Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Hyperpartisan Sources 1

Creating subpage. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All I ask is for somebody without bias, preconceived notions, predefined judgments of issues or narrow life experiences to cast the first stone. Hcobb (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute.

Following is a proposed new subsection in the article mainspace, under "Questionable sources." I realize that we aren't supposed to be voting. But it's very difficult to gauge consensus without a clear indication of support or opposition. So please indicate, in the appropriate subsection, whether you support or oppose the proposal (with an asterisk * and boldface) and follow with a brief explanation of your position, the same as for WP:AFD and the "keep" and "delete" statements. Thanks.

Partisan sources
Extremely partisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center, Newsmax, World Net Daily and Newsbusters, are of limited utility at Wikipedia. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their poor history of fact-checking and their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity. They always weigh in on one side of every issue, and consistently display little regard for actual facts. They are either tertiary "news analysis" sources, or secondary sources that are removed by multiple steps from the actual fact-gathering process. These partisan sources often maintain a pretense of impartiality.

They often cite reliable sources; if an editor wishes to use a fact presented in a partisan source such as MMfA, he should cite as a reference the reliable source that MMfA cited instead. They sometimes publish wire service stories from reliable sources such as the Associated Press; the editor should seek out the same wire service story as published in a reliable source such as the Washington Post, and use that instead.

If editors try to use facts from these partisan sources, they will need to fact-check everything very thoroughly, and they'll probably face opposition from other editors. It's best to just seek out the facts in more reliable sources, and cite those sources instead. Partisan sources can be used as opinion sources, but must be clearly identified for readers in the article mainspace as "conservative" or "progressive," i.e., "According to the conservative news analysis site Media Research Center ..."

Exception: If a consensus of editors on a particular article agrees after discussion on the article Talk page that the partisan source has gathered enough facts, from other reliable sources, to prove a particular fact not found elsewhere (that a Washington Post story is inaccurate, for example) then for that limited purpose, the partisan source may be used as a factual source. But again, it should be clearly identified in the mainspace as a conservative (or progressive) source.

Support

 * Support for the reasons laid out in the proposed edit. I just don't believe that the use of partisan sources is worth the trouble. Every fact has to be checked. Some editors don't bother, choosing to blindly rely on these partisan sources as if they were as good as The New York Times. Using them triggers edit wars. Let's stick to sources that everyone can agree are reliable. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with consideration Their use as opinion should also be limited to well known events.  These sources often offer opinion on minor events and/or what they call controversies.  In other words, their opinion should not be given undue weight.  Arzel (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with the caveat that we shouldn't have a list of bad sources set in stone in the policy, even though the discussion has mostly been about specific sources. The sources in question share a common trait in that they set out to show that reality has a particular political bias, and that ought to be the general trait to watch for. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with the need for a bad source list. There should be a carefully-considered mechanism to put such sources on a list, subject to future review.  It would reduce the constant warring about these sources.  However, I would only support this change if equal consideration is given to blacklisting sources both on the left and the right. Drrll (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support but I worry about the exception. I'm not sure that that doesn't void the whole proposal. If one of these sources is the sole source of information on something, that would tend to make me think it less reliable in that situation. But I'll support this anyway and support including some additional sources (see below). Incidentally, we already have a "blacklist" of sources that Wikipedia won't allow links to -- "The Examiner" (not the one that's the "Washington Examiner") is on that list, for instance, because it isn't considered reliable, so we've already got precedent for this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, but remove the exception. Jtrainor (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the block of the above highly partisan sources being used in or for BLP information mark nutley (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support (qualified) - if only to obviate the need for and enervate the discussion. Institutionalized POV-pushing (which is ultimately what we're addressing) festers as a source of insta-controversy within every article that even breathes the same air as a politically identifiable topic. Progress has been made in clarifying RS issues in discussions on MMfA and it's mirror-images on the right, but much remains to be resolved. Whether categories or characteristics of sourcing can (or should) be identified and defined should, IMHO, precede any voting on proposed language. For example, define (if possible) and differentiate between "hyper-partisan" & "partisan"...and "controversy" remains an undefined "catch-all" for every politically motivated attack that rolls off the pages of "watchdog" organizations.  Still LOTS to do before this is anywhere near vote-ready. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * support the idea, not calling out specific sources - the issue of polemical sourcing is much broader than the US centric new analysis sources discussed in the paragraph. Please see:  [|an arbocom case that hinged on this idea] for more information.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, and add the Fox News Channel to the proposal

 * Note. For background, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_73.


