Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WikiTree

Dear colleagues,
I was consulting the list to find out the status of WikiTree as a source for genealogical information, but it is currently not included in the list. Before I start a discussion about it on the noticeboard, does anyone have experience in using it in an article, or of its suitability for biographies of old-time performers (i.e., not WP:BLP)? Thank you very much in advance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: On taking a closer look, it appears to be an aggregator of FamilySearch and Findmypast, which are deemed generally unreliable; so, this suggests WikiTree would most likely share that status too.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pdebee, I think you're absolutely right. In addition to FamilySearch (RSP entry) and Findmypast (RSP entry), WikiTree looks similar to Ancestry.com (RSP entry) and Geni.com (RSP entry), all of which are considered generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on list creation

Hello everyone, I would like if someone who is familiar with the creation of this list could tell me whether it would make sense to create a similar but separate list for sources in Serbo-Croatian language, that are often and in large numbers used under the Balkan scope? Perhaps, at some point, this could be extended to the whole of Eastern Europe and the languages in use there, however, in both versions the geographically scope should be probably defined, beside lang, in line with ARBMAC / ARBEE. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, what methodology were you thinking of using for building the list? If you're just planning on writing it using your own opinions, there isn't much stopping you from just starting your own list, with the caveat being that its authority will be only as strong as your own personal arguments. If you're planning on building the list based on the consensuses of archived discussions, then WP:NPPSG may be a good place to log the assessments if the consensuses aren't strong enough to list here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course not, it would defeat the purpose to build something on your own - I was thinking, using the same methodology as with creation of existing Perennial sources list, although I have to admit I was pretty assured that simply following ongoing and registering previous discussions and results in individual RSN's would be only appropriate way - I mean, isn't the Perennial sources list created by simply registering results of the most recent RSN discussion outcomes ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest that we use WP:NPPSG for this (I'm effectively already doing that, although other than a few Albanian sources there's been little discussion about the Balkans on RSN since I've started). The difference between that list and RSP (other than the sorting) is that NPPSG has a lower bar for inclusion than RSP. RSP documents discussions that are truly perennial, or that at least have been thoroughly discussed in an RfC, whereas NPPSG documents any reliability discussion that includes a general reliability assessment. The name NPPSG is honestly a bit of a misnomer at this point but I've been lazy about renaming it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects have assembled source lists that are focused on specific topic or geographical areas. See WP:RSP § Topic-specific pages for a list. If you would like to create a list, I recommend doing so under a relevant WikiProject so that it gets seen by more editors who would find it helpful. The methodology to use for this list would be up to you. Some of these topic-specific lists include more discussions from talk pages covered under the related WikiProject in addition to discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard. However, I'm not sure which WikiProject to place this under, since WikiProject Eastern Europe is inactive.

Rosguill's recommendation to use WP:NPPSG is a good idea, since it has sections for geographical areas and would be used by new page patrollers in addition to editors interested in the topic area. Regardless of whether you choose to create a separate list, adding entries to WP:NPPSG would ensure that they get seen and are made use of by more editors. ​— Newslinger talk 04:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

PinkNews as a reliable source

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PinkNews. It's a reassessment matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the way the discussion has evolved, do you think it would be a good idea to convert it into a formal RfC? Armadillopteryx^talk 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of the ADL?

Should this be considered the same as Hope Not Hate? CantingCrew (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

There is currently an active RfC on the Anti-Defamation League at WP:RSN § RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Feel free to ask questions and express your opinions there. — Newslinger talk 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The origin of Memes and citing Knowyourmeme

I don't know how any more accurate evidence can be found on topics this obscure, or are we simply to wait until a publication decides to talk about it ( and often get it wrong ). Especially because contextually there isn't a better site. This has led to inaccuracies on other pages. There is a good context for referencing such sites.CantingCrew (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)CantingCrew

​Know Your Meme (RSP entry) is currently classified as generally unreliable because its entries are user-generated. Even when it is the best source available, it does not have enough editorial control to meet the verifiability policy's requirement of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There are many sources on the Internet that readers appreciate, yet do not meet Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, and Know Your Meme is one of them. If you find evidence of editorial control at Know Your Meme that other editors have missed, feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Global Times

