding Ph.D. dissertations is just a question of whether they pass the bar for reliable sources. Not every point-of-view that can attest reliable sources needs to be included, however (WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE seem to deal with this), nor do reliable sources need to maintain a neutral point of view.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * POVs can lead to stuff being heavily flawed, but there are other issues also. Digging out an earlier discussions at RSN: here's one that cites an Oslo dissertation with a number of cites to Wikipedia articles  . You can buy PhD dissertations  and at least one such service suggests a lot of these services plagiarise . Plagiarism is a pretty big problem, and attitudes towards plagiarism vary. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are difficulties, but best approached on a case-by-case basis. The presumption should still be in favor of treating dissertations as published sources, just as journal articles are presumed reliable unless evidence of fraud, circularity, puffery, fringiness, and the like is forthcoming.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Not all "reliable sources" are really reliable, but when talking in general terms, a PhD dissertation should be presumed to meet the minimume expectations.  Now individual dissertations/institutions may not, but as a general rule, I think they do.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if an article is using a dissertation as a source, something is very wrong. Why isn't the citation for the factoid available from a peer-reviewed article? I view a dissertation as either a literature review, in which case the citations within it are available, or as a primary source of dubious utilty. Are there any examples of a dissertation being used as a reference on Wikipedia? Abductive  (reasoning) 09:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to cite dissertations in scholarly journals, so I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for us (with the caveats above). Sometimes the topic is too specialized to be a viable academic book (even university presses must pay some attention to marketability), or the information you want to cite was left out of the book because some reviewer claimed that it detracted from its "flow," or the recent Ph.D. decided to cannibalize the dissertation for articles and something interesting was left on the cutting room floor, etc.  I purchased a dissertation, half of which is an appendix discussing all the sources that suggest that this or that person was a Roman dictator and their reliability; that is not the sort of thing to make it into a book and (at 230 ms. pages) too big for an article.  Moreover, to the extent that a dissertation contains a literature review, it can also summarize the current state of the literature in way that, if we were to do so based upon the citations it contains, would be a synthesis.  RJC  TalkContribs 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PhD dissertations are sometimes helpful for obscure topics, like local history, or minor political figures. And of course they are sometimes helpful for explaining the current state of acceptance of different theories.  TFD (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB shortcut
Please see WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can find no place...
I can find no place where consensus was made about "academic consensus" writ large as such. I altered the statement to be more general and in-line with actual Wikipedia practice. Please comment:

Relevant diff

I intend to restore if there are no objections clearly stated.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SILENCE invoked. Edit made. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi ScienceApologist. I just had cause to cite this, only to find that it had been made a lot less clear (IMO). The purpose of the guidance is to prevent the kind of WP:SYN where someone cites a number of sources in combination to support a claim that "most scholars" etc are of that view. The half-guideline you have left behind ("...requires reliable sourcing that demonstrates the consensus..") is insufficiently clear because it leaves room for the argument: "I have provided ten sources which do indeed demonstrate the consensus if you take them all together".
 * I am not altogether surprised you found it hard to find the discussion that produced the wording that was there, since it appears to have been stable for a long time.
 * Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "clarity" of this guideline is a false one, there is not agreement about what constitutes "academic consensus". A single source claiming academic consensus does not necessarily mean academic consensus is verified for the same reason that ten sources which all say the same thing don't illustrate a consensus. Mainly, the issue is generalizations such as "most scholar" should be eschewed from text for reasons having little to do with whether they can be verified but having more to do with whether such statements are at all encyclopedic. The statement "the sky is blue" is a better statement than "academic consensus is the sky is blue" even if a source explicitly says "academic consensus is the sky is blue". ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree that's not a great example (I'll have a think whether I can come up with a better one). And, you are probably right that avoiding "academic consensus" statements would be a good thing - although the reality is that this sort of reference can be helpful in dealing with content disputes.
 * The problem I see is that the edit you made had the chief effect of making unclear that an editor's opinion or impression about academic consensus should not go in the article, no matter how much research they have done. --FormerIP (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions should never be made the basis of an editorial decision. I'll offer a new version and see if you like it. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay that's better. I just tweaked it a bit at the end (for no discernible reason, I just thought it read better). --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I changed "assessment" to "opinion" because of some ways I could see that word misused. Hope it's okay. Great working with you! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed it to be belt and braces. (Imagined talkpage argument: "this isn't just my opinion, it is also the opinion of all these sources (I have cherrypicked), so the guidance doesn't apply").--FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube as a video repository
I created an article concerning Mr.Perry Noble, senior pastor of Newspring church in Anderson, South Carolina. The article was unfairy deemed an attack. I was also accused of not using verifiable sources. I pointed to a sermon by Steve Anderson which happens to be on YouTube. The user Pianotech states that Wikipedia's Guidelines state that YouTube is not a reliable source of information. I found no such reference. I was merely citing a criticism of the subject which could be stored anywhere, but happened to be stored at youtube. Daredevil1234 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
The Quotations section says, among other things, "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration." If they have "neutral corroboration", then the neutral "secondary source" should be used, not the "partisan secondary source". Right? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, fake quotations are rife on the Internet. It is, moreover, reasonable that we try to prevent such on WP to as great an extent as possible.  I would posit "Quotations which are in any degree contentious should be ascribed to a person with extreme care, and should not be ascribed on the basis of sources which are inimical to the person being quoted."  Collect (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when dealing with quotes in sources it is always best to at least check what they say against the original. And if you are going to include the quote in an article, I feel it is best to cite directly to the original.  However (and this is very important), if you go on to include any interpretation or analysis of that quote, that interpretation or analysis must come from a reliable secondary source per WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about a (reliable?) weblink
I want to add the link www.mapsofworld.com/referrals/internet/web-browsers/historical-browsers/arena.html (link is blacklisted, so link is only text) in Arena (web browser), because it says that this web browser was widely used in the beginning of the web. My request to unblock that specific page at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist was declined because that link is not a reliable source. User:OhNoitsJamie wasn't (until now) able to explain how this page (a map aggregator site through) couldn't publish it's own material and being a reliable source? Is he correct and if why? mabdul 00:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Third party" needs more clarification
I'm currently dealing with my second newly-arrived editor who thinks that "third party" means "secondary". Secondary sources are preferred of course, but in their absence primary can be used to make simple factual assertions. This article should make it clear(er) that third party means "not Wikipedia", and that primary sources are acceptable when used appropriately. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia does not confine itself to contract law, it should not use this term from contract law in its policies and guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h, It seems to be a perfectly sensible term to use. The first two parties are Wikipedia editors and the subject of the article.  I guess there is an issue around why we use both the term "third party source" and the term "independent  source".  I don't know if this is related, but both of these terms are the names of essays.  Yaris678 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Third-party source" is too restrictive. For example, whenever a first agency of a government has acted on an issue, no second agency of that government can ever be considered a third-party source, no matter whether the second agency has a sterling reputation for independence and nothing to gain from taking any particular position. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to dive in and suggest something like this: "Articles should be based on reliable, published sources which are external to Wikipedia and which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Secondary sources are always preferred, but a primary source can be used to make simple factual statements in the absence of suitable secondary material. We never publish Wikipedians' opinions on or interpretations of sources." Links to WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY would be good, if anyone can work out an elegant way of including them. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a primary source can be used... but... please note that there are limitations to how we use them. The applicable policy is WP:No original research.  Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Does calling 'holocaust denial' contentious actually require a source
