Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 55

"Reliable Sources" are given too much power through Wikipedia Policy
Here is the discussion that brought me to this talk page. The point I'm trying to make is, sites on the list of reliable sources don't always put out accurate information. More importantly, they may inject their opinions into the information they put out. However, from what I've been told, according to Wikipedia policy, anything that these sources say can be posted on Wikipedia as reliable information, regardless of how incorrect it may be (see the link I provided for an example of "reliable sources" spreading misinformation.) This is clearly a flaw in policy, as Wikipedia's mission is to provide fact-based information. I propose a change. Change the policy, so that only verifiable facts can be pulled from RS, and opinions/beliefs must be clearly indicated (i.e. instead of reading, "The sun is green" it would read, "Mainstream news sources claim that the sun is green") 104.148.178.88 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't understand Wikipedia. The only way this place is able to function at all is by putting authority in reliable sources rather than in what anonymous editors think.  See also WP:Verifiability not truth.  But yes, sources must be accurately summarized, and if something is opinion it can be only used for good reason, and with attribution.  This guideline discusses that as do the various policies - see WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.  Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with above. It looks like your real dispute is with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Too bad. Those are non-negotiable core policies of the Wikipedia project.  Editors who fail to conform their edits to those policies don't remain editors for long.  Reliable sources have more formal publication processes --- that's how they're distinguished from unreliable ones --- and as a result, they are often slow to correct themselves, even when they publish clearly incorrect information.
 * For example, I was irritated to realize after the fact that an article I had cited to had incorrectly stated that the balcony scenes at the operations center in the Westworld TV series were filmed at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. (Other scenes in the operations center were filmed there, but not the balcony scenes.) Unfortunately, that was the only article available at the time that discussed where those particular scenes were filmed.  And the fan Web sites that posted the correct information could not be cited under WP:RS.  A few months later, I discovered an article published by the magazine of the local cinematographers' union that correctly indicated that the balcony scenes were filmed at the Skirball Cultural Center. At that time, I was able to add a citation to that article and thereby correct the Westworld article.
 * That lag behind reality that results from Wikipedia core policies can be intensely frustrating at times, but the test of time has shown that it is the only way to keep a user-edited encyclopedia from being overrun by pure fiction and misinformation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right in the sense that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Wikipedia's editing policy. But I can tell you, I've used Wikipedia as a source of information for many years, and I never thought I'd see one-sided opinions presented as reliable information. Wikipedia was always a neutral point-of-view, but recently I've seen a shift toward opinion-based writing, and editors are using these "reliable sources" as a way to justify the spread of misinformation. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coolcaesar; those are good things to know. Of course I figured the policy had a good meaning behind it, but I wanted to at least address the flaws I've been noticing. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with what you're saying is that it's wrong: Wikipedia doesn't treat all generally reliable sources as if they are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Ideally, we will take multiple reliable sources which covered the same subject from the same perspective (by 'perspective', I mean for example: articles which endeavor to lay out all the facts and claims about Pizzagate; articles which endeavor to show the impact Pizzagate has had on the public or articles which endeavor to show the impact Pizzagate has had on the people involved) and only state as fact claims which they have all made, or at best, claims which the majority have made and the remainder not disagreed with. In the case of Pizzagate, all reliable sources written about it from the perspective of addressing the truthfulness of the accusations has concluded that they are untrue and have been debunked, so we report them as untrue and having been debunked.
 * In many situations, we take into account things like the political positions of the source, the date and time of the creation of the source, the level of investigative work put into the source, etc. Even with peer-reviewed scientific papers, we look at things like sample size, authorship, publication details, experiment structure, controls and many other aspects. We use what we can discern of those things to inform our judgement as to what parts of the source are reliable for what claims, and in what ways. There are a large number of academic papers published showing that, for example, acupuncture is 100% effective in treating every condition it was tested for, in 100% of patients, with an incredible difference from placebo in terms of effect size. But we don't report this as fact, even though "peer-reviewed, published scientific papers" are a group of sources we consider generally reliable. Why? Because these studies stem from locations in which bad science runs rampant. Because these studies are poorly structured, with small sample sizes. Because these structures disagree with more well-structured studies showing no difference between acupuncture and placebo.
 * We do not ever (well, I'm sure some editors do, but they shouldn't) declare a specific source, such as NPR to be reliable and then take everything they say as the gospel truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is ideal, but I have seen several cases of the exact opposite, particularly with anything in the current left-right political bickering. I've seen several cases of BLP/N posts where because a predominate number of RSes have opted to label a right-leaning person as "white supremacist" despite the person having declared otherwise or other contrary statements from others, that that leads editors to have WP say, factually, the person is a white supremacist. Editors frequency use RS policy as well ad WEIGHT and UNDUE to eliminate discussion of contrary viewpoints that may not be covered in RSes, or more often in cases its reasonable easy to see that the RSes are engaging in opinionated journalism and not objectively covering all reasonable viewpoints. If we were doing this right, we'd be able to have discussions that compare what RSes are saying to the situation at large, and figure out how to write about what the RSes say to stay within WP:V but without allowed the weight of their opinion to take over and violate NPOV (eg, the concepts of what is in WP:YESPOV). But editors frequently love to shut out that type of discussion, and go "if it is in RSes, it must be fact; if RSes don't mention it, it can't be true". This closed-mindedness leads to echo chamber formation and walled gardens for some of our articles. I know we can't go "but the truth is..." with unreliable sources, but we can at least avoid excessive coverage of a seemingly uncontested opinion and tempering statements from RSes that seem contentious as attributed claims rather than stating them as facts in WP's voice. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen several cases of BLP/N posts where because a predominate number of RSes have opted to label a right-leaning person as "white supremacist" despite the person having declared otherwise "White supremacist" is a label that can be quite contentious. In common parlance, it is even often used as an insult. This example actually evinces my point: Normally, a person would be the absolute best, most reliable source for what their views are. But when there is strong evidence that they misrepresent what their views are when questioned about them, we go with the views that have the best evidence. The fact that a person can simultaneously understand that "white supremacist" is a bad thing, yet still hold white supremacists views might seem ridiculous until you consider that all people understand that "self-centered and arrogant" is a bad thing, yet many people have self-centered and arrogant views. Such people who deny their white supremacist views don't think of themselves as white supremacist, they generally think of themselves (and often refer to themselves) as 'race realists'. Of course, the problem is that the 'evidence' they cite to support their 'realist' views is generally false and strongly biased towards white people (a nebulous enough term as it is) being superior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that a person can deny they are a white supremacist, and at the same time the bulk of RS sources call them a white supremacist due to actions. That's completely acceptable and identifies a controversy. The problem that I've seen at BLP/N is that editors argue that because the bulk of RS sources call that person a white supremacist and none reflect on the counterclaims, then (by this argument) there is no controversy and we should call that person factually in WP's voice as one. That should not be happening if we are being neutral if we're simply trying to document a situation. We can fairly acknowledge a predominate number of sources call that person a supremacist as a attributed claim, per WP:YESPOV, and should include where the person has countered that label also as an attributed claim. This is part of documenting the controversy, which requires more care when the media itself engages in the controversy. (This would not be an issue for a truly objective media but that doesn't exist anymore). This is the types of problems that currently exist across the board because editors want to shut down discussion to anything that is not contained within RSes.  --M ASEM  (t) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To address more of the OP: I would suggest that the trend you have been seeing is not an artifact of Wikipedia changing it's methods, but of the public POV shifting towards one in which political polarization is broader and more common. Many of the things you see as opinion are not, actually opinions. One example of this is 'pseudoscience'. Numerous editors have opined that referring to something as pseudoscience is an opinion, and as such should be struck from WP. But 'pseudoscience' has a very clear definition. If a subject 1) pretends to be science, and 2) doesn't actually use the scientific method, then it's pseudoscience. Intelligent design is the ur-example of pseudoscience, because it takes creationism (a theological belief) and wraps it in the language and pretenses of science. It's not actually scientific (the fundamental postulate is unfalsifiable), but it clearly pretends to be.
 * Another thing worth pointing out is that WP itself IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. WP makes no claims about being reliable, and should not be used as a reference in any professional capacity. WP is intended as a compendium of human knowledge that can provide a quick look into any subject, and give you a place to begin learning about it. It's not intended to be the definitive arbitrator of facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia doesn't treat all generally reliable sources as if they are 100% accurate" From what I've gathered, even incorrect information from RS can be posted to Wikipedia as reliable information. My point is, that policy could only work if reliable sources were 100% accurate, which of course, they are not. I'm not saying you, or other editors, take everything from RS as fact. I'm saying Wikipedia policy is based around that idea. Which is undeniably true. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just explained how WP works with respect to that. We don't treat all generally reliable sources as if they were 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Nor does our policy permit it (I would like to point out that WP:IAR is a policy page, not a guideline). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your intelligent design example is irrelevant. I've seen clear-cut opinions that can be easily debunked posted on Wikipedia. You would be a liar to say that these opinions are not "actually opinions" 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you say, but you provide no examples so.... Who's the liar, again? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've just explained that according to WP policy, incorrect information from RS can be posted. Therefore, the policy will only work to provide correct information if the sources are correct 100% of the time. Of course WP policy doesn't openly state that everything taken from RS is taken as 100% accurate, but it's implied through the policy. Do you understand?
 * There is an example at the top of my original post. To claim that Infowars is fake news is an opinion, no matter how you define fake news. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have "explained" nothing that I haven't specifically addressed. You claim that incorrect information from reliable sources can be free posted in the face my explanation that we do all we can to avoid this. Can it happen? Yes. But unreliable information can be posted from unreliable sources. Articles can have their entire contents replaced with "my lil brudda luvs big black dick". Just because something can happen doesn't mean that WP is okay with it happened. This is the reason we have editors, rather than simply having bots that aggregate RSes; for our editors to actually use their best judgement to weed out unreliable sources and inaccurate claims from reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean, but correct me if I'm wrong. The whole point of having a list of approved sources is so that Anonymous editors don't have the power to decide what is reliable and what isn't. But that power is exactly what they are given when they are allowed to decide which information from the sources is reliable or not. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no list of approved sources, and sources which are generally considered reliable can be rejected for certain usages. The basis for all of this is community consensus: if the majority of editors agree that a source is reliable for a claim, we will treat it as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That completely defeats the purpose of having sources at all, if Anonymous editors can simply decide which sources are reliable. The policy is clearly flawed if I'm seeing inaccurate information on Wikipedia pages. 104.148.178.88 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, we are not the Encyclopedia Britannica. We are Wikipedia, and we have staked our mission on the hypothesis that a large number of dedicated editors working together can prove to be just as accurate as a handful of paid experts being consulted by an encyclopedia staff. Also, we only have your own assertion that you have found inaccurate information. I could just as easily suggest that you have found accurate information which you are ideologically opposed to accepting as true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See my post below, "The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. The editor made the claim that Infowars is fake news, and it's their burden to prove such a claim. They have not provided sufficient evidence that Infowars is fake news." 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. When you disagree with reliable sources it absolutely does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that wp:ver & wp:RS overemphasize some reliable source metrics, and are missing others such as: As a result, actually-reliable sources are often excluded, and sources that are un-reliable with respect to the topic at hand often considered "reliable sources"  North8000  (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * competence / expertise with respect to the topic / statement that cited them
 * objectivity with respect to the topic / statement that cited them
 * WP:RS actually addresses both of these things explicitly. I'm not sure why you think we're missing those criteria. WP:SELFPUB explicitly states that acknowledged experts writing on a subject can be cited, regardless of how they're published. The issue of neutrality is addressed in WP:WPNOTRS, where secondary sources are defined as having characteristics of neutrality. WP:SECONDARY addresses this further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO it is still very weak on the two points I listed. For example, the section on biased sources at first blush seems to say the opposite. It makes a valid point that biased sources can contain useful or reliable material, but in making only that point, it seems to say the opposite of "objectivity with respect to the topic / statement that cited them"  North8000  (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO it is still very weak on the two points I listed. I think I agree with that much, however you missed my point about the bias: one of the major reasons we require secondary sources is to avoid bias. We don't let the subjects of BLPs edit their own articles (as a rule), for example. That being said, I can agree that we should spend more time comparing the expertise of different, nominally reliable sources, and taking the POV of sources into account when determining their reliability for a specific claim. For example, I find the Huffington Post to be generally reliable for political news, but I would read anything they said about right-wing politicians very closely and double check some claims before using them to support a claim about a right-wing politician. Other editors don't seem nearly as inclined to do so, though I wish there were a policy I could point to that says something like "Sources with a widely-recognized POV should be given less weight in discussions about their reliability for claims which fall under the purview of their POV than sources with no widely-recognized POV or sources whose widely-recognized POV does not encompass the claims in question." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that a part of the solution is structural.....i.e. "with respect to the item which is citing it".  I think that this concept is generally included in your post, but I think that a good answer is at a more specific level...objectivity and competence on the exact statement which is citing it. For example, a biased source meeting the most prominent wp:rs criteria may have accurate, objective  researched information on John Smith in one paragraph (and be a good rs for an article statement on that) and then in the next sentence say "John Smith is a XYZ" where "XYZ" is a negative very subjective term. My "more specific" idea would be that the source is not reliable as a reference for a "John Smith is a XYZ" statement in a WP article. North8000  (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is obviously breaking some local speed limit in how fast it's going no where, and it may be best to start winding things down before someone gets a ticket. The chances of us changing RS guidelines to be more fair to Pizzagate or Infowars is somewhere between zero and no. I don't think anyone is going to try to assert that even the most reliable sources don't occasionally make mistakes. That is what being reliable means: you have demonstrated a systemic reputation for making comparatively little mistakes...not none at all.
 * If someone thinks we're being unfair to their pet theory or pet "news" outlet, too bad. We're not overhauling the project to keep a few precious snowflakes from melting. If they don't like it, Conservapedia is that way, and I'm sure they'll be more even handed with whole thing than the stuck-up godless liberals around these parts.  Timothy Joseph Wood  16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't even watch Infowars. But as I've stated, I expect a neutral point-of-view when I come to Wikipedia. That is my only problem with the policy. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are people here having a good faith discussion for the good of Wikipedia who should not be receiving the accusations that Timothyjosephwood is making.  North8000  (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there's nothing stopping you and I (who seem to be having a reasonable discussion) from continuing in a new thread. The issue seems to be that the IP editor has what appears to be a very clear mistrust of mainstream media, and whose views align with those who tend to think Infowars is reliable (fake or not; it's completely unreliable) and that Pizzagate is true. Whether that is the case or whether it seems to be the case, the arguments being presented have been addressed reasonably, but those responses have -for the most part- been rejected in favor of repeating the initial claims. That's a hallmark of a discussion that's not going anywhere. Note: The text in red was added after I saw that the initial statement I made was inaccurate. I believe the red text makes it accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate those accusations. For the record, I don't think that Pizzagate is true, and I do trust mainstream media, but when the MSM makes an opinion, I don't believe it should be posted on Wikipedia as reliable information. Please try to portray my views in a fairer light. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry bud, but this is a fairly transparent attempt to conflate as "mainstream news" with "reliable source," and the entire conversation could be summarized as: go and actually read our policy on WP:RS, before you start a conversation trying to change it, because literally every point that has been brought up is already addressed in the policy. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the example I provided, you'll see that the only "reliable sources" provided are mainstream news sites, and the information provided was inaccurate. The policy is flawed. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only evidence we have that the information is incorrect is your assertion. I might remind you that you, yourself have just criticized the ability of anonymous editors to accurately reflect reality. I would suggest that you should stop forgetting that you are one of these anonymous editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. The editor made the claim that Infowars is fake news, and it's their burden to prove such a claim. They have not provided sufficient evidence that Infowars is fake news. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the only "reliable sources" provided are mainstream news sites ...and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a bug; it's a feature. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're okay with misinformation being posted on Wikipedia, as long as it comes from the MSM? Good to know. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is grounded in the real world; if you live in a world where infowars is real news and the NYT is fake news, Wikipedia is not the place for you. This thread will be closed soon. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never made such claims. Please do not portray my arguments dishonestly. In the real world, news stations have their own opinions that don't belong on an objective encyclopedia. If you believe that it's okay for Wikipedia to have misinformation and one-sided claims, then we simply have different ideas for what Wikipedia is supposed to be. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While "mainstream" may be an epithet in the types of circles that follow Infowars, for the rest of the world it's actually a good thing, as it is within Wikipedia, and in fact, relying on mainstream publications is mentioned thrice in WP:RS for exactly this reason. For most of the world, when an outlet like Infowars makes a habit of publishing patent nonsense, and large established mainstream outlets with longstanding reputations for fact checking and editorial oversight, make it a point to cover said nonsense, and emphasize that Infowars has no such editorial reputation, and may be depended on to publish knowing falsehoods and fake news with impunity, we cover that fact in the same manner as we cover everything else.