 * Support per User:Hoary below, and the nearly 200,000 byte discussion we had on this topic earlier this month. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I supported? Hmm... Oh, I see. (I await the first "Oppose per User:Hoary".) How about the Washington Times and the latter-day UPI? (Not the WashPo, but perhaps the HuffPo.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this source is reliable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose partisan? yes, unreliable no... Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose No. Jtrainor (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose mark nutley (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this source is qualitatively different from those discussed above and does not warrant a blanket statement against its reliability.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (conditionally) - First, I don't believe this relates to any RS re-consideration of "Fox News". WP:NEWSORG is rather clear already in that regard..."Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable."  I'm unsure that WP:Identifying reliable sources is the appropriate venue for discussion of proposed amendments to Wikipedia P/G that would pertain to (and assumedly acknowledge) the reality of "partisanship" inherent in some sources and how that might impact article content. For the record, is "Fox News" partisan? Not as I understand the definition. Is "Fox News" biased? Yes. Are "Fox News Channel" offerings beyond the "Fox News" division partisan? Assuredly.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, and add Glenn Beck to the proposal

 * Support. This former shock jock is not a reliable journalist. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, and add Keith Olbermann to the proposal

 * I see no reason why this commentator would be considered a reliable source for facts. I wouldn't trust him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For the same reasons I oppose naming Fox News.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, and add the Drudge Report to the proposal

 * Support. Gut Idee. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is the Drudge Report ever used as a source? All he does is provide links to other sources, so he is not even a source of anything.  Arzel (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On rare occasions, The Drudge Report has had its own stories. I'm still thinking about supporting exclusion of this, but I don't know that Drudge is particularly unreliable when these articles have appeared. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason I oppose naming Fox News.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, and add The Nation to the proposal