Is the now closed discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times specific enough for us to change what we say for the Global Times? It appears to be the only discussion we’ve had on the Global Times specifically since 2014 (the 2019 discussion was a combined discussion of six sources and it was noted that among them GT was the least reliable) and consensus is clear but participation was light.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't as yet - generally speaking, I don't think there should be a rush to list things here unless consensus is clearly overwhelming. There's a vexed and ongoing argument about just how independent various state-owned media are and where they therefore go on the reliability scale - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times is already listed here. They also aren’t one of the edge cases we’re concerned about with state-owned media, these guys are worse than RT. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think more participation would be helpful here, probably in the form of an RfC. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can add CGTN and SCMP to the discussion as well. NoNews! 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

CGTN yes but not SCMP... SCMP is editorially independent of the Chinese government and located in HK. CGTN and Global Times are similarly unreliable state mouthpieces. SCMP is generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a list of reliable HK sources out there somewhere? Because it's came up in AfDs a few times and I assume not every news outlet there would be reliable. I'd love to start a list if there isn't one already. Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wording for a listing

Newslinger, the AfterEllen discussion recently closed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 302#AfterEllen. Any ideas for what wording to use for its listing on this page? The consensus is generally reliable, with a strong emphasis on context. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Frozen, I think we need one more discussion of AfterEllen before the site meets the inclusion criteria. There are several discussions of AfterElton.com (now TheBacklot.com), described in Wikipedia as "the companion site of AfterEllen.com (AfterEllen)", but I am not sure if it is appropriate to group AfterEllen and AfterElton together. I noticed that the new page patrol source guide currently lists AfterEllen in WP:NPPSG § No consensus with the description "a July 2020 RSN discussion did not come to a consensus, with a majority arguing that it was generally reliable and usable as attributable opinion". I can see how a formal closure would be useful for this discussion, and it is unfortunate that the discussion was not turned into an RfC because the subject is quite controversial. — Newslinger talk 02:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, as always, no need to ping me since I watch this page and I check back for replies regardless.

There are listings on this page that are supported by only one discussion, and I don't see what else could be stated about AfterEllen at this point in time. The WP:NPPSG listing is contradictory since the sentence clearly states "with a majority arguing that it was generally reliable and usable as attributable opinion." So that should be tweaked away from "no consensus." And I'll do that now. I could request a formal close of the discussion since closes have been carried out after a thread has been archived, but I think I'll likely leave it be. And I agree that AfterEllen should be judged on its own merits. AfterElton/TheBacklot is defunct. As for AfterEllen's listing here at WP:RSP, I'm not pressed to have it listed. I questioned the matter because discussion on it recently closed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'll leave that listing at WP:NPPSG as is for now. But that listing is currently contradictory. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Since RfCs are widely publicized through the feedback request system, an RfC can serve as a substitute for two discussions. However, there are simply too many sources discussed on the noticeboard for this list to include those that only have one non-RfC discussion. The inclusion criteria were initially formed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2 § Criteria for inclusion, and I unsuccessfully proposed that they be tightened in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 3 § Adding notability to the inclusion criteria. If you think the criteria can be improved in some way, please share your suggestions. I'll try to remember your preference to not be pinged—sorry about that. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: Just an FYI. AfterElton.com > TheBacklot.com = zero. The website was dissolved in 2015. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I have put in a formal request for closure after a request from Pyxis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How to search Wikipedia use of sources...?

Is there a search method to find instances of a source used across Wikipedia? Is it possible, say, to search Wikipedia’s use of a certain site or book or article across articles? X0bN14Rb (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi X0bN14Rb, you can use the insource: parameter in the search box to find articles that include links to a certain website. There is also Special:LinkSearch, although it includes search results from all namespaces (including discussion pages) and requires separate searches for HTTP and HTTPS links. The {{RSourceSummary}} and {{Domain uses}} templates might be helpful. Book citations are more difficult to locate, but a good starting point would be to search for the book's title (in quotes) or the book's ISBN. — Newslinger talk 01:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! This worked wonders; very helpful! X0bN14Rb (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