An editor has tagged a statement which calls holocaust denial an example of pseudohistory, saying that without a cite it is OR. It's easy to source, sure, but not only does the tagging editor refuse to look for a source, when I removed the tag, saying it wasn't contentious, he put it back saying it was OR. Someone else has supplied a source, but I think the tag was unnecessary (and pointy, but that's another issue). Comments?Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, did you intend this for WP:RSN (feel free to move my comment)? In a normal article, requiring such a citation might eventually warrant WP:ANI attention since holocaust denial should be sufficient, but I guess that an argument could be made that the items in a list of examples at Pseudohistory should be sourced. I'm conflicted because it is clearly pointy to want a source regarding holocaust denialism, yet I hate lists of items without a clear source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC For MMFA, Huffington Post, Newsbusters, etc.
Ok, this was brought up on WP:AN/I. I'm not sure if this is the right place to start this, but honestly, I've been through I don't know how many discussions on this topic, through at least one WP:RS/N discussion on the topic, and still constantly clash over the status of this highly paritsan sources and STILL hear the same arguments and same problems when they are used. I would really like to come up with SOMETHING on this. Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to add Fox News into this discussion too. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree completely, Fox News is a reputable news source as much as some like to dismiss it. MMFA, HP, Newsbusters, and WND are more or less glorified blogs that are, as one user put it, hyper-partisan. However, I will yield to what others think. Soxwon (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I say we open up a formal Request for Comment, or whatever the next step is. The thread I started two topics above left many unanswered questions. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Foxnews is no worse than the other news agency, just the bias is in a different direction. And any attempt to include Foxnews into such a discussion will drag the discssion down to petty politics/nitpicking and would overshadow any meaningful discussion elsewhere..  The above sources do not hold the same level of respect that Fox does... and this can be supported by numerous polls.  Recent surveys have shown Fox to be the single most respected news agency in the country AND the single most despised newsagency in the country.  You either love it or hate it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that FoxNews shouldn't be included. An RfC on the others you mention would be useful as in the future when there are questions about using them someone could just link to the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, slow down. Respected by whom? Popularity among the general populace is really irrelevant to the question of reliability. Why should we take our cues from the masses on reliable sources but not on something like evolution? The mainstream media absolutely needs to be included in this discussion. None of them are really highly-respected sources, especially on the video side but also on the website side. They are really in many cases a bloggish overlay on the AP and AFP. MMfA is certainly not a glorified blog - it is a focused media watchdog - and I've never seen any evidence that it tends to distort or get things wrong, whereas with Fox we all know several things they've gotten wrong, e.g. Obama was educated in a madrassa, global warming, etc. One alternative is to take a close look at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Pew's Center for Excellence in Journalism, as well as studies. For example, here are the 172 articles citing Goldberg: Bias: A CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news, which may have some starting points for the scholarly view. Also, I think we need to keep in mind that reality has liberal bias. This is extremely clear when we talk about things like evolution; while it is less clear in politics and finance, it nevertheless holds true in these areas as well. It's not surprising when you consider that people who refuse to believe in evolution could be more inclined to indulge in fantasies. II  | (t - c) 05:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion on ALL mainstream media is a separate topic from the one described above. If we want to revisit that, then we can.  Fox is no worse and no better than CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/New York Times/New York Post/WSJ/etc.  Each one of those mainstream media sources can be and have been accused of bias.  But as a general rule, they are deemed acceptable.  I would oppose an RfC that challenges one of those sources de facto, without questioning the others.
 * The sources in the starting paragraph have some measure of reputability---although not clear cut. The Huffington Post is clearly a biased source, but not necessarily unreliable when reporting facts.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to II, ok fine, "watchdog." Translation: blowing up minor incidents, reporting stories that aren't necessarily news, and other partisan tactics to attack another ideological viewpoint in a way that real hews sources are supposed to refrain from doing. It basically amounts to the same thing, they are not the mainstream media in that they promote a viewpoint (or in this case promote by tearing down another viewpoint) rather than just reporting the news. Soxwon (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I very rarely support a blanket exclusion of a particular source and I don't think there's any reason to do now, so if that is the premise I think it's a non-starter. On Media Matters, CJR has been quite critical of the Media Research Center while it thinks that MMfA is OK. CJR say this about MMfA: "Media Matters — MRC’s competitor on the left — is, for example, a consistently useful resource, largely because the organization tends to limit its criticisms to specific instances of media malfeasance, and then supports those criticisms with documented facts and clear, transparent reasoning". On the other hand it is highly critical of MRC for looking to do equal weight - which in practice is absurd, as shown in the example of a Holocaust denier that would have to be given equal weight to balance the Holocaust proponent. An absurd idea. II  | (t - c) 06:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're following me, I don't object MMFA as a source. What I am objecting to is MMFA being used as the ONLY source to promote a partisan agenda. The viewpoint it takes (correcting a perceived conservative bias) lends itself to promoting a liberal agenda as often occurs in Wikipedia. Simply stated, just b/c it appears on MMFA doesn't mean its news and therefore other sources should be needed before it gets used in an article. Soxwon (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can follow that logic as the basis for article creation, but not for their opinions, attributed renditions of events or in the case of the noncontroversial - even statements of facts (obviously editor discretion needs to be applied when considering which one is applicable). You don't need a 3rd party source to state According to Media Matters of America .... Unomi (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the problem that comes into play is that they become the ONLY source and therefore present one-sided views on matters AND report on events that, when it comes right down to it, don't really belong in the article as they aren't really that important to the subject. In the latter case, they can be used simply to vilify a person. Soxwon (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, someone start the RfC and then we can debate all of this there. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, but I've not started one and don't know the proper procedure for notification or how to make it binding... Soxwon (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it ... Let's add U.S. government publications to the mix, since we know the government lies to us constantly. And let's finally settle this evolution vs. intelligent design matter. And what sources count as reliable in the whole Obama-birth-certificate thing? This is sure to produce a level-headed, useful RfC.  RJC  TalkContribs 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the question of reliability comes to the fore when sources disagree on facts. When that happens, the fact that sources disagree should be there in the article with appropriate attribution. If all the sources that can be found agree then there is generally not a problem. If sources disagree then that should be made clear.  The reader of the article can make their own judgement and will do so, probably following their own prejudices or predispositions, but it is correct to report on which sources support statements and which do not. It is not up to us to define facts, it is up to us to report what sources have said about issues, people, article subjects.  Most people believe that the world is round, but some still believe that it is flat. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about typing up a Request for Comment concerning all the news sources discussed here and above. Is anyone willing to participate or second the motion? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are to include Fox News than I will not be participating as I will not open up that can of worms. Soxwon (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick idea to get WP in the national media spotlight... and laughed at... start an RfC on whether or not Fox News is a reliable source... Lets look at reality. Let's posit that Fox News is not a reliable source (a notion I disagree with, but for sake of discussion lets make that assumption.) So Fox News isn't a reliable source. But there are some indisputable facts concerning it: 1) It is the most watched news station 2) while it is the least trusted news stations polls also show it to be the most trusted news station. With just those facts in mind, there is no doubt that we would never get a consensus to support the notion that fox isn't reliable... and if we were, it would be the butt of the biggest internet joke in a long time...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt any such page would get any outside attention. Perhaps you have an exaggerated view of the overall import of discussions on wikipedia. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The existence of the discussion probably will not have that effect. But the outcome of divisively partisan discussions is, in my opinion, a crap-shoot.  And I am rather confident that FoxNews will ridicule Wikipedia if FoxNews were declared on unreliable source, which would place it on a par with LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review.  I am not sure what weight prudential considerations should be given, but such considerations are not alarmist.  In the end, I don't think we should include FoxNews in an RfC because the case is without merit.   RJC  TalkContribs 02:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Donald, wikipedia is the 6th most visited site on the web. Do you honestly think companies are unaware of this and don't monitor the site to protect their image? Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Donald, as Sox points out, WP is one of the premier pages on the web. What happens here does become news.  Within 30 minutes of the the bad call in the World Cup, Coulibaly's page (the referee) was vandalized to such an extent that numerous news agencies reported the vandalism.  When an RfC was initiated on whether the article Palestinian Territories should be Occupied Palestininian Territories, Jewish news agencies started decrying the racism on Wikipedia.  If we were to endeavor in a serious discussion related to Fox News being an unreliable source, I can pretty much guarantee that it would make the news. If not the news, some of the talking heads would get a hold of it an mock it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the way policy is supposed to be decided? Are we to not call an unreliable source unreliable, because some right-wing talking heads might mock us over this? LK (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we're not including it b/c, unliike the other sources, a large portion of the population views it as a Mainstream Source and the purpose of the proposed discussion is not to bring into question MSM sources. Soxwon (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I see this discussion unfolding I think it is clear that there is a substantial portion of the Wikipedia body that feels that it is not a Mainstream Source. I think the time is right for a request for comment. Anyone willing to post one? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do that if you wish, I can predict the results, you will have a small minority agreeing with you, a small minority who feel it is always right, and a large majority who are in the middle and who will cop out with either "case-by-case" or won't bother posting in such a controversial bile. Soxwon (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started the RfC and will post notices on all of your user Talk pages, since you have expressed an interest in this topic. I think we can produce a useful amendment to the RS policy, and I look forward to a productive discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Using commercial sites as sources
What's Wikipedia's stance on using a purely commercial site as a source? I cleaned up the heat-shrink tubing article to remove references that pointed to buyheatshrink.com - the owner of the site stepped forward to object to the article now using information (built from "years of experience and research") from his site without providing a direct source, and as a result the article has now been cut back to information sourceable from elsewhere (with unsourceable information simply being removed).