 * Oppose because I would trust them on facts on a cultural, non-political matter, like information about a poet. I don't know that they're particularly unreliable when it comes to political facts, although almost all partisan sources likely omit coverage of facts embarassing to their own side. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I oppose naming Fox News.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Strongly Oppose... Reliability is primarily a function of WP:Verifiability ... however what you are complaining about here is Point of View (POV). POV is covered by our WP:Neutral point of view policy... which makes it clear that sources are allowed to be biased.  Our job as editors is to neutrally report what they say, regardless of whether we agree with their bias or not.  POV should never be a factor in determining reliability. Of course WP:NPOV also points out that we should not give sources more weight than they deserve... and a truly Hyperpartisan source is likely to be WP:FRINGE and fail WP:UNDUE.  But again, that is a NPOV issue and not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added an asterisk, hope you don't mind. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposal is basically saying we need to apply WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CONS to these specific sources. We don't need a separate proposal for that, all we really need is for editors to remind other editors that these policies apply to these sources. Akerans (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Akerans, the reason I've proposed this is that those methods aren't working. In an ideal world, they'd work. This is the real world. Some editors are careless about partisan sources. A few even have attachments to their own favorite partisan sources. It creates a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive friction. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Akerans, one good reason for adding language to our policies is to make them clearer, even when no new principles are being added. P&W is right: Under current policy language, a lot of editors don't get it. This would help. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JohnWBarber, adding language is fine, adding specific organizations is not. If we want to amend WP:NPOV, for example, to make more clear that bias, and point of view, sources also mean partisan, or hyperpartisan, sources, then I believe that would be a better measure of accomplishing what it is this proposal is attempting to do. Akerans (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I know I originally thought this was a good idea, but honestly, this isn't worth the effor and doesn't help matters at all. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate. I'm really trying to make this work. Honestly, Soxwon, if I didn't think this would solve a lot more problems than it creates, I wouldn't be going to all this trouble. I have a lot of irons in the fire already. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Washington Post?  The moonie paper is your neutral source?  Just say no to whatever it is the Kool-Aid man is pushing on you.  Hcobb (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, dude, you're thinking of the Washington Times. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Still oppose. The WP has too much of an inside the beltway bias and gets carried along with the local narrative: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html  But once we do find a really reliable source we can just shut down wikipedia and direct the traffic there.  Hcobb (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of a biased source: http://www.c-span.org/ While they pump floor activity through without obvious editing, they do run a weekly program on telecommunications that is always positive on the subject, because they are funded by the sat/cable companies in question. Every single source is going to have some areas of weakness (some, like Beck, have no areas of strength).  There are no cases where we can simply accept a source as gospel.  Hcobb (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't even get me started on Brian Lamb.... Dlabtot (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I appreciate the sentiment, but: (a) "partisan" doesn't adequately cover the extreme-POV media, and I don't think "partisan" should get different treatment on Wikipedia than other POV sources: extremely left (vehemently opposing the Democratic party), extremely right (vehemently opposing the GOP), extremely Hindu nationalist (unconcerned with U.S. politics), etc. (b) If fact-checking and reliability are the problem, then it's a straightforward WP:RS issue and so doesn't need a variant policy. (c) Extreme-POV (but factwise reliable) sources can be very valuable as sources of that POV's opinion and analysis. C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose It creates a false equivalence. The truth is not non-partisan. It doesn't belong exclusively to one side or the other. To use a quote from Stephen Colbert, "Reality hhas a well known liberal bias". Even though it only slights one side, the concept is well illustrated. -- ۩ M ask  13:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose All of it. WP specifically is founded on "is it verifiable that it was published?" and not "is it truth?"   Suppose some consensus is found that religious sites are not valid for information on religion because of "bias"?   That only Marxist (ir non-Marxist) textbooks are valid cites for economics?  Collect (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose - We validate sources based on mostly-objective criteria laid out in WP:RS, not a subjective decision on whether a source is "hyper-partisan". Editors often misunderstand "reliable" to mean "without an opinion", which are two vastly different concepts.  Such a distinction will do nothing but start endless wars about what sources are "biased", and will undoubtedly be used by editors to exclude viewpoints with which they disagree.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Blaxthos. We have other standards for reliability already in place, and what is being suggested here is a very fundamental change in the criteria for reliability, one which I believe would damage the project and lead to censorship. —Torchiest talk/contribs 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - not a good idea, too many debates would be initiated over sources if we add another level.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blaxthos & Torchiest. This could be one of the most potentially damaging proposals I've seen. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose – We should have our readers be aware that our sources may not be NPOV, but not remove the sources entirely; they may be of some use to an article. In addition, what one editor defines as "hyperpartisan" is likely different from another, which would result in edit wars about what sources should be removed. Wikipedia itself can be NPOV; it cannot guarantee its sources are. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose this is honestly a farce and rather WP:POINTY, I agree with 1000% of Blueboar statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - While I certainly agree that hyper-partisan sources exist and are almost invariably best avoided, I'd have misgivings about this policy. (a) There may be circumstances where they are useful; for example, a hyper-partisan source on either left or right would probably still be a reliable source for a trivial and non-contentious fact like the weather at a certain time and place, and it just might be the only source we have. (In other words, hyper-partisan sources may be useful for information that doesn't have a partisan dimension.) (b) We already have good general guidelines about reliability. (c) The editors who want to use these kind of sources to prove a point are just going to find another one that isn't on the list, then point to its absence from the list as an indicator of reliability. (d) The debate over which publications should be on the list will be endless. Barnabypage (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. We have already covered what a reliable source is in WP:V and WP:RS. This proposal will just provide an excuse for hyper-partisan editors to make other editors' lives a hassle by decrying disliked sources to be "hyper-partisan," now backed up with Wikilawyering. It will not make the articles in Wikipedia more NPOV. Indeed, there is so much disagreement over the subject, and it is so acrimonious, that I do not think that the proposed changed can be considered indicative of the general consensus of the community, which is what we expect policies to be.  Policies are not supposed to be a place for wiki-legislation in support of social consciousness.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think this is a WP:CREEPy solution to a small problem that can and should be handled by 1) editors citing such sources with clear attribution of who says or asserts what, and 2) detailed discussion at WP:RS/N when there are good faith disagreements. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Please see WP:RS:


 * The "source" is an individual publication. If written by a good expert, it can be highly reliable, even when published in partisan media.Biophys (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Would be gamed endlessly. When using sources, look to WP:NPOV for the way they are used within the article, not for whether WP:NPOV applies to the source itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the absurd proposal is directly counter to our WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Categorically removing sources without examining their function in the article is a departure from the principles of existing policies. It may be difficult to use sources with a POV to build NPOV articles, but that isn't a problem exclusive to "hyper-partisan" media, and it's not an excuse to prevent other editors from trying. Melchoir (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. IMO there is too much legalism is what is allowed and not allowed currently.  Wikipedia isn't a religion which excommunicates inconvenient sources.  The fact is that most "reliable sources" make significant mistakes on a daily basis.  Editors should aim at NPOV and factual accuracy, rather than politically convenient point-scoring or removing stuff they disagree with.Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose First of all, the idea that Newsmax and MediaMatters or FAIR are equivalent just demonstrates what a sledgehammer versus scalpel this proposal is.  Both MediaMatters and FAIR include original analysis and reporting and also routinely cite reliable sources, which cannot be said the same or to the same extent about NewsMax.  But, the larger problem is the effort to import Wikipedia's neutral point of view into its sourcing requirements.  I think this is an enormous mistake.  I admit that I have a bias in this regard because our site, SourceWatch, does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV approach.  While I respect the construct, I do not think that enforcing it through referencing is appropriate.  The point of referencing is to allow the reader to check the sources cited and make a judgment themselves about how much weight to accord to the reference.  The fact that an organization may fact-check the claims made by the right, hailing from the perspective of the left, or vice versa, does not make its statements untrue or incorrect.  And, I also must say that I fear that the recent obsession with MediaMatters, which has done excellent work pointing out false claims and misinformation on the right in my opinion, is part of the broader right-wing campaign to discredit one its most powerful critics.  I don't think it is the place of Wikipedia to jump into this political fight.  Equating MediaMatters with NewsMax does a disservice to the tremendous research MediaMatters has done to respond to political assertions routinely repeated as fact and amplified by NewsMax.  For all these reasons and more, I strongly oppose this proposal.LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose This proposal goes against what is laid out in our three main content policies, WP:NPV, WP:V and WP:OR. As explained in WP:YESPOV, verifiability and reliability of a source is unrelated with whether or not a source is partisan. There are partisan reliable sources, and non-partisan unreliable sources. LK (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although I think the heart of this proposal is in the right place, the artificial term "partisan" does not necessarily equate to unreliability. I think sources which have a track record of generating or repeating dubious stories, intentional fabrication or reporting with a reckless disregard for the truth, ought not be used.  Although I have mixed feelings, I would be interested in discussing the creation of a list of such sources, even (which may include some of those mentioned here), but a ban on sources because the perception of the source is partisan does not cut it for me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Are you going to add the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News for pushing their far-right, neo-liberal capitalist, pro-U.S. ideology? How about the U.S. State Department -- surely they are "hyper-partisan"? Or is it just a certain type of "bias" you're trying to remove? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per first sentence of WP:V. "Partisan", like "truth", is a relative term. Saying that some sources are more partisan than others, and then actively muting them does not meet WP:NPOV when it states that " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."  Unless of course you want to ignore it.  But I don't anticipate the muting action to particular sources this action would present would improve articles by not providing competing views....aha! WP:NPOV again!  QuAz  GaA  00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