And yes, this should be closed, because it is a complete waste of time, in case I haven't made my opinion on that matter abundantly clear already. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You still have not responded to my counter-argument, are you saying that I'm right? As I've stated, a reputation for accuracy does not guarantee accuracy, and we can see this when Infowars is labelled as fake news on a Wikipedia page. It's a claim with no support. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks fairly well like your concerns have all been addressed already. That you fail to listen or comprehend does not constitute an obligation on anyone else's part to continue making the same points in response to the same objections. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your counter-argument was addressed by me, explicitly and in detail in my very first comment in this thread. It's time for you to accept that this particular equine mode of transportation has been sufficiently physically chastised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have failed to explain why it's okay to spread misinformation on Wikipedia, using WPRS as justification. If you can't address that simple point, it's clear you are just avoiding the discussion because you don't have a response. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing guarantees accuracy. We know this. Unfortunately, the option of not using a "reputation" would be to have us here at wikipedia basically have to do an article-by-article RS review of every publication out there, including the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, etc etc etc. We don't have the time, people, or I think inclination for that. And we have found more than some cases when sources which generally meet RS do not in specific instances. What seems to me to be the bulk of the contention here, however, is not about those sources which meet RS in general, but those which don't or which might have WEIGHT problems in some articles, particularly in comparison to some sources which do generally more clearly meet RS standards. That situation, honestly, can arise a lot. The best thing I think we can hope for there is something like WP:EVENTUALISM, which is to say, eventually we will have some highly regarded reference work which in some way deals with these topics, and then we will have a clear precedent of exactly how to deal with it. And, yes, it may well be that at that time, or maybe even before it, certain individual sources will be found to be reliable or unreliable which today are considered otherwise. Until then, though, we can probably come closest to meeting the first of our five pillars as per WP:PILLAR by basically using the sources we think are either directly or indirectly used by other encyclopedia-type reference works or which, in general, say things similar to them. That's still a long way from being perfect, but no one ever said any encyclopedia was perfect either. Having said that, if you have clear evidence of specific misinformation being spread, and exactly why it is misinformation, I think most people would be willing to address that directly. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No one thinks that any source is 100% reliable. No one denies that WP:IAR can be selectively used for the good of the project. So, are there any suggestions for the improvement of this guideline? Else I don't see the point of having reopened this discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then don't participate in it. Go find a discussion you think is worthwhile. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I presently don't have time to document what I've come to find, but core to improving this is understanding that there are RSes that are fine for including facts to meet WP:V, there are a broader set of RSes that are fine for including opinions to meet NPOV but not V, and there's the whole set of sources that are necessary to understand a controversial topic before we should be engaging in what viewpoints to present per NPOV/UNDUE, particularly if it is an ongoing topic that lacks years of understanding of what is actually going on. In otherwords, RS presently right now can be used to block discussions of how to properly document a controversy if one requires that only information from V-meeting RSes be allowed to be discussed. --M ASEM (t) 01:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant summary.  North8000  (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that doing a logical cleanup and adding clarity to the "context matters" and "biased or opinionated sources" sections would do a lot of good. If they said with clarity and precision that it is knowlegability and objectivity with respect to the precise statement which is citing it. that would do a lot of good.   For example, let's say the major respected "XYZ" newspaper with political leanings hates John Smith. If John Smith got busted for streaking on 3/31/98, they would be an objective and reliable source for a statement that such happened. If based on that they said John Smith is a pervert, they would not be objective or knowledgeable for making such an assessment, and would not be an RS for the statement "John Smith is a pervert". Sidebar: If the WP editor said "several major newspapers said that John Smith is a pervert" and cited the statements by XYZ and a few others, they are not even a source for that O/R / synthesis statement much less a RS.    North8000  (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "John Smith is a pervert" is a statement that cannot possibly be reliably sourced enough to put into wikivoice, because the definition of "pervert" is entirely subjective. To my conservative aunt, having sex in anything less than pitch black is perverted. To my neighbor, any sex which is enjoyable is perverted, and that's a good thing. To one of my ex girlfriends, an act would require feces and/or animal involvement to qualify as perverted. To my ultra-hippie friend, there's no such thing as perverted. All of them are right as far as this goes. So I'm unsure of what you're getting at; nothing you said is not covered by existing policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * John Smith is a pervert: opinion, to be attributed but not asserted in Wiki voice. John Smith is a paedophile may well be acceptable of course, if there is a judicial finding of fact. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I said, though I described the "Why" of it rather than just the "What" and I left out the bit about the pedophile. But I agree with that. I would even go so far as to say that we could call him a pedophile if the preponderance of reliable sources do, with no reliable sources refuting it. (It's possible, for example, that he was acquitted on a technicality.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should not be doing that, at least in Wiki-voice. There is no harm with the qualification "Most sources consider X is a " rather than "X is a " to keep us neutral and clinically disinterested in tone. We definitely shouldn't be using the "fact in Wikivoice" if we know others (perhaps the person themselves) has said otherwise. This is a core issue, that editors see only what is in RS and take that as absolute fact, when NPOV and BLP instead tell us to use caution and report with attribution instead. --M ASEM (t) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's no reasonable doubt about a statement of fact, then saying we can't put it into wikivoice is pure politics. To be clear, I was describing a situation in which there's no reasonable doubt that John Smith is attracted to children and has at least once acted on that. If there's any reasonable doubt, then I agree. But I don't think "Has John Smith ever been convicted in a court of law?" should be the deciding factor, and I don't think "Does every source explicitly state that John Smith is a pedophile?" should, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "no reasonable doubt" is a fair test, as it does imply that common sense must also come into the decision, in both directions, but this guideline is used to eliminate common sense arguments: if it doesn't exist in RSes, then it doesn't exist for consideration the way I've seen editors use this guideline. And even if there are counter-views, including self-identification if we are talking labels, those views are often labeled as fringe and not worth including. All that goes against "documenting the controversy" neutrality and tone that we should be aiming for. --M ASEM (t)
 * There seems to be this pervasive view with thoughtful people that the truth of any controversy lies in the middle. In the vast majority of cases, that's true. But "the middle" encompasses everything except the two extremes. In a debate between position 1 and position 100, the truth might be 50, but it might very well be 99.
 * There seems to be another pervasive view among thoughtful people that one person can't possibly know the truth of a complex controversy. In many cases, that's true. But in many more cases, there are well-verified facts that can clearly establish a lot of the pivotal details of a controversy. In the same hypothetical debate I mentioned above, claims X Y and Z by position 1 can be fact checked and found false. In most cases, the logic of position 1 requires that at least one of those three claims be true, else it falls apart. The fact that claim C from position 100 was also shown to be false doesn't change the fact that the truth is still 99. It's just the reason the truth is not 100.
 * There seems to be one final pervasive view among thoughtful editors here that WP cannot take sides. Well, when position 100 is almost entirely right and position 1 is entirely factually wrong, does this even make sense? Should we write our article in a way to document the controversy, and leave details to the articles about those details? Because doing things that way actively misinforms the reader. It paints the picture of a controversy where both sides were reasonable, and it just so happened that one side turned out to be right once the evidence was in. But the reality was that position 1 was completely unreasonable, disguising their true motivations and willfully deceiving the public. All of those sorts of statements are the sort to cause any editor who personally subscribes to position 1 to give serious though to crying BLP when they show up, regardless of the fact that there's no reasonable doubt that they're true.
 * Taking this to a more descriptive hypothetical, take congressman Jane Doe. Jane Doe ran for office as an independent, and claims to be bipartisan. She furiously rejects claims of being right-wing, citing her lack of objections to Obergefell v. Hodges and her record of voting with Democrats on a number of bills. It seems pretty controversial to claim that she's right-wing. But critics point to her frequent tweets denouncing the hypothetical implementation of Sharia law in the US, her speeches which have been peppered with references to out-of-control government spending and overbearing regulations, and the fact that she voted for bills intended to block anti-discrimination laws from applying to homosexuals and transgendered people. Critics point to her identification as a fundamentalist Christian and her support of the "Teach the controversy" position during the Bush administration with respect to Creationism. Critics point to her regular guest appearances on radio shows hosted by Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh, and the fawning treatment she gets from Fox News, Breitbart News and Infowars. But she brushes all these things off as either the result of her "careful deliberation of these sensitive issues" or as guilt-by-association arguments.
 * So should we document that controversy? It's certainly controversial, as there are no shortage of "Doe for Congress" supporters out there willing to evangelize about how progressive she is, contrary to the "lies" being perpetrated by the "lamestream media". I'm of the opinion that WP should say "Jane Doe is right-wing and likes to lie about it" because that's the verifiable truth. I do not want to be a part of an encyclopedia that says "Jane Doe's political position is a matter of debate" because that's straight up bullshit. That's the kind of thing Conservapedia would do. Not us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a different way of saying "Jane Doe is right-wing and likes to lie about it" without falling too much into ambiguity (the "matter of debate") but still avoiding a factual tone, and that would be, "While Jane Doe argues she is bipartisan, numerous commentators including X, Y, and Z, describe her voting record and state position on issues are firmly conservative." In that one sentence, it covers both sides, it reflects the WEIGHT aspect (establishing that with the popular opinion, the debate is over and she's that way), and keeps anything factual about what her actual position is out of WP's voice, without endorsing once side or the other. I would expect that that sentence would be followed up with more justifying details, but for a simple example, that's how we deal with this type of situation. I agree we don't want to go towards "nothing is true, everything is doubt" and need firm clear statements, but these can still be made without putting one side of a controversy in WP's voice as if it were true.
 * There is another factor here, which is the time aspect. If the same situation with Jane Doe, but that was a half-century ago, and she's long since passed one, that's different, and the wording can be more affirmed to what sources have likely said since that time, the hindsight to know when an issue is fixed and no longer going to change. "Jane Doe was broadly considered as a conservative, despite her insistence she was bipartisan." We can adopt a more factual tone here, though still note the issue. If Jane Doe is still an active politican, however, that approach is definitely not appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 22:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a different way of saying... And that way falls afoul of the "avoid stating facts as opinions" part of WP:YESPOV, even though you're not wrong about it being the preferred way (I told you I had my complaints about policy ;) ). You're taking two facts* ("Jane Doe lies about being bipartisan" and "Jane Doe is right-wing") and stating them both as the opinions of commenters. That's not accurate when the honest editors here as well as all the neutral and critical RSes are in agreement. It's as well-established a claim as can possibly be made about a person, and yet if we took your tact, we'd be pawning it off as "a lot of people think she's right-wing but she say's she's not." We're not establishing the fact that the critics who call her right-wing are objectively correct, and we're not establishing the (unavoidable*) fact that Jane Doe knows this, but denies it anyways. Note that you yourself said that your method is "...avoiding a factual tone..." even though we're discussing facts. That's politics (in the broader sense of the word) right there, instead of dedication to providing accurate, verifiable information.
 * * I'm presuming that there are not a preponderance of reliable sources stating that she deliberately lies about her political views, and that we have absolutely no reason to believe that she doesn't understand the meaning of "right-wing". If the first presumption were wrong, we wouldn't change anything but my views on this make that presumption a desirable part of my hypothetical for reasons I'll get into later. If the second presumption were wrong, I would concede that "She lies about her political views" is not a statement of fact, but rather an opinion which is highly likely to be true, and thus doesn't belong in wikivoice.
 * There is another factor here, which is the time aspect. I understand the BLP concerns, and while I'm not saying we should get rid of them entirely, I am saying that a situation like this hypothetical is one in which the sourcing is sufficient to make statements about her political stance in wikivoice. I just want an encyclopedia that serves the primary purpose of an encyclopedia (informing the reader). When we equivocate over stating known facts in wikivoice, we're undermining that purpose for the purpose of being perceived as apolitical, even though the goal of being apolitical in this situation would be actually served by stating the facts as facts.
 * For the record, this isn't a political view of mine. For example, I'm 100% on board with WP stating in wikivoice that Bill Clinton lied his ass off during those depositions in the 90's, that the Huffington Post is a crap rag, that Bernie Sanders has no idea what it's like to make a living outside of politics and that notion that banning large capacity magazines will significantly reduce gun violence is about as valid as a Narnian passport. Maybe not in those exact words, but unequivocally nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both statements "Jane Doe lies about being bipartisan" and "Jane Doe is right-wing" are things that cannot be 100% proven true as we have no way of affirming the intentions of an individual, and there's no type of test or authority to demonstrate that otherwise, and in both cases, some of relies on demonstrating the absence of something, which is impossible. We can only go by what actions and statements they make to judge if these are likely true statements or not; even self-identification statements cannot be considered the truth. So we can't consider either of these as "facts". What other sources think of these statements is important, but we cannot treat their assessment as factual. Yes, the hypothetical situation, there is almost no way that Jane Doe can be seen as bipartisan, but that's not 100% assured and there still remains a possibility she is bipartisan in a manner she has not demonstrated. Especially when dealing with a BLP, we need to take a lot more care with wording things.