Where does Wikipedia stand on sourcing something like "here is a list of heatshrink plastics and their qualities" to a commercial vendor? Am I being overcautious in regarding a purely commercial source as automatically unacceptable - both in terms of advertising, and for the possibility that they may be misrepresenting the range or qualities of the products they describe? --McGeddon (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:PRIMARY and WP:REFSPAM.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A few points-

"Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia". So, if the addition of a link to a commercial site was done by someone not at all affiliated with said commercial site, I believe this should be considered "a good-faith addition".

If the wikipedia article refers to a site where the writer is using first hand experience, couldn't that referenced site (commercial or not) be sited as the first hand source?

If a sited reference doesn't manufacture the material in question (such is true in the case of 3M and one of the materials listed on the heat shrink tubing article), and this referenced site actually contains wrong information, it seems to me we're cutting off our nose to spite our face in that we're taking out a reference to correct information just because the source of the information actually sells the material on its site in favor of incorrect information.

I'm glad my site was used to improve the article. I personally don't care if there is a nofollow in the article. My only gripe was that the link to buyheatshrink.com was removed when the information on the article was taken directly from it. I appreciate McGeddon taking the steps to rectify the situation.

Marc

Foot6453 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once an article is submitted to Wikipedia, as long as it is not plagiarized, it becomes public domain. If the owner of the site was the one who originally contributed the information, he cannot now claim copyright to it. Even if he (or one of his employees) was not the one who originally contributed the information, he still has no legal right to remove it from Wikipedia as long as the writing was not plagiarized. You cannot copyright knowledge or ideas, only the particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted. LK (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is not public domain (in the copyright sense). See the text at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, it becomes CC by SA. ;-) LK (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News as a source now that this latest incident with the Department of Agriculture came to light?
Since the network Fox News has been under a lot of fire lately for its allegedly biased reporting, as well as its dubious fact-checking, over this week's incident cocnering the U.S. Department of Argiculture's Georgia state director being fired and slandered for being "racist" due to a video knowingly taken out of context, must Fox News be treated as less of a reliable source than other news mega-organizations (MSNBC/CNN/BBC)? DeepAgentBorrasco (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Nor should CBS's problems with reports in the past be a reason to dismiss CBS. Nor should the NYT's use of plagiarized material be a reason not to use the NYT.   At this point in time, any such dismissal of any major news organization is silly. Collect (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the use of of major news sources (or any source) as reliable sources can only be judged on a case by case basis. Where there is evidence of bias or inaccurate reporting that would affect a particular reference then that needs sorting out for that particular reference and perhaps balancing with other references. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there is this: The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. Unomi (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat reliability has to be established case by case. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Um -- a clearly politically slanted article on "ceasespin" using a report from 2003 means what? This entire section is a "non-runner". Collect (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If the reliability of a source has to be established in every single case, then it is not a prima facie reliable source. If the burden in on the editor to show that the story he is using from Fox News is indeed reliable for that particular article he's editing, then he might as well skip using Fox News entirely. To me, a "reliable" source means a prima facie reliable source, as in one would think "Oh, this is from the BBC, it must be at least mostly reliable." It would be ludicrous for an author to, if using a BBC as a source, to himself vet and investigate the source (BBC), AND establish the reliability of the source (BBC) before including the source in the article. Now, on the other hand, I do agree with the poster above that this standard of "reliability has to be established in every single case" should apply to Fox News -- that before Fox News can be inserted as a source, that the editor independently verify that the information is reliable. DeepAgentBorrasco (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to major media sources, it is more a situation of "any claims of unreliability need to be established on a case by case basis". Every major network - be it BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NPR, etc. etc. can and does occasionally get a story wrong (especially early in the run of the story, when news outlets are trying to "scoop" each other).  It is fine to challenge the reliability of a particular report once it becomes clear that the report is indeed in error.  But that does not mean we throw the baby out with the bath water.  One key to determining if a news source is reliable is whether the outlet acknowledges an error when it is discovered.  In FOX's case, they did.  Quite quickly, in fact.  By the next day they were running corrections to their story, and showing a clip that placed the individual's comments in proper context.