--K10wnsta (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Collectively oppose - With such a sweeping, unconditional decree (...never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace), I'm afraid each of these would have to be assessed individually. For example, we shouldn't be using Glenn Beck as a source for any subject other than himself (not even Tea Party-related matters).  Fox News, however, falls into a gray area of questionable.  While the brunt of its programming is commentary (no different than The Daily Show), where it actually reads news from the wires is typically okay (and they do have to maintain some journalistic integrity, what with all the other news organizations scrutinizing everything they say).  As for the other organizations, their liabilities and assets would have to be weighed seperately, because, if one qualified as acceptable, it would automatically qualify all the others.


 * Oppose - libel magnet and possibly already libellous in its present form. Also it would be the death of Wikipedia's already tenuous reputation for neutrality. Other editors might scoff at the idea that we could be sued for libel for making these claims, but regardless of whether it is likely for us to be sued, we should avoid libel. This suggestion would have to be rewritten, ideally removing all purported examples, before I'd even consider supporting it.--greenrd (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and stop adding blank sections to support section
Adding in all those blank and add Peewees funhouse to the approved list of reliable sources sections above is simple ballot stuffing. Hcobb (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the blank sections. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions and suggestions

 * Are these "extremely partisan sources", or are they merely "partisan sources"? The proposal seems to vacillate. I wouldn't argue with the term "partisan"; however, I wonder how they are more partisan than is, say, much of Fox News. The omission of Fox News from this proposal should be explained (or corrected). -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Hoary. These are sources that are so partisan, they're unreliable. There was a separate discussion about Fox News as a partisan source and, as I had previously predicted, it ended up with no consensus. (I can hunt up the Fox News discussion for you if you'd like.) Generally speaking, while Fox News is clearly partisan and maintains a pretense of neutrality, they are also clearly a secondary source and they do at least some fact-checking. The result I perceived in the discussion was that Fox News was understood to have no greater incidence of embarassing inaccuracies than other sources we agree are reliable. (Even The New York Times has to print an occasional retraction.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the sources in question all have a difference in character from Fox News (or NPR, which reports with a generally leftist perspective). If we tried to exclude sources merely for having political leanings, a lot of witch-hunts would ensue. The example sources listed above, on the other hand, are partisan to the point of unreliability - I suppose I could quibble about Newsmax, which is right on the line, but the fact is that their reporting is often of low quality regardless. In any case, substantial previous discussion has shown that excluding Fox News is a non-starter; there's no broad support for such an action. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal has parts with which I agree and parts with which I disagree. I get the point, however, and generally agree, but before I officially support this proposal, I would want to see the language changed.  For example, "These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace...."  I have to be consistent.  I have opposed people trying to claim that MMfA is always a RS.  WP:RS requires each source to be considered in context.  MMfA cannot always be considered a RS since that would obviate the requirement to consider the link in context.  Similarly, simply declaring certain sources "should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace" means that context would become irrelevant.  Anyway, my suggestion is to tighten up the language of the proposal, the above being just one concern. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LAEC, I anticipated questions about context. Please review the last paragraph of the proposed edit starting with Exception: — I think it adequately accommodates your concern about context. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we just put some of these precepts into practice now? If a politically-oriented story is referenced solely to MMfA, the Drudge Report, or the Fox News Channel, lets just delete it.  Be bold.  Wikipedia risks becoming a shill for right-wing propaganda if we don't act now. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Truth is truth. However, there is a great divide in media. Saying one side (Liberal) is more accurate than the other (Conservative) misses the mark. WP should strive for accuracy. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This poll is confusing. Is each section considered to be its own poll? BigK HeX (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This poll is a waste of time and is going to go nowhere. Why don't we just close it now and save everyone the trouble? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is it that some users reflexively wish to abort all discussions about reliable sources? Since when is having a well-reasoned discussion with good-faith reasoning on both sides a "waste of time" ? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it that some users reflexively wish to abort all discussions about reliable sources? -- The fact that I wish to abort this discussion, in no way implies that I wish to abort all discussions on reliable sources.
 * Since when is having a well-reasoned discussion with good-faith reasoning on both sides a "waste of time"? -- First off, it's not well reasoned. Second, it's a waste of time, because nothing is going to come out of it. Nobody is going to come up with a meaningful definition of "partisan sources", because every source is partisan. Thus trying to prevent the use of certain sources based on their being "partisan" is meaningless. This gets brought up repeatedly at WP:RSN, and each time the response is pretty much the same as what I'm saying here. The reason I suggest we close this conversation is that continuing it is going to amount to nothing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure where this goes, so I'm placing it here. Yesterday I notified the RfC author that the RfC list text was not reflecting the RfC issue. Thus far, for reasons unknown, he has not yet addressed the error.  If it is within some admin's perogative, perhaps they might consider a corrective edit? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps?
''Sources which are known to hold political, religious or other positions specifically against the subject of an article must be used sparingly. Editorial commentary must be clearly noted in every case as being editorial commentary, and the source should be noted in the claim as having strong opinions contrary to the subject of the article. In any WP:BLP the use of such a source to make charges of improper activity against a person or group should be avoided as much as is possible. Additionally, as Wikipedia seeks to gets article as neutral in tone and content as possible per WP:NPOV,  use of such sources against that goal are improper. During short political seasons, complete avoidance of such material in any WP:BLP emanating from partisan sources is proper unless or until verification of the charge is made from a separate nonpartisan source, as Wikipedia has no deadlines, and the harm in requiring refutation of such charges in a matter of weeks is often impossible. ''