 * But the other aspect here which is hinted by your hypothetical is what do other sources outside what we normally consider RS opine about Jane Doe? A core problem with this guideline is that it does not readily consider that we allow for the use of sources that are not reliable for facts like Brietbart but that would still be reliable for their opinions if they are in an appropriate authority for that topic. In the hypothetical, what if we have the likes of Brietbart calling her a bipartisan politician, and they regularly repeat her self-statements about being such and/or denies she lies about being right-right? In the harsh interpretation of this current policy, those sources don't exist or cannot be considered, and thus the view we get is skewed to one side and being stated as fact. But realistically we need to consider these other sources, recognizing they are probably in the minority (and likely viewed in a similar manner by the other normal RSes as Doe is), but that they are a proper opinion to consider here.
 * Basically, here, the situation becomes so complex that it is far better to fall back to just documenting the controversy, specifically the claims made, rather than trying to declare one side the "right" one, since it will be impossible to prove, and it keeps our tone clinically neutral.
 * Also, and this is a much longer discussion on how we got here (which I've got written out but haven't included yet), but compared to when these guidelines were made, there are far fewer "neutral", or more properly "objective" sources to evaluate these types of statements. The media has drastically shifted over the last 5-some years, moreso in the last election cycle, in a manner that has dropped the pretense of objective reporting for subjective and opinionated reporting to try to draw readership and influence readers. There still are a few bastions of mostly objective RSes like the NYTimes and BBC but they are few and far between. These guidelines work great and smoothly if one presumes all RSes are reasonably objective even if they have bias, but fails hard if the sources are not objective and do not make clear distinction of subjective statements such as labels. Add that the media, on average, leans left, and you've got an implicit systematic bias that is difficult to diffuse in controversial topics with this current guideline. This is yet another reason to play caution in write about such controversial statements if they extend into the political/ideological spectrum, and consider the holistic picture. It does't harm the encyclopedia and it avoids arguments like what starting this entire thread. --M ASEM (t) 00:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For example, let's say the major respected "XYZ" newspaper with political leanings hates John Smith. How do we know that XYZ hates John Smith? Surely not because they have more negative than positive coverage of Smith; it's just as likely that Smith merits more negative coverage. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that better than a logical dissection would be to answer what I think is the spirit of your question and it's premise. "Does North's idea require deciding on whether or not the XYZ newspaper hates John Smith, and if so, how would that decision be made?" I think that my literal answer would be "no" on the 1st question, making the second one moot. But in practice, editor's thoughts on that aspect can enter into the discussion on whether the source is strong enough to support that particular statement. North8000  (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my book, the two utmost characteristics of a reliable source are (A) it checks its facts and (B) it corroborates its opinions with facts and falsifiable arguments. Under these criteria, regardless XYZ paper loves or hates Jane Doe, as long as its opinion satisfies A,B, it may be cited as reliable for a simple reason: the validity of their opinion is verifiable and not a simple badmouthing. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP's point is that WP should describe "infowars" as something other than the batshit crazy, bullshit and garbage spewing fountain of nonsense that it is. What the hell are you people debating here?   Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read I'm in Marsport Without Hilda (I mean the story itself, not the WP article about it :-). And then just let the free association flow. As soon as someone utters a specific suggestion on how to improve this policy, jump in. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not be calling a site like Infowars as "batshit crazy" in WP's voice. It doesn't matter if every RS in the world calls it as such, it still is a subjective label, as it all depends on perspective; this guideline would imply otherwise to take the close-minded that if that's the only opinion on a site given in RSes, it must be true (eg that we should ignore any perspective that is not contained within RSes). It doesn't mean we can't call it "batshit crazy", but we absolutely must attribute who is saying that so that WP's voice is not stating it as a fact. --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if every RS in the world calls it as such No...actually it does, and I'm impressed that you are arguing otherwise, because this is the standard by which all things said in WP's voice are said. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the catch-22 that this guideline has. WP:RS only limits what sources we can use to cite material in mainspace, but it does not (or more properly, should not) limit wording choices, tone, and other factors about how that information is presented, the basis of WP:YESPOV. The information from the non-RS sources may never ever get into mainspace, but it can guide us properly how to write in an dispassionate, clinically neutral tone that does not endorse only one side of a debate. --M ASEM (t) 00:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If every RS in the world says something, then the encyclopedia says the same. In this regard there is no nuance and there is no debate. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No we should not call Infowars "batshit crazy" in Wikipedia voice. Yes, we can call Infowars a questionable source of information, if "every RS in the world says so" while providing verifiable facts and falsifiable arguments to corroborate this judgement. If half of sources say they are unreliable, while other say yes they are, we must mention both opinions and mention how they corroborate them. Otherwise we are falling into the fallacy of appeal to authority. I vaguely remember an anecdote that in middle ages it was taught that spiders have 6 legs because Aristotle said so (or something like that). Just the same, just WP:RS say so does not mean we must take it in its face value. But I don't see how this is related to the improvement of this policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not call Infowars batshit crazy only because the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources doesn't do so also. If they did, then we probably should. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, y'all, avoid batshit stupid examples, so that we can have a focused argument. Of course we cannot write in wikipedia that "Infowars is batshit crazy". I suspect you meant the statement "Infowars is a fake news website", is that so? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No...exactly what I mean is that if we found ourselves in a situation where, and I'm just brainstorming here...
 * The most reputable news sources in the world were publishing stories about batshit crazy, and the effect that it has had on our society and our democracy,
 * Academic experts were publishing evaluations of which outlets were in fact batshit crazy and exploring the term in detail,
 * The likes of Google were taking steps to remove their ads from sites deemed batshit crazy, and the likes of Facebook were being pressured to consider batshit crazy filters,
 * And just for good measure, maybe even if we had the president of the US calling major news outlets batshit crazy on the floor of the White House,
 * Well, then yes, we probably should start using the term on Wikipedia, not a euphemism for it, or a descriptor of it, but the actual phrase, following the sources where they lead and using the terminology they use, not whitewashing or sugarcoating it in hopes to avoid offending people who happen to find the term objectionable. I'm not speaking figuratively; I'm being literal, and that it happens to parallel reality is exactly the point. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If all the above, then "yes". But "no" for the original sentence. The major difference between the "yes"-version and "no"-version is that the "yes"-version includes criteria which demonstrate that "batshit crazy" is a terminological descriptor of some new concept rather than simply batshitting. Or at least, if it is just an opinion, there are sources which corroborate this opinion, rather than simply badmouthing. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as someone utters a specific suggestion on how to improve this policy, jump in. Add the following to the WP:RS page in a prominent spot:
 * Remember when discussing specific applications of this policy that Ignore All Rules is a policy page as well. Arguments that the specific wording -or even intent- of this policy prevent the addition of factual, verifiable information can and should be ignored.
 * ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  23:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't see how IAR is an argument here. Also I fail to see why it is necessary to say that this policy does not cover something without saying which policy covers it. We have other guidelines which say that not everything factual and verifiable belongs to wikipedia. Otherwise each Pizza Hut outlet and your niece's dog would have had an article or at least a paragraph. Of course, maybe I missed the arguments in the wall of text above; sorry tl;dr. Please summarize them, for the purpose of the discussion of a specific proposal. Otherwise I have to oppose as instruction creep. Also, a separate section would be handy as well.  Staszek Lem (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * After some reading, I might agree to the statement kinda "How and where to use the information from reliable sources is covered in other policies and guidelines ". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say "I am afraid I don't see how IAR is an argument here". Could you expound upon that?
 * As pertains to the question of instruction creep; this isn't an instruction. If you read WP:IAR you will see that this is the proper application of IAR under current policy. I think we can all agree that an editor wikilawyering to prevent accurate, well-sourced information from being added to an article is categorically not improving the project.
 * Regardless, you asked for a specific proposal, I gave one. I fully believe that one of the biggest problems with WP is the number of editors who don't treat IAR as a policy. I can give you at least two specific examples of editors (not individuals, but groups of editors) who all either refuse to endorse a position or explicitly declare it to be false, yet simultaneously argue that WP should take that position because policy. So far, a clear consensus has been against them each time, but what happens when it's only a slim majority who don't buy it? What about in cases where there's little or no opposition, because objective editors have little or no interest in the subject? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * two things. inforwars is not a "batshit crazy example"; it is the IP's desire to treat this as a serious source that drove this thread.  second, of course we shouldn't call it that in Wikipedia's voice since the kind of sources we should be using across WP wouldn't use that language -- all I have to say to that is "duh".   Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the IP, raises a genuine concern on reliable sources, and wikipedia usage.To add with the concerns, journals, peer reviews and academic sources, need consideration for being reliable. The importance of such sources, is mostly dependant in articles of, science, history, politics and biography, where we need highly verified, sources and the likely sources would be books, from authors, but this can worsen the matter if the book is written by someone who had a personal opinion about the topic, undoubtedly we can write in neutral tone on Wikipedia, but the source still remains with an opinion!. Alternatively, removing contents, from articles, or not allowing to add, contents to wikipedia, based on reliability would be a grave issue in building the encyclopedia, as disputes and edit warring based on concern whether the added text, was supported by reliable  source or not, would definitely be undesirable in Wikipedia interests, I guess, there needs to be more description on reliable sources and their usage on Wikipedia.Junosoon (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I am really confused what you mean to convey,Another thing worth pointing out is that WP itself IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE., do you have Reliable Source to support it? when you make this bold statement, which can spoil the reputation of Wikipedia community, and you continue simultaneously to deviate the concerns of other!!.Junosoon (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What? That comment makes absolutely no sense. You want me to give you a reliable source showing that wikipedia itself is not an RS? The problems with your comment are enough to make it worth counting them:
 * It's incredibly trivial to find such a source and the fact that you would ask for one as if it would be impossible to provide it instead of looking yourself to see if they exist does not speak highly of your integrity.
 * It's a well-established truth here on WP that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
 * Asking for a reliable source to state that a source is unreliable is nonsensical. We don't rate the reliability of sources based on what other sources say about them for the most part, but upon our editorial judgement and consensus.
 * Worrying about the 'reputation' of the WP community is pointless and doesn't contribute to this discussion.
 * Worrying about what I'm doing runs counter to good editing practices and edges upon incivility. Focus on content, not contributors.
 * Arguing that WP is a reliable source (which is strongly implied by your comment) runs exactly counter to your earlier comments and undermines it.
 * There's more, but I can't be bothered to keep going. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Junosoon: Emphatically, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that is not the only place that truism is Wikipedia policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Was wondering if sources cited by User:MjolnirPants, are reliable enough, some of them journals, scholars etc, can we use them on Wikipedia article, as content Wikipedia is not reliable source?.Junosoon (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a point to this? Or maybe since every edit you've done in the past three days has been on this thread, you've found yourself in a position where you really can't find anything better to do. Here, let me help. There are currently 23,000 articles with too few wikilinks. Maybe you could fix some of them. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The point might be that there is a level between RSes and information on WP that we as editors engage in a form of original research, which involves making decisions about what actually are reliable sources, what is reliable content, etc. (some elements of this enter into my stance on this guideline, but even I would agree with what Mjolnir, Alan and Timothy have posted above). It's because we're a volunteer project that has to engage in consensus discussions on these manners is why we know WP is not reliable, though that's our goal is to present reliable information. If we wanted WP to be reliable, we would need very rigorous and authorative processes in place for every single mainspace edit, and that's definitely not going to happen. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
IMO this is on the periphery of a complex important topic that would be beneficial to deal with. I think that the issue and answer is knitted into various policies and guidelines, so some simple good proposal isn't going to pop out of a thread like the above. Perhaps the proposal that can arise from it is just agreeing to take a closer look at the underlying metrics and how they are best applied.