An entry for Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media has been discussed enough to warrant an entry, see 1 2 3 4(and many other incidental mentions). Can we workshop an entry here? I think the general concensus is that it is generally unreliable, but I would like to discuss what the specific text should be used in the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I'm not sure I agree with your summary. While the majority of editors have argued that it is unreliable, some have argued that it may sometimes be usable with attribution. The current summary writes that latter camp out of the equation _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I assume this is in reference to the 3rd discussion? One of the users who suggested it was use as attributable (Brian K Horton in his only non-Daily Mail related comment) was banned for sockpuppetry and so therefore I assign his opinion no due weight. Only one other editor in the 3rd discussion expressed the opinion that it usable with attribution. I thought the concensus of most other participants in all of the discussions combined weighed against the handful of editors who considered it usable with attribution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, in the third discussion, PaleoNeonate also suggested that it was usable with attribution and Valjean said it was full-on reliable, with Guy adding that he considers it to be useful but not directly citeable. Two editors called it unreliable outright. In the fourth discussion, feminist argued that it was usable if cited by other more reliable sources, and Guy repeated his position, with an additional editor echoing Guy. I think we're leaning towards unreliable, but I would not call that a consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy said: "No. Ad Fontes is not a RS. It's a useful guide when assessing sources but is not in and of itself reliable". As far as I understand, RSP is about whether a source can be used in article space not about whether it is a good guide for discussions about other sources, Guy also stated in another discussion that "I would not cite it on the encyclopaedia". Feminist's comment was "Usable if quoted in a third-party source. So, hypothetically, if the New York Times cites the Ad Fontes Chart's "skews right" rating of One America News in a news article about OANN, we can use the NYT article as a source to support a statement which reads 'The source is rated "skews right" by Ad Fontes Media'", it means that Ad Fontes Media should only be mentioned if a reliable third party gives the rating significance, which is not the same as suggesting that Ad Fontes ratings can be directly cited with attribution. Valjean's comment did not mention attribution at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Valjean's comment didn't mention attribution, but I think that "usable with attribution" is an appropriate middle ground to mention. There's clearly little support for general reliability, but editors that argued for that position still pull the overall consensus away from a blanket statement of unreliability, provided that the arguments aren't obviously ludicrous. Similarly, feminist's argument is too nuanced and too much of a minority for it to make sense to quote it verbatim, but nonetheless suggests that a blanket statement of unreliability is not appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Wonkette discussion, sche suggested that "No. To say, in the article body, that "Ad Fontes Media considers Wonkette left-wing" would probably be alright if other sources covered (and hence attached weight to) Ad Fontes' view of Wonkette. To cite them as a source for a claim in wikivoice that "Wonkette is far left" is not, for reasons Aquillon lays out (namely that it involves OR [mis?]interpreting their image, and it's also unclear that they are reliable)." This argument is very similar to feminist's. I would be okay with the addition of "some editors consider Ad Fontes ratings usable with attribution if reliable third party sources have covered the specific rating" or a similar wording. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I'm having second thoughts about the entire perennial source process, and the way we are judging the "whole" despite its many "parts", such as (a) multiple broadcast stations that comprise a television network, (b) numerous individual programs that comprise a channel, and (c) various topics that comprise individual sections of an online or print publication. We are depriving ourselves access to a rich pool of resources by using a flawed rating system. POV creep is a serious issue, and I am concerned that it poses a threat to encyclopedic diversity and NPOV which is one of the 3 most important core content policies of WP. We are already dangerously close to our results being the product of Groupthink rather than reaching results from a more nuanced approach that involves critical thinking based on unbiased expert analysis and experience. It's one thing to write an article without experience, etc. but it's something entirely different if the result of such critical decisions negatively effect a RS because it was based on misinformation or misunderstanding, or the hedging of guidelines, the lack of experience and/or unawareness - give or take, whatever fits best. What I'm seeing here is that our results are a culmination of SYNTH (combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion) + biased POV. We're taking criticism at face value from various sources that may have a financial COI or political bias against Fox, and we're adding it all together to conclude that an entire network or channel is "unreliable". To that, add our own POV creep and favoritism or dislike for Fox's conservative programming. We held an RfC to reach a consensus in an effort to rate the entire source's reliability, despite the many parts that comprise the whole, and by doing so, we dismissed WP:RS which states: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. We are actually seeding bias by such a judgment call, and prejudicing an editor's choice of sources using this flawed rating system when we should be evaluating specific material published in a source that we want to include in a given article based on CONTEXT. We can't deny that liberals will dismiss a conservative source or vice versa, intentional or otherwise, and based on first impressions, it appears to be playing out here. Perhaps it's time to prepare a survey for wider community input at VPP because of the policies involved, rather than limit it to a single noticeboard. I'm certainly open to be convinced otherwise. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC) ^{Re: the underlined wikilink was added 19:10, July 28, 2020 after I created the essay to help editors understand my use of POV creep. Atsme _Talk 📧 01:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)}