 * I will also note that this is one reason why we have WP:NOTNEWS... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. We should not report on an event while it is still unfolding... and one major reason for this is because we may be watching it unfold on a source that has its facts wrong.  To properly cover an event in an encyclopedic manner, we need to let events play out (and even reach a conclusion)... we need historical perspective.  I often wish we had a policy that says you can not write an article on an event until at least a week has passed.  I know it will never happen... but I can wish. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I've suggested that we should have a little thing on this page saying, "use your head". This sort of thing would be more avoidable if we paid the truð (it's treated like a four-letter word here) a modicum of attention.  But we've already had that discussion, I suppose... The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These policy is sorely lacking in nuance. I often encounter a particular editor who insists that if it's been published in a book, it's prima facie reliable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the policy is lacking in common sense and nuance -- but however we can flesh out the policy here. I guess the bottom-line issue is:  Whether Fox News is a prima facie reliable source needing no independent verification?  I think the inherent (and open) bias of this source makes me, for one, say "No, Fox news is not."  I furthermore find the article cited by User:Unomi above quite troubling. DeepAgentBorrasco (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the policy has a lot of nuance and common sense. The problem is that a lot of editors miscite the policy without actually reading or understanding it.  Unfortunately, WP:Read and understand the other policies isn't a policy.  Fox News is quite reliable for most things... it is occasionally highly unreliable.  In that, it is no different than any other news outlet.  The fact is, a really good editor will always question news stories, and double check them for accuracy... no matter what the outlet is.  And we must not let our own political biases show by singling out Fox.  Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that when lawyers of a news agency, any agency, try to argue in court that they have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports, that should be a red flag which calls into question their reliability, political leanings don't need to figure into it. Unomi (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said... a good editor will always question news stories... no matter the source. I see no reason why ceasespin.org should be any different than Fox. It strikes me as highly unlikely that any lawyer would try to argue something like that in court... but if Fox's lawyer (especially Fox's lawyer) said it, surely other news sources would be shouting it from the roof tops.  I think it best not to make reliability determinations based on one report. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There weren't many reporting it, or so it seems, but there were a few St. Louis Journalism Review, Salon which has hints as to why it was 'underreported' : Five major networks filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Fox's argument. This decision effectively declared it legal for networks to lie in news reports to please their advertisers. . Baltimore Chronicle and it features in the book top25 censored stories. Unomi (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... context... always important. Thanks for the links.  It does mean that we must now be even more skeptical of reporting by the major news networks... but... it does not mean we can single out Fox as being the big bad unreliable one.  The amicus briefs mentioned indicate that most of the other major news networks agree with Fox.  So... We still have to treat all major news outlets as having essentially the same degree of reliability.  Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so another issue is that is this discussion really going to get anywhere? Does this discusssion, basically between three people, modify or specify policy? Here we have Blueboar rather articulately asserting that claims of unreliability of a major news outlet be evaluated on a case by case basis, which is at antipodes to the existing policy. Now, will some other user come along, excerpt that snippet out of Blueboar's statement, and use that as support of a policy change? And even if this discussion resolves and includes more users, will it really change policy? DeepAgentBorrasco (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is, "probably not"... we would need a lot more people to opine before we could say there was any sort of consensus to change a guideline as fundamental to Wikipedia as WP:RS is. Also, my comments were intended as explanation of the current guideline... and not intended as a reason to change the guideline. I would revert any change that was based on mnisquoting my comments out of context. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not seeking to change any policy, just get a read on how Fox News fits into the reliable sources policy. Furthermore, if this discussion won't amount to anything at all, then why bother having it?  Or is there any way to get more people involved? DeepAgentBorrasco (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What the discussion amounts to is simple... Fox news is considered just as reliable as any other major news network. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread should be combined with the RfC on Fox News. It makes no sense, and is distracting, to have two threads on the same subject. — Becksguy (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * Fox not a RS: Fox News Channel (Fox News) is clearly an unreliable source. It's not about "embarrassing stains" as isolated events which I assume many, if not most, news organizations have had, Even the NYT had Jayson Blair, as an example. However, Fox made a legal argument in court  in the Jane Akre affair on BGH, that ".. the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves." In 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH."  Fox News is admitting in legal documents to a lack of neutrality, and that violates the core value of WP:RS to such a gross extent that there can be no consideration of them as a reliable source. Nor can any other news source that openly claims the right to be a disinformation source. Most news sources claim to be neutral and truthful. Despite Fox's trademark "Fair & Balanced" tagline, it so clearly isn't.  — Becksguy (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 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  {{sup| Talk }}{{sub| Contribs }} 16:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * Requires additional scrutiny I agree with the other editors here that Fox News articles need to be looked at more closely than the average article, even though I used a Fox News article just a few days ago on the financial reform bill, but when I did so I did some additional research to confirm the article. Fox News recently ran an article on how "pedophilic" 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)


 * 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 TV's tune to Fox and the chyron clearly and unambiguously declared: "WMDs found in Iraq".  That said I think they could be an exceptable 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  {{sup| NO! I'm Spartacus! }} 06:47, 3 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  {{sup| 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  {{sup| 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  {{sup| 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  {{sup| 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  {{sup| 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.