BTW, just as an example of an idea on the underlying topic (I don't expect any action on it here) an idea of mine would be:

Preface on terms etc.
This considers the current definition of "RS" to be per all and only source criteria defined in wp:ver and wp:nor. So it does include primary/secondary/tertiary related suitability as defined there, but does not include non-policy reliability criteria (such as actual reliability) which may be invoked at the RS noticeboard.

Explanation
The current structure of wp:ver and wp:nor essentially two main criteria for sources. One is the "reliable source" criteria the core of which that it generally requires an internal layer of review. The other is primary/secondary/tertiary, with restrictions on the use of secondary and tertiary sources. With respect to the wording of wp:ver and wp:nor, fulfillment of both of these criteria is generally considered necessary and sufficient for a source to be considered suitable for the use. This has significant problems. "RS's" are often unreliable, and sources with very high real world reliability often are not classified as wp:"RS's". Further, the clear intent for requirement of RS's in wp:ver/wp:nor is suitability to support material which cited it. Pretending that "reliability" is independent of the topic is not realistic.

Solution
Add the following two criteria: Objectivity and expertise regarding the item which cited it.

Instead of making the each of the (now to be 4) criteria categorical, a new approach is proposed. Under this proposal:


 * The sum of the four criteria with respect to item which cited the source would be considered the "strength" of the citation.


 * The more controversial and challenged the material (which cited it) is, the greater the required strength of the citation, and vica versa.

Here's some wording that takes a small step in that direction:


 * Controversial claims require stronger sourcing. Two additional measures of this are the objectivity and expertise of the source with respect to the material which cited it.

Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "RS's" are often unreliable, and sources with very high real world reliability often are not classified as wp:"RS's" Such as what? What evidence do you have that this is a broad problem requiring a solution and what metric would you use other than other reliable sources, which is what we already do?
 * non-policy reliability criteria (such as actual reliability) What is this even supposed to mean?
 * Objectivity - This already has two entire sections of its own in two different policies: WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV, as well as its own essay linked to from both: WP:NPOVS.
 * Expertise - This is already addressed in the policy so many times in so many ways that the only way to actually link to it is WP:RS, and resist the urge to gratuitously link to the dozens of related essays and field specific RS guidelines for every topic area under the sun.
 * So in a nutshell, this makes no coherent argument that there is an actual problem to be solved, provides no evidence to that effect, and offers no solution other than to restate what is already in policy, and is already covered so many times in so many ways that it's probably already well into the realm of WP:CREEP. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bias and objectivity are two different metrics. A source can be biased but still report on a topic in an objective manner. We do not address anything about lack of objectivity in reliable sources (biased or unbiased) which a problem. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "RS's" are often unreliable, and sources with very high real world reliability often are not classified as wp:"RS's" I just read this after Tim quoted it. In a word, "No." We're not going to have a conversation based on the assumption that community consensus is wrong and the minority view (which is demonstrably wrong, hence the consensus) is right. If you think -for example- that NPR is unreliable and Breitbart is reliable, then you should go be an editor Conservapedia where they welcome bias, so long as it's a right-wing bias.
 * Bias and objectivity are two different metrics., WP:BIASED directly addresses objectivity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the context of this problem; the text of "biased" is aimed at considering a single source. One or two subjective sources among many objective is fine.. The problem we are dealing with is when nearly all the reliable sources are more subjective than objective, which is what is happening today. We have to stay objective, and if that objectivity is not handled by the usual reliable sources, when we know a statement is controversial, we have to find other ways to handle it. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the context of this problem; the text of "biased" is aimed at considering a single source. One or two subjective sources among many objective is fine.. The problem we are dealing with is when nearly all the reliable sources are more subjective than objective, which is what is happening today. This is an assertion. I would like to see you present an argument to support it, because I disagree. I think the application of BIASED works regardless of the percentage of sources which are biased, and doesn't require the presence of additional, unbiased sources at all. For example, if every 'debunking' website were to focus on Mpant's Theory of Everything tomorrow, debunking it and putting me on blast for coming up with it in the first place, then the mainstream media picked up on the furor and wrote story after story honoring those debunkers for protecting the gullible minds of the public, we could easily use those (100% biased and non-neutral) sources to produce an article about the MTE. No neutral sources necessary (provided they describe it well enough in their debunkings). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are equivocating on the meaning of objectivity as the opposite of bias and the opposite of subjectivity.
 * If a source is secretly literally Hitler but manages to do their job like a responsible, reliable and objective (opposite of bias) journalist, then we A) have no way of knowing, and B) no reason to care.
 * which is what is happening today Is a statement of fact which requires...wait for it...a reliable source. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, bias and objectivity/subjectivity are different. Bias means that they favor a certain view, but they can still report objectively - looking at an entire story without any preconceptions or omissions. (This is what the media has traditionally been pre-2000, left-leaning but objective). The subjectivity of the media, where they do include preconceptions and opinions, or exclude viewpoints that are counter to their opinions, is okay in a few numbers (as the "slack" is picked up in the other objective sources) but when the bulk of the sources do it, it harms our mission to be objective and neutral. And it should be patently obvious that it is a problem from the last election cycle, but here are statements that address that it is a recent problem in a broad manner, , and more. (Keeping in mind that the media does not like to write about itself in a negative light). --M ASEM  (t) 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The subjectivity of the media, where they do include preconceptions and opinions You are still equivocating. Including preconceptions and opinions in the context of news reporting is bias, not subjectivity. Whether you think the story is well written, topical, or even biased, may be a subjective assessment of the state of things, which may in-turn be influenced by your own biases. The editorial decision of what news to cover may be a subjective assessment, a qualitative decision making process, but once a story objectively exists, once ink is put to paper, whether it is unduly influenced by their subjective judgement is a matter of bias.
 * Bias means that they favor a certain view, but they can still report objectively No. We are not having a phenomenological verses an existential debate. In the only way that we could conceivably care about the meanings of these words: if they report objectively, then they are objective . If their reporting is biased , then they are biased . We don't care whether a tree falling in the woods actually makes a sound, because if no one hears it, it doesn't make it into Wikipedia. We don't care about their secretly held beliefs, what they pray to God about, or what they write in their diary at night, because how and what they publish is the only thing that is going to make it into the encyclopedia. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree 100% with what Tim is saying here, and would like to add: Even if a reporter constantly and publicly blogs about how much he loves the alt-right and how much he hates Jews, yet writes a news story for some outlet which fairly documents the antisemitism of the alt-right, then that story is an unbiased source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that one Rosetta stone is the bolded part: "objectivity and expertise of the source with respect to the material which cited it". A biased source could be reliable to source a clearly objective fact about a person, but not reliable to support a statement that characterizes the person overall.  Similarly, a biography of Britney Spears written by her sister reviewed by editors and published would be a RS regarding a statement on what Britney's  favorite color is, but not an RS for statements on the current state of development of computerized neural nets.  North8000  (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Tim. I don't see what you're doing here as pointing out problems with our policy so much as pointing out elements of our policy of which you remain unaware. I'm not bashing you for this; my suggestion above wasn't a change to policy, but a change to the wording of policy (reminding editors that details of policy do not override our goal of providing accurate information). I take issue with the way policy is sometimes implemented and perhaps you do, as well. But the arguments you're making don't look like that, they just look like you don't really know the policy very well. Which is fine, that's why we have policy pages and discussions like these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to both posts, the sentences which follow it essentially say that only traditional metrics apply in the analysis, thus not saying and somewhat ruling out considering objectivity and expertise of the source with respect to the material which cited it. Also, an item which is only so presented and in a more obscure area, barely exists. The proof of the pudding is in practice. In reality, when there is a dispute, having only the traditional RS credentials is considered enough to take it to the finish line, not subject to the specific review and criteria which I proposed. North8000  (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A key word is "fairly", here. I totally agree with that example, and that's what I mean about a biased but objective source. But what happens more than ever is that there is no "fair" coverage, particularly on a topic that has an element of subjective nature at its core. As I've mentioned, there are cases that pass at BLP/N of people or groups associated with BLP being given a contentious label because, limiting to only what RSes say, they unabashedly call out this person/group as that label (without stating the article as part of an op-ed), while if one looks to authoritative but non-RS works, they clearly think that label is wrong. If the RSes were objective and writing fairly, even with a bias, they would at least acknowledge that some do not consider that label applicable alongside making their own claim, and thus our objectivity can be easily met. But nowadays they don't, nor do they state their subjective stance as an op-ed but instead present it as a fact, and articles get written acting as if this is the only factual view, blatantly ignoring what exists outside of that because of how this guideline is written. That is creating echo chambers on WP, and the problem is only getting worse because of Trump's election, which is furthering the divide of left-right ideologies on WP. Basically, we have to recognize there is a lot of mud being slung around the media, and a lot of rhetoric, and very few sources nowadays trying to get at the objective core of that; if we are going to cover such things and uphold WP's principles, we have to apply objective measures to cut back on that rhetoric, at least until a time that there's proper hindsight coverage to build from. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I replaced your note with a template which conveys the same information. Hope you don't mind. In fact, I hope you like that template and use it a lot, because I made it :D.