You made 69 edits in the RfC. Above, you tried to rehash it. It now sounds like you didn’t like the result, and so you wish to toss it and start over elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "POV creep" and we are not in danger of creating a groupthink product. And can we please leave U.S. politics out of this? RSP has become one of the most useful content resources on Wikipedia, and for good reason: it succinctly reflects consensus from prior discussions. It's an index. This guide was never meant to be a substitute for discussion and evaluating sources in the context in which they are proposed to be used. - MrX 🖋 18:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not "conservative programming" Fox produces. They're among the most radical of the radical right and far to the right of what would be considered "conservative" in most contexts. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point GPinkerton. They used to be ordinary right-wing (and thus a RS with a right-wing bias), but since (at least) the Obama candidature, they started sliding more and more to the right and are now radical right-wing, not truly conservative. Now that they are supporting Trump and steering his agenda, they are just a misinformation source, regardless of the left/right matter, which is consistent with Trump, as he is not consistently left/right, but consistently pushes fake news, falsehoods, and conspiracy theories, and Fox News amplifies that. -- Valjean (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, in the close of the RfC it was stated:

There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious).

That "certain participants" in part, includes your conduct during the RfC, which you appear to not have realised or acknowledged. The Daily Mail and the Sun are the top 2 best selling newspapers in the UK, and yet both were deprecated, one wonders if the Wikipedia userbase was more British skewed whether there would have been more protest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I doubt that. People that build encyclopaedias and people that read The Sun or the Mail are non-overlapping sets. The Sun is also about one tenth the price of any other newspaper, which explains its continuing high rate of circulation. Neither paper is anything like as right-wing as Fox, though both are as unreliable/nefarious. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you would be suprised. While has ameliorated under the current editor Geordie Greig, during the tenure of Paul Dacre the Daily Mail was very right wing, with constant antagonistic stories about migrants and a strong support for Brexit, including the infamous Enemies of the People (headline). There is also a non-negligible number of editors who indeed think that the Daily Mail is usable as a source, see Talk:Death_of_Keith_Blakelock#Please_stop_edit-warring_a_deprecated_source_into_the_article and the numerous complaints on User_talk:David_Gerard including by Cassianto (see User_talk:David_Gerard#Your_war_on_the_Daily_Mail, who has written 17 FAs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I'm not saying they're not very right-wing, I'm just saying Fox is more extreme. I know all about the Daily Mail and its awful tub-thumping but it would never support, say, the abolition of free universal healthcare, which I believe is considered a kind of communism in the neo-McCarthyite Fox newsroom. GPinkerton (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

May I offer an observation in passing, being British? The Sun and Daily Mail undoubtedly lie on occasion, deliberately, in exchange for circulation boosts. So does a lot of British journalism. Circulation is a powerful incentive when the consequence is trivial and far in the future. They also, and in the main, report factually when they're not making it up for scandalous effect. It's a matter of judgment whether a given report is truthful news or not. Flagging up disputed source is fair enough as a warning but it doesn't mean a report is false. You can be pretty certain it will be biased, which is another matter, but it may well be factual. Flagging sources as biased would cover far too high a proportion of citations on Wikipedia, the bar has to be higher than mere predictable repetitive bias which would necessarily include stalwart factual newspapers of record like the Guardian as well as the tabloid trash - and I say that as a Guardian subscriber. JohnHarris (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Fox News is definitely more, and more consistently, biased, but the debate lumped in Fox affiliates (which are not Fox News), most of which are entirely normal local journalism. But the Daily Mail had a significant problem under Dacre of simply making shit up, including fabricated quotes, and Fox generally doesn't do that. They merely give airtime to people who do. Guy (help!) 22:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, You failed to get the result you want. The close specifically calls out WP:BLUDGEONing, and you are obviously one of the worst offenders in that.

But the fundamental problem here is the asymmetric polarisation of US media. We have a situation where one side accuses the other of "fake news" while sharing the shit out of literal fake news. Fox moved sharply to the right in 2015/16 as Breitbart started taking clicks, shares, and ad revenue from them. OANN has outflanked Fox on the more extreme right. And the core of the problem is uncritical defence of Trump. Guy (help!) 22:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you pinged me here, so I'll respond to your misinformation about me per your comment: "You failed to get the result you want". I actually did get the results I wanted except for one minor caveat, and if I was concerned about "not getting my way", as you put it, I would have challenged the close instead of awarding 3 Closer's Barnstars. There were at least 5 other editors dancing the bludgeoning dance, so you need to stop singling me out to denigrate me because that fits the textbook definition of WP:HOUNDING, not to mention your prejudice against me. I also find it interesting that other editors opened side discussions during the RfC, and nothing was said to them, but the minute I started one, the flood gates opened. I have already had a discussion with Rosguill, and also communicated with Newslinger, both of whom have always been very polite and accommodating. I also expressed my concerns to you