 * 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  {{sup| NO! I'm Spartacus! }} 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a poll for you: {{blockquote|text=[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)


 * 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  {{sup| NO! I'm Spartacus! }} 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Referring to the below motion to close, I agree it's premature. While there have been other "Is Fox News reliable" discussions 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 1) Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This is not going to go anywhere.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 1) Concur with close. This isn't going anywhere.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 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)
 * 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)

Other comments

 * It's reliable but biased, as it's always been. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2=moved to Proper Venue at WP:RSN}}

Re: Bio on Actress Morgan Fairchild
About a year and a half ago, I purchased the entire MP3 set of discs from the CBS Radio Mystery Theater. In a few of the programs, Morgan Fairchild is mentioned as one of the cast. If it's the same 'Morgan Fairchild' who was popular from the 70's to 80's, this piece of information should be added to her acting credits. Thank you.

Popculturenut (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but how would you go about verifying that it is the same Morgan Fairchild, rather than someone else with the same name? Verify that (say, but finding CBS Radio Mystery Theater on another reliable list of her acting credits) and there shouldn't be a problem; I don't know that the MP3s you bought suffice, though.   RJC  TalkContribs 14:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Screen Actors Guild has very tight restrictions on credits; it is not allowed for more than a single person to be listed under any given name. (That is why a significant number of recent actors use three (or more) names; someone else already has the "first name/last name" combination, and they have to use a middle name to differentiate themselves. If "Morgan Fairchild" is listed in the credits, it is the same actress.  Horologium  (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we are talking about a radio program, I'm not sure the Screen Actors Guild is relevant. Is it? But it seems unlikely it was anyone other than her, even though I couldn't find any independent confirmation that she appeared on the show. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently they share jurisdiction of radio with AFTRA... do you know if AFTRA has the same restriction? Dlabtot (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Academic consensus
"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that demonstrates the consensus. Individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