 * As I've mentioned, there are cases that pass at BLP/N of people or groups associated with BLP being given a contentious label because, limiting to only what RSes say, they unabashedly call out this person/group as that label (without stating the article as part of an op-ed), while if one looks to authoritative but non-RS works, they clearly think that label is wrong. You see, this is where I take issue. If there are authoritative sources out there, then by definition those sources are RSes. I'd like to see some specific examples of what you're talking about to get an idea as to whether I'm misunderstanding you. But you seem to be saying there are unreliable sources which are more reliable than reliable sources, and that doesn't make any sense to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * is one example. The press (consisting of normally reliable sources) broadly paint the person and their publication as white supremacist, but he has self-stated differently as well as non-RS but authoritative sources have agreed that he is not. Yet there was a push to only use the press's statements here because that is the only thing that RSes were saying.
 * This demonstrates what I see is wrong with this guideline, is that it defines RSes too narrowly. Don't get me wrong, it is of high importance we define what RSes are for the purposes of including factual information and we need to have that "fact-checking" history aspect of it, and I do not want to see that weakened here. But this guideline leads editors to think that those are the only sources we can use for purposes of evaluating NPOV and particularly UNDUE/WEIGHT. This is not true: RS/N has had to restart over and over again that there can be "reliable sources" that are not RSes for factual content but are appropriate for opinion statements. This guideline does have some allusion to that concept, but the wording makes editors put a fence around only the "fact-checking" RSes and ignore things outside that. It needs to be clearer that opinion pieces from authoritative sources but without the fact-checking history are just as valid as opinion pieces from "fact-checking" RSes when documenting opinions or evaluating NPOV-related issues, but absolutely not for factual content. Whether we include a new "tier" for RSes that are only usable for their opinion, or rework language to emphasis that only "fact-checking" can be used for factual information, I don't know which way is best to go, but this is what is lacking. --M ASEM  (t) 16:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He has also said he is not a white supremacist, describing himself as a "white advocate," Doesn't seem like a problem at all. Seems a lot like one person trying to semantically muddy the waters for their own personal advantage, and reliable sources rightly pointing out in plain language what's otherwise obvious. Every fringe theorist and scam artist out there would love to make their own euphemisms authoritative, but that doesn't mean we should do anything but dismiss those for plain facts. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should not be making those judgment calls. We can stress the dominate opinion of the press as attributed opinion but we cannot write articles with a preconceived notion and taking that as fact. --M ASEM (t) 17:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of reliable sources is to, as much as possible, remove the judgement from the call. I'm sure Jim Jones would not refer to himself as a cult leader. I'm sure most people in Category:American white supremacists would probably rather have themselves referred to euphemistically as racial purists or something similar. I'm definitely sure plenty of people in the US government would rather Waterboarding wasn't referred to as torture in the lead. But none of those are either reliable or independent, so we do not weigh their opinions when making determinations of what is recorded as fact. If sources meeting both those standards disagreed, then we should record that disagreement, but we do not make an alternative category of sources, "unreliable-authorities" that in any way get similar treatment.  Timothy Joseph Wood  17:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, this all makes sense if we know the reliable sources were objective, but I've pointed out that's not the case nowadays in certain situations. (To stress: objectivity will vary from news article to news article; broadly most of our RSes are still objective outside the realm of politics and ideologies; its those areas that careful evaluation has to be done on a per-article basis). In many cases, there are other opinions that exist that are shared by a significant number of authoritative sources but not reliable ones that do not make it to the reliable sources due to lack of objectivity. To pretend those counter-opinions (even if they extremely hard to believe as perhaps they lack evidence) do not exist at all is a severe problem that this guideline promotes, and will (and has in some cases) lead to echo chambers in some articles, especially when editors start with preconceived notations that are supported by the RS articles that are not covering that specific topic in an objective manner. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "authoritative" as if it matters, when as far as I'm concerned, if it's not reliable, it's not authoritative in any way that is meaningful. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I see what you're saying here as advocating the position that people are incapable of lying about themselves. In the absence of evidence, we should absolutely take a person's word about their opinions, intentions and views. But when solid evidence contradicts that (and note that in all these cases, the RSes made their judgements based on evidence, else they wouldn't have been RSes), we have to go with the evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that often when dealing with contentious labels, there may be evidence to assume a label applies but there are aspects that cannot be proven out with any type of evidence because you can't prove a negative. Take your "bipartisan" Jane Doe above. You've hypothesizd that there's tons of evidence to show that her methods slant very far to the right, sure, and there's no recorded action of anything towards the left, but the lack of any evidence of action towards the left does not mean she's not bipartisan. Her actions have clearly all been conservative and should be described as such, but there's no absolute proof to say that she herself is not bipartisan, and so we should not be saying that as fact in WP-voice. Claims are fine, but not fact. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the further you go towards generalized labeling of people (or similar situations) you are not reporting on some fundamental reality of the person, you are reporting on or or doing subjective labeling, using terms that have a wide range of definitions. To the point where such things are inherently only opinions of others, not information about the person.  North8000  (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ...but there's no absolute proof to say that she herself is not bipartisan... Let's talk about Nazis. The Nazis claimed that the extermination of the Jews was variously an act of self-defense of their ethnic group or an attempt to improve the human genepool, not a genocide. Should we open our article on The Holocaust with the sentence "The Holocaust was an act of self-defense by..."? Or maybe we should say "The Holocaust has been variously described as an act of self-defense, an improvement of the human race, or an act of genocide"?
 * I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the majority of Nazis making statements about the extermination of the Jews at the time and in trials afterwords actually believed that what they were doing was not genocide, but self-defense or to improve the human genepool. None whatsoever. But it doesn't matter whether I believe they're being as truthful as they can, or whether I believe they were lying out of their asses because they got sexually excited at the thought of killing people en-masse; We're going to report the Nazis as the architects of genocide, not misguided social activists trying to defend their ethnic group.
 * My point is: Whether or not the Jane Doe in my hypothetical actually believes she is bipartisan and not subject to left- or right-wing bias is completely immaterial to what we do here. It only matters to her. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring Godwin's law here, one rather subtle thing is that we do have a "human decency" bias here that aligns with nearly all humans on earth save for extremists. We treat things like genocide and murder as morally wrong. As such, we aren't going to pretend that genocide could be justified (though we obviously can cite documents why they did that as part of the historical record).
 * But when you move away from the obvious cases of what is morally correct, then we have to get away from that bias. For example, writing about a person being a right-wing or a Republican should start with zero pre-disposition of how we will write about that person, and that should be true for objective sources as well. The problem, more broadly, is that we presently have a political situation where the left-leaning press want to vilify anything to the right as morally corrupt, the right-leaning press are adapting the same, and there's very little coverage at the middle ground.  We aren't going to fix that problem at all, but we need to keep our noses clear of that and recognize there is a serious situation that we need to stay ahead of if it keeps getting worse. --M ASEM  (t) 20:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Agree, w.r.t. former discussion, with IP, Mr rnddude and North8000, who have raised an important concern of RS, usage on wikipedia, more specifically to controversial topics which directly or indirectly are related to biographies of living or dead people. Sources have huge responsibility of supporting facts, which need more neutral RS, descriptions, especially if reliable source has POV, this problem would be visible in areas of wikipedia contents, where usage of  works of scholars, research journals, and books, on that subject is done, the remedy would be, it should not be given undue weight of being reliable. ,  this discussion needs to be addressed by more editors, to share their views, and let's not sideline their concerns. Junosoon (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal - write a well-sourced, NPOV description of infowars for use at Pizzagate conspiracy theory
The core principles of WP are obvious to experienced editors here. Rather than continue having a hand-waving, handwringing discussion that will go nowhere but circles, how about if participants generate and post what they consider to be a well-sourced, NPOV, one sentence description of "infowars" for use in the Pizzagate article? Once there are concrete examples they could be be used to anchor non-hand-waving, possibly productive discussion. I urge you all to do this - spend time on your own doing it, and let say five or six of them get posted before discussing each other's. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * current content in Pizzagate conspiracy theory: The story was picked up by fake news websites such as Infowars.com, ... ( Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First draft: "Infowars is a U.S. right-wing news and news aggregation site that presents a conspiratorial view of current events." TFD (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternative phrasing: "Infowars is a U.S.-based multimedia organization headed by Alex Jones. Its website gives the appearance of a standard news and news aggregation website. It has been described as a conspiracy theory enterprise" in Spin here. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "While many sources had debunked the story, including the New York Times and Fox News, the Pizzagate story was further spread as it was featured on several sites broadly considered as conspiracy theory enterprises, including Infowars...". (using similar language as John Carter). --M ASEM (t) 23:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