Avoiding any labelling of any specific source, listing of such sources, and so on. And leaving it to common sense as to which groups or sources, or edoitorialists, are specifically antithetical in their positions about any given topic. Thus the UUK Express is likely antithetical to global warming proponents, and RealClimate is likely antithetical to people holding less than solid opinions about AGW (using one example). The Republican National Committee would likely be such a source regarding Obama, and the Democratic National Committee about Palin. And so on. This also is fairly in line with the policies cited, and with Mr. Wales opinion at. This also avoids any possible claims that any one side benefits from such a statement at all. Collect (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this would imply that the New York Times, CNN, NBC, Fox News, LA Times, Miami Herald, and just about every other major corporate media outlet shoule be "used sparingly" as sources for any topic related to politics, health/environment, social issues, business, etc. They consistently push a point of view (pro-capitalist, anti-social, pro-U.S./Israel, pro-corporate, anti-environmental) point of view, just as much as Counterpunch or The Nation consistently pushes the point of view that rich corrupt white men control the U.S. government and are destroying the environment, running torture camps, slashing social spending, and murdering millions of people overseas. There is no way that anyone is going to be able to come up with a solid definition of "partisan" with which we can banish certain publications, and it's a stupid concept anyway -- everyone is "partisan", in the sense that if a human is writing something, that person has political beliefs which not only affect the way they write, but which facts they choose to present. What we should focus on instead is the factual accuracy and editorial quality of each source, not their political views. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh - that is one heck of an overstatement! Unless, of course, you posit that all of the facts stated in the NYT are "charges" about a person or group, that those charges are not verified by any other sources, and that their content is specifically not neutral under WP policies and guidelines. I suggest that such is not a consensus apt to occur inany noticeboard in projectspace at all .  Moreover, you post shows the very reason why such a policy is needed now more than ever on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not an overstatement. I'm not saying that everything in the New York Times is a "charge", any more than everything in The Nation is a "charge". What I'm pointing out is that the corporate mass media (NY Times, CNN, Fox, WSJ, etc.) is every bit as "biased" as any of the other sources that are listed. There is no way to fairly and reasonably claim that certain forms of bias are fine, while disallowing others. That's why WP:RS is written the way it is. We acknowledge that everyone is biased, and instead focus on their notability and their record for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, is it not? Give the readers some credit for being able to "consider the source" of ref. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC) . . . I.e., Base entries on validity/value and ref. a major outlet.