I'm not sure what this is saying. If some experts on a topic say there is consensus about a topic-related matter, is that reliable "sourcing that demonstrates the consensus" or is it "Individual opinions (that) should be identified as those of particular, named sources." ? Noloop (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is forum shoping [] [] [] [] [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also do not remove my comments wiht out my consent, if you think its a violation report it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that we don't find a host of reliable sources that contradict what is claimed to be the "consensus" position, then that can be used to support the claim that there is such a consensus. The statement is intended to prevent people from claiming that X is the consensus position because they have found a lot of reliable sources that claim X is true.  If Dr. A says that there is consensus about X, then we can say that there is consensus about X and use him as the source (assuming that Dr. B doesn't say that Dr. A is full of it).  If Drs. A, B, and C all say X, on the other hand, we can say only that they say it, not that X is the consensus position.  RJC  TalkContribs 01:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is correct, assuming also that there is good reason to regard Dr A as authority on the topic and that there is no evidence of unacceptable bias (eg where Dr A is a member of CAMRA and is used for a source that "most experts" prefer real ale). --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So(and as an example) if an otherwise reliable sources had a clear bias about a political position then we wouldc not claim there is consensus for that view, as the source is biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it may vary case to case, but think the best solutions would normally be to not use it or to attribute and highlight the potenital bias inline ("...According to Dr A, an advocate for CAMRA, most experts prefer real ale..."). --FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not in the business of discounting otherwise reliable sources because we think they are "biased," the above disasters of a discussion notwithstanding. Unless reliable sources contradict the claim of consensus, we don't question it.  In order for there to be a clear bias about a political position, by definition there is not consensus on it and that dissent can be shown.   RJC  TalkContribs 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No that clearly isn't right. An unattributed statement by Colonel Sanders that everyone loves Kentucky Fried Chicken would very obviously not be okay, even if no material contradicting it can be found. Consider WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And had Colonel Sanders said this in a venue that would otherwise give it the status of a reliable source, such as the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Fast Food Preferences, and there was no material contradicting it? Yes, then the policy would support that statement (even WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which governs what we say, not what our sources say).  Your example seems to reduce my position to the absurd only because it is not actually analogous to the case I put forward.  Most notably, there is evidence that not everyone loves KFC.  And we are looking at statements regarding scholarly consensus, which implies that they are speaking about some sort of scholarly conclusion rather than preferences.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can trust a scholar's assessment of the state of their own field, especially when they make that assessment (even offhand) in a peer-reviewed journal within their field.   RJC  TalkContribs 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's totally analogous to any case I can think of (note: you haven't actually talked about another case, so it is hard to see on what basis you think my scenario is analogous or not analogous - analogous to what?). If Sanders submitted to the NEJFFP, they would probably be inclined to accept his submission. And, if he wrote "everyone loves greasy chicken", this would become a potential cite for WP. But, notwithstanding the academic source, "Greasy chicken is loved by everyone" would not become a suitable statement for inclusion in an article (although According to Colonel Sanders, the founder of KFC, greasy chicken is something that "everyone loves" may be okay). It's not a question of what other information is out there. Even if it is the only extant statement on the matter, Sanders' potential bias needs bringing to the attention of the reader.
 * I'm not sure what your point about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is. It governs the way we treat and represent sources. --FormerIP (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An example would be that almost all of the Epistles of Plato have defenders as to their authenticity except the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Twelfth; and that Bury accepts only the Seventh and Eighth as genuine, while Post says that they all are (except for those four). We can use Bury as evidence for the consensus that those four are spurious, even though he has an opinion on the matter.
 * I'm not sure what you mean that the NEJFFP would accept a Sanders submission, but if you are calling their standards of peer review into question, that means that it is not a reliable source. In order to be analogous to what I am arguing, the statement must appear in a reliable source.
 * Moreover, only biased opinions fall under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, when the case at hand by definition is one where the statement cannot be said to be biased (because there is no evidence for a dissenting point of view as to the existence of the scholarly consensus) and we are not dealing with bare opinions like "J.D. is the best b-baller ever" but conclusions. The various components of NPOV come into play only where there are competing POVs; where there is not, we can say, e.g., that the Sun is on average 1.496×108 km away without saying who said it.  And when we say that it was once believed that the Sun was rather close, only a little farther away than the moon, we can add to this that scientists now agree that its average distance is 1.496×108 km without naming everyone who believes this.
 * What you seem to be suggesting is that the content of a source should affect its reliability. This would require that editors be competent judges of content.  We are not, which is why everything must be verified by sources whose reliability is defined independently of their content.  The existence of bias comes from the existence of contradictory reliable sources, not from our judgment that a statement is biased.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we share an understanding of "bias" means, RJC. The fact that contradicting RSs exist does not, in particular, make a writer biased. Nor does the fact that contradicting sources cannot be found make a writer non-biased. Bias exists where there is evidence to suggest that the writer has some interest which may lead reasonable people to question his or her reliability. This may be the case, for example, where a politics professor is cited for a claim about consensus regarding a candidate in the US presidential election and the same politics professor is know to be working for the campaign team of an opposing candidate. Or where a clinician has developed a new technique and is cited in support of a consensus that the technique is effective. This type of information should be disclosed to the reader, and in some cases it may be better not to use the cite at all. --FormerIP (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the example of the political science professor is apt, since it is about scholarly consensus. Again, if there is no evidence that the claim about consensus is wrong, there is no reason not to accept that there is consensus on the matter, no matter what you think about the person.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think you are misunderstanding what "bias" is, RJC. Evidence that the claim is wrong is nothing to do with bias. If no such evidence exists, this does not remove the issue of bias and, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "a biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth". --FormerIP (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is whether there is evidence that a claim is contested, not whether it is wrong. If the claim is uncontested it is senseless to speak of someone as biased.  In any case, we've veered far off topic, since we are not discussing a change to the current wording or clarifying a question that someone has asked.   RJC  TalkContribs 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the question at all. You really ought to have a good hard think about what is meant by the word "bias". If I hold a position that other people disagree with, that in itself does not make me biased. If I hold a position that no-one else sees fit to comment on, that in itself does not make me non-biased.
 * Your logic would seem to mean that someone who works for the Democrats could in principle be a valid source for the unattributed claim: "There is scholarly consensus that Republican tax plans would cause a depression".
 * Am I right in thinking that an argument you are making on some talkpage somewhere rests on the same faulty reasoning? --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I don't continue this anymore.  RJC  TalkContribs 00:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might be usefull if we were to know on what poages this question has croped up so as to determine context of the question? On the democrat question, there will be desenting views, but if there are not its fair to say that no one disagrees with it so yes there would be consensus that its true (as long as the source was a noted expert in their field, and they were not anonymous). So lets try one. For example on the British National Party in the lead it says they “is a far-right political party”. The sources for this are all persons and organisations that have sopecifcaly and directly stated opposition to the BNP. So despite the fact this is a widely held view(and its inclusion in the article is justified using the scholerly conesnsus argument) would we have to in fact say “opponents of the BNP have called them far-right” instead to refect the potential bias of the accademic consensus? I think this is the sort of thing they are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)