discussion

 * You mean, here: Alex Jones (radio_host)? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The IP who started this mess, came here after complaining about the description of infowars at Pizzagate. See Infowars referred to as fake news with no source. The IP then forum shopped this here, and continued not listening here to continue their quest to have "infowars" described as something other than it is.  Does anybody think it is actually difficult to describe "infowars" as the batshit crazy thing it is, using RS and NPOV language?  Let's see if there is any real disagreement here.  Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is something I've noticed and (I believe, I may have edited out that part) mentioned above. I've seen a number of editors argue that labels like "right-wing", "far-right" and "fake news" cannot be applied to certain outlets, while simultaneously either refusing to say whether they themselves believe the labels to be accurate or outright stating that they believe the labels are accurate, but that policy prevents us from using them. Hence the proposal to add text which I gave in response to Staszek Lem, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Right-wing" is less a problem, there is no objective definition of "far-right" and "fake-news". That's why they are subjective labels. They can be used with attribution but should not be applied factually in WP-voice. --M ASEM (t) 21:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem it appears that the issues you are raising have nothing to do with the WP:RS guideline at all, but rather WP:MOS, specifically WP:LABEL. Why are you raising it here? Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while LABEL and NPOV (specifically YESPOV) tell us to use caution and use labels carefully, far too many editors go "but the only RSes about this topic say this person/group is (label) so we can factually say that" and override LABEL and NPOV. It starts here as the problem as excluding any concept that there is information outside the tight circle of established RSes. --M ASEM (t) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? "more right-wing than typical right-wing" isn't objective? "Stuff that looks like news but is fake" isn't objective? I think you're confusing "objective" with "binary". Sure, there's no firm cut-off where moderate right-wing politics ends and far-right-wing politics picks up, but that doesn't mean that your typical far-right outlet isn't objectively distinguishable from your typical moderate right-wing outlet. It doesn't mean we can't distinguish fake news from real news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first quote you reference is a value judgment, and it is hard in at least some cases for value judgments to be counted as really "objective." Is the Mona Lisa more "beautiful" than the Girl with a Pearl Earring? Avoiding such comparative terms might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is 5 more than 3? Is RGB(255,0,0) more red than RGB(128,40,40)? Is nationalism more right-wing than patriotism? Is authoritarianism more right-wing than egalitarianism? Yes, to all of those. These are not value judgements because value judgements are about right and wrong, not about political left and right. These are descriptions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They are descriptions based on preconceived views of "near and far", which is admittedly more of the item response theory or law of comparative judgment than a value judgment. I acknowledge my error, but I still assert that the essentially comparative nature of greater/lesser does include some inherent judgment of the topic, and such is probably best avoided. Having said that, I think, maybe, it might be more useful for the discussion if we refrained from arguing semantics and, maybe, actually addressed the substantive matters involved. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and I'm not so much disagreeing as I am saying that it doesn't apply (well, I was disagreeing about it being a value judgement but your response makes it clear you meant that it requires judgement, in general). I'm just pointing out that when you define a category through comparison to other categories, then it may have a nebulous border (how much more right-wing than the exact median of the right-wing spectrum must one get to be considered far-right?), but as long as that first category is objective, then the category in question is, as well. Further, there are definitions of these and similar terms (the main body of the article far-right politics could be said to be one) which do not rely upon comparisons at all, but rather outline the unique characteristics which fuel the comparisons. In the cases used as examples here, there's been no real question of whether or not the labels actually apply, only whether we can use them, so I think you're right that we should get back to discussing the more substantive matters below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * However, you still have 1) a nebulous boundary, and I have seen opinions from sources that are pushing more and more past that boundary and 2) what is the "middle" that we compare left and right to also has shifted albeit much less slowly. There is very little objective about those terms in the first place, and there's no "authority" to determine what is the correct way to apply them. Add that terms like "far-right" and "alt-right" are used degradingly, and that's why they are labels that cannot be used in a factual voice. --M ASEM (t) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned the nebulous boundary several times now, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat it back to me. But you are missing the fact that we don't need to define the terms to a precise, mathematical certainty that can remain enshrined and immutable for all of time. We can still debate over the edge cases, and if the zeitgeist changes in the future, then we can update the encyclopedia. If Breitbart suddenly starts advocating for egalitarianism, social justice and environmentalism, we can change how we describe them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem please post a concrete, sourced description of infowars above that in your view satisifes NPOV, RS, and whatever else concerns you. Please stop just saying "no" and put up or shut up. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem - thanks for posting. Sources to support your proposed content that can survive a challenge to "broadly considered"? Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "broadly" might be a too bit broad, but a google search on "infowars "conspiracy theory" -site:infowars.com" brings up CNN, WashPo, Salon, Yahoo, and I can find NYTimes, and BBC. Maybe "frequently considered". There's no question here that we can apply an attributed label, but we should avoid the "fake news" term as described below given its nebulous nature. In the Pizzagate article I'd not get into that much detail but that would be all articles to use at the Infowars article on criticism of the site. (That said, and this is beyond the scope of the exercise, I think the Infowars involved in the spreading of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is larger than it is given and could do with more expanding, which in turn can add a few more references to demonstrate the perceived nature of the site) --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is fair and accurate to characterise InfoWars as a conspiracy theorist site known for publishing speculative and generally false stories, and to describe Alex Jones as a crank. Fake news is kind of a shortcut for what InfoWars does, but there is merit in disambguating between The Onion (which at least knows it is bullshit) and InfoWars (which apparently, FSM help us, does not). We could try to agree a less loaded characterisation for InfoWars, but I am pretty confident that the same people who reject "fake news" will reject any accurate characterisation of InfoWars with equal vigour - and they are probably the only ones who really care. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue with "fake news" vs "conspiracy theory website" is that term "fake news" has many different meanings depending on who you talk to, as described (it ranges from truly fictitious news posing as real news, satire, propaganda, alt/far-right/left sources, etc.) so the term is nebulous and not concrete. On the other hand there is a clear idea of what a conspiracy theory is (though what purports to be conspiracy theories will vary); it's a very established term. Maybe in time, once "fake news" no longer is a neologism and there's a readily-established definition, one can come back and check if Infowars fits that, but the clear pattern in RS is to that it is labeled as conspiracy theory website by most press sites, despite the owner's contesting of that (per the footnote in the Pizzagate article). --M ASEM (t) 16:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is important in descriptions both to be accurate and unemotional. We should resist the temptation to say "IT'S A F***ING CONSPIRACY WEBSITE ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY!"  That approach actually weakens the point we want to make by making us appear biased instead of just accurate.  TFD (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD I split your proposal and your commentary on it.  Please note that my request includes providing sourcing.  Please add sources to your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that something like "Infowars is a U.S. right-wing web site that purports to be a news and news aggregation site, but is most notable for promulgating a large number of conspiracy theories. It is not seen as a reliable source of information by experts." is a version of your all-caps quote that conveys the exact same information without the emotional tone, and which is extremely likely to be supportable by reliable sources (I haven't double checked all our sources to be sure that a good one says that no-one takes them seriously, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find a source that says exactly that). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why even use "purports"? Just say it *is* a conspiracy theorist site, mention it's well documented connections to Trump, other notable people and the armies of trolls that support them? Being NPOV has its limits.  The reader should not even think Infowars has a modicum of respect for reliability after reading whatever text we end up with.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please (!) refrain from quickly commenting on proposals and instead please generate your own, and once we have a few we can talk about them generally. There is also no need to comment on your own proposal.  The "challenge" here is to write NPOV, well sourced content per the basic content policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the Pizzagate article as it is. It calls Infowars fake news, and does so frankly and matter-of-factly with three different citations for the characterization. It even goes so far as to throw them a bone in pointing out that they contest it. But unless someone has a reliable source which says it definitely isn't fake news, then there's reason to change anything. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Tim said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go a step further and point out that we have some folks who appear to be acting as if every word of the entire article hasn't been poured over by regiments of conspiracy theorists and the whole lot of it defended in detail several times over. Rest assured, it has. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would avoid the neologism "fake news." Until a few months ago it referred to websites whose sole purpose was to publish fabricated news stories, whether for political, financial or personal reasons.  But in recent months, the Clinton campaign applied the term to sites that opposed her (and had in fact poor standards for reliability) and now Trump supporters are using the term to malign mainstream media.  So its a pejorative term with no clear meaning, therefore not the sort of term we would want to use.  TFD (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD's comment sounds reasonable to me. Words to avoid could, reasonably, be considered to include words whose specific definition seems to, maybe, be in flux, like he indicates the definition of "fake news" might be. Avoiding ambiguous or misleading terminology is probably a good idea. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not a term we need. Unreliability is like pornography: we know it when we see it. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We could avoid ambiguity by not using descriptive terms to convey their idiomatic meaning, but only to convey their literal meaning. Using "fake news" as the example, we could stop using it to describe highly biased news outlets and conspiracy theory mongers as well as blogs and other non-journalistic mediums. Some of you have seen me use this standard for "fringe science" and "pseudoscience" before, and it's one I stand by entirely. When a term consists of a descriptive phrase, I fully believe that, whatever the zeitgeist, using it in a descriptive sense is far more powerful and objective. It would also sideline arguments like the ones I mentioned previously, where editors argue that we can't accurately describe something because the RSes don't unambiguously use the best term, but use a variety of terms. This would apply only to that term's use in the body of articles, of course. WP:COMMONNAME would still hold for article titles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents. A lot of people have a gut desire to define "fake news" as an outlet that publishes deliberately false information (whether for profit, shiggles, or something else), excluding anything short of this, as well as satire. The mainstream media clearly takes a broader view of "fake news". They include outlets that merely have a reckless disregard for truth and fact-checking (National Enquirer et al.); as well as outlets that appear to be completely sincere, but run people utterly disconnected from reality and impervious to reason (like InfoWars and NaturalNews); and even individual news items from otherwise reliable outlets, that turn out to be false. So I think we have a conflict between what we as editors and rational human beings feel "Fake news" should mean in a literal sense, and how the media actually uses the term, which simply lumps all outlets that predominantly publish false information under one banner, regardless of motivation and intricacies. Still mulling over what I personally think is the best reaction here, so I'm not arguing for anything, just trying to define the problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fake news is indeed a neologism. It's different than other "unreliable sources". Indeed, tabloid journalism sometimes gets the story "right", like the National Enquirer manages to do once in a blue moon.  Fake news sources are those that push false stories, for click bait or disinformation and are aggressively advertised on social media.  Furthermore they make great efforts to make themselves appear to be reliable.  Trump and his minions gleefully have appropriated the moniker to attack authentic outlets that report news they don't like.  There is a word that describes the audacity needed to rely on such red herrings.  Chutzpah.  But since sadly an astounding number of people actually eat horseshit (and call it steak) over claims  the New York Times and Washington Post are capable of pushing fake news,  we should be careful about using the term ourselves.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just posting a blanket response since I've been doing life things. If reliable sources describe something as fake, blue, soft, archaic, sandy, etc...literally on into the nearly infinite world of possible descriptors, then our place is to record that description. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise, then I'm all ears. If you don't, then your opinion means nothing. Our job is to decide whether sources are reliable, not to decide whether we like what those sources report. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that either I myself or many of you do not understand the way WP:RS is applied in practice. If you need evidence of generally reliable sources posting complete falsehoods and these being treated as accurate reliable sources then may I suggest the latest batch of misrepresented/misleading/false (fake so to speak) news that has been widely reported in the mainstream media and is located smeared across one of our articles; PewDiePie. I forget, is the New York Times respected or not in the United States?, what about Forbes and Wall Street Journal? I was under the impression that these were trustworthy generally reliable sources that put some effort into vetting news stories. I see NYT posted across almost every in the news page I have ever been to, same with the Wall Street Journal, not so much with Forbes., to be honest, this is heavily directed at you for your dismissiveness of any concerns with how Wikipedians treat WP:RS, not, what WP:RS actually is or says. I am confident enough to say that it is a simple fact that the way many editors treat certain sources is as being inherently reliable for everything and completely fail to recognize that being generally reliable does not equal being always reliable. I see this many times when I go to in the news articles. Especially when it serves an ideological position, but, that's just par for the course by comparison really. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note; the IP may be making a valid point with regards to how RS are treated, but, not with respect to how mainstream outlets treat infowars. Sources can be treated as inherently unreliable for all things. There is good reason to do so, sources that regularly post false/misleading news have a reputation for doing so and look very unprofessional when used as being reliable. They simply are not. Using a source on Wikipedia means declaring it reliable for that statement. Even if the statement is true, putting a generally unreliable source to that statement means that our readers will treat the claim as inherently unreliable. Unfortunately, the same is true of generally reliable sources. This is where my concerns above come in to play. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with questioning otherwise reliable sources, but the tools required to do so are other reliable sources. In that regard, no amount of personal opinion or unreliable sources combine to make something usable. If the sources are wrong in unison, then we will be wrong along with them, and when they fix it we will follow. That's just the way things work. It means we probably won't be right 100% of the time, but it means we will be less wrong than we would be if we started letting personal feelings and tabloids dictate our content. If you want to improve the state of journalism then write an MP or a congressmen, donate to NPR or PRI, or put in an application somewhere. But at the end of the day, Wikipedia is not a tool for trying to accomplish that, nor is it a tool for trying to correct perceived systemic bias in the media. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If we start with "There's nothing wrong with questioning otherwise reliable sources, but the tools required to do so are other reliable sources", that's a fair metric, but this guideline creates a problem with using it because it tells the editor that only fact-checking RSes can question other RSes, because of how it defines RSes, even though other parts of WP policy/guideline says that opinions from sources that aren't fact-checked are still RSes. Say nearly all of what we consider as fact-checking RSes agree on a subjective stance (how they label a person or group, for example), perhaps based on evidence but an extreme stance on such evidence (this PewDiePie case seems like a prime example as if I understand the situation right, the media are reacting to a statement taken out of context to claim Antisemitism about his character). At the same time, there's plenty of sources that do not fall into "fact-checking" that are opining their counter-stance to these claims, eg questioning reliable sources. All other policies and guidelines say that we should include those non-fact-checking RSes if they are appropriately authorative as part of the NPOV balance, but the statement above tied with how narrowly defined RSes are in this guideline, would prevent that. And that is actually what goes on from what I've seen in several articles that cross various noticeboards.
 * I would also argue that we as editors have some ability to question reliable sources if we do not have to engage in original research for that. An extreme case would if the Pew Research Center published a survey that the bulk of RSes reported factually on the data but only incorporated the data that best fits their subjective stance which skews the data (which can be done with statistics). We should be able to point that out by using the Pew Research study even if no one else does, as long as we don't have to play excessive games on WP:CALC, in this instance. This is an extreme example, but I did see this happen to some extent before the media corrected itself on the Pepe the Frog meme, which had been on the Internet for years, but suddenly was being called a symbol of white nationalism without awareness of its origin. At least with that, we had the historical sources establishing it, so again, no original research involved.
 * Basically, we have to have the ability to be more holistically aware when writing about controversial topics, which means reviewing sources outside of those that can otherwise be the exclusive ones to support factual content in the article; this guidelines does not give that ability despite other policies/guidelines having that, and its used to close out any reasonable discussion of inclusion of opinions from other appropriate sources. --M ASEM (t) 15:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Pew example is basically my point par excellence, since Pew itself is a reliable source. In fact, we did exactly that on the Pizzagate article regarding the Public Policy Polling data, where the journalism source reported only a portion of the data as opposed to the full set, which we included as a table citing the original study.
 * But if the overwhelming majority of RS, for example, report that a man killed 26 people in an elementary school, and a non RS, say Infowars, pushes the idea that it was false flag operation, then the latter deserves to be entirely and summarily disregarded as non-reliable, not mentioned as an alternative opinion, not acknowledged at all.
 * In the present case, if all available RS describe Infowars itself as fake news, or some various synonym thereof, and no one can produce a conflicting RS describing it as the least bit reputable, we are perfectly with our rights to follow suit, and state the description as bare fact,at least until such a point as someone can find conflicting evidence in the form of additional RS. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are different types of cases, yes, and there are times that WP:FRINGE has to be applied. In case like Sandy Hook, where there is no practical reason to question the objectivity of the reporting (as its not a political situation), then minority opinions like conspiracy theories should be treated just like that. However, we should be completely aware as editors that any controversial topic in the last few years that falls onto political and ideological scales may have issues with the objectivity of the press reporting on it (especially the more the press is actually involved in the story), and so notable/expert voices outside that circle of the press become important to document the controversy, and FRINGE does not apply. Where that line is drawn is extremely complex, and would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the need to have that ability is required. (I have more to comment on the second point, but I'll want to collect my thoughts on that before responing) --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, we have to have the ability to be more holistically aware when writing about controversial topics... Say this is adopted as a policy. So what's to stop an editor from arguing that a claim published in the New York Times which would otherwise be uncontroversial cannot be included because Infowars, Breitbart, globalresearch.ca and abcnews.com.co all agree that it's wrong? This basically gives weight to unreliable sources. And what advantage does it bring? Well, it lets us correct widely-reported errors sooner, but only when it doesn't backfire, and only when those errors turn out to actually be errors. Remember how many unreliable sources were (and still are) crowing about how the invasion of Iraq was over Iraqi oil? There's a reason that we consider unreliable sources unreliable, and your suggestion seems to completely ignore that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never said that the information being contested should be removed; a widely held opinion in RSes, even if contested by non-RSes or is seen as controversial by editors, should be presented in our articles. Much of the effects that adjusting this guideline relates to how to temper such statements: instead of saying "X is Y", we should state "The New York Times says X is Y" when there is contest to that statement; labels shouldn't be thrown into the first lede sentence but should be attributed and included in the lede if the media perception of that label is important to the article (as it would be for Infowars as claimed as a "conspiracy theory site"), etc. And most of this applies to where the claim relates to a person's or organizations's intentions or motivations, which we have no way to objectively determine as the human mind is a black box. Observers can only go by words and actions to assess those elements which can support why they use those labels, but those labels are subjective for a reason as they have diffuse definitions and which can be applied without evidence, which is why they get contested by either the person/group or others. When you start talking about conspiracy theories, that's a bit different, because most say "well, that evidence is falsified" or the like, and now that's where the "fact-checking" part of RS is important and why we generally separate out conspiracy theories from actual historical discussion. Inversely, you cannot "fact-check" what the intentions or motivation are of a person/organization, you can only infer from actions and statements. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I still recall that we shouldn't state facts as opinions. When the only sources arguing that a certain claim is untrue are unreliable sources, then we should treat that claim as a fact. If it turns out to be wrong at some point in the future, we can correct it then. If it doesn't turn out to be wrong at some point in the future, then it's not wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Facts do not come from a plurality of opinions, it simply the most popular opinion. A RS stating "X is (some label)" will always be an opinion (maybe more justified with evidence and informed than others), and the larger number of RSes say the same thing doesn't change that. The "fact" that we report is that many sources hold that opinion. That does not eliminate content but keeps us from getting involved in controversial and staying neutral and impartial. Otherwise, we create an echo chamber that simply agrees with the popular opinion. We should not hide or ignore that popular opinion but we absolutely should not state that opinion in WP voice. --M ASEM (t) 17:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that relying on RSes to establish what is a fact and what is not is a bad way of doing things. So we should rely on unreliable sources to establish what facts are? Or perhaps we should rely on our own opinions? Or maybe we should edit as if there were no such thing as facts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree? Maybe there have been two discussions here. A discussion of some complex underlying policy issues and another with an undeclared focus on on a specific problem at one article. By various methods a few have seemed to denigrate the former. This proposal relates to the latter and seems fine for the latter. North8000  (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem, your embrace of relativism on this matter will never gain consensus, and in my view is dangerous as hell. Infowars is a pump spewing conspiracy theories and fake news into the world.  It is described that way in high quality sources and there is no reason not to call a spade a spade in WP's voice.  We probably need to expand the PSCI section of NPOV to explicitly deal with this; debates we have about spewers of pseudoscience run exactly along these lines and this is very close in spirit to that.  Just like we don't treat fake science like it is real science or with mealymouthed WP:GEVAL, but instead we call it "pseudoscience" --- so too there is no such thing as "alternative facts"; Pizzagate and Birtherism are unadulterated (and evil) bullshit, just like selling Laetrile as a cancer treatment is utter (evil) bulllshit.  There are politically charged issues that are not as clear cut but whether a site spews conspiracy theories and fake news is not like that.    Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm on a similar train here as Jytdog, although somewhat less...enthusiastically. Most of the support here is for the existence of some generic problem that we haven't precisely identified, and some hypothetical solution that we haven't quite nailed down. The formulation of some category of authoritative-unreliable-sources, the closest thing to a coherent policy proposal, has about a snowball's chance of getting consensus, since it's very highly unlikely on its face, of ever being formulated in a way that would not reap the full and immediate wrath of the entirety of WP:FTN, and probably rightly so.


 * The closest things to otherwise productive discourse are suggestions for changes to the Pizzagate article, which rightly belong on the article's talk page, and not here, if for no other reason than respect for the denizens of the article who don't follow this page, and probably don't want to wade through this exceedingly lengthy conversation. They have, at any rate, and with all respect to JYTD again for trying to focus things, been largely drowned out in a sea of philosophicals and hypotheticals.


 * If someone like Masem or North8000 would like to start a draft for something along the lines of WP:Identifying reliable sources (politics), then I'm sure there's no shortage of editors who would happily weigh in, and it may end up being of great use to the project in the end. But other than that, it seems an awfully lot like we might be pretty much done here. I for one certainly am. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a good incubator. In the end IMHO ideas that work across the board would be better. I do disagree with your assessment in that I do think that there is a good discussion  of some fundamental structural policy issues.  Inherently that does not lead to a quick specific proposal, and IMHO that does not deprecate it's value or appropriateness. Sincerely  North8000  (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had to think on the statement posed by Jytdog specifically on conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, and I agree that's a line we don't want to weaken, but at the same time recognize labelling people and groups (among other things in the political and ideological spectrum) are different. I think there are two principle differences:
 * Psuedoscience and conspiracy theories are claims that can readily be disproven in an objective manner using evidence or scientific tests. With psuedoscience, you can even get to a confidence level of how "wrong" the idea is. You can never completely disprove either, but RSes present evidence that can be reviewed in a objective manner leave little room for doubt. Thus, we are confident we can call such things as pseudoscience or conspiracy theories as facts in WP's voice, as long as there's citations about that nearby (though personally, I would still make sure to attribute the groups that have called it as well to give weight to that fact). On the other hand you cannot prove a label is true in an objective manner. You can show a lot of evidence of a person or group's actions that support the idea (eg "This senator has voted for stronger immigration restrictions, less corporate taxes, and removing welfare, he clearly must be right-wing"), but it remains a subjective jump from the evidence to the label, even if several RSes lay that out. We should be very cautious about taking that subjective leap of logic for ourselves and thus avoid stating that as a fact.
 * With psueoscience and conspiracy theories, there is usually a longer period of time and a larger volume of work done on the disproving side; there's enough hindsight to have a good idea that the theory is bogus. With labels or subjective claims about persons or groups, many of those start as off-the-cuff assignments in the course of writing news articles, often as part of opinion (which you don't need to justify). The claim sticks, especially if it is a viewpoint shared by others, and while the sources will show evidence to try to justify the claim, we're not talking about the time or rigors for pseudoscience and conspiracy theory disproving. Add now the current situation of the ideologic fighting going on the media due to the last election cycle, and labels and subjective claims are going to be thrown out even more so due to emotional intensity and attempts at persuasive writing (this is what the whole "fake news" situation is about). But that said, as time progresses years beyond that point, and events crystallize out (eg the person has long died), that long tail of hindsights and knowing the full picture with the years of knowledge, a label or claim may become an historical fact even if it was never fully proven; it is simply that the opinion has become fixed in history.
 * Together these don't give a bright line, but it is a way to start discussions where the issues come up. And while this starts getting into a larger number of policies/guidelines beyond just identifying RSes, it is important than in the political and ideological space with currently-active controversies that we are aware there's a broader set of RSes that should be considered to judge the larger picture of opinions and to pull additional opinions or claims from as to support these types of discussions. I am going to give thought to how to structure a possible guideline for dealing with RSes for political situations, particularly in light of various RS/N discussions, NPOV, and BLP. There's areas like pseudoscience and conspiracy theories that we need to be harsh on requiring the best sources but other areas like political mudslinging needs more careful approaches; the two areas do not have an equal approach to treatment. --M ASEM  (t) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I don't follow RSN probably as closely as I should, but I do think that working toward actual text of a potential guideline would help focus discussion and lead us away from the hypothetical rabbit holes that we seem to be so susceptible to. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Close
Erm, On this guideline page, this seemingly "endless", meandering gab-fest, has crossed the threshold to violate WP:NOTAFORUM, :). (Since it's lots of talk about what is already basically handled by WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONUS and WP:BESTSOURCES - not this guideline - go to WP:VPP if you really are into this endless gab, and gab there, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, in case that wasn't already clear, but suspect that a formal close may be needed to cap the gab. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem with the close, as suggested above, I'm going to try to come back with something to specifically address RS when dealing with media rheotoric in political/idealogical debates but I need to mull on the key points needed for that to reflect issues raised. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, I'm sandboxing my ideas at User:Masem/RSPoly, but if I get to anything to formally present, I will make sure that's fully clear. --M ASEM (t) 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 100% on board with closing. Also with the summary by Alan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agree on the closing. I don't agree with the negative characterization of the discussion. It was complicated by apparently having a specific issue at a specific article grouped with a discussion on some more generic areas.  My idea was "Perhaps the proposal that can arise from it is just agreeing to take a closer look at the underlying metrics and how they are best applied." probably in a more sidebar place.  I also support Masem's closing thoughts and ideas.  North8000  (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Close away as you please. Thank you TJW for your response to my comment and I suppose by extension to all those afterwards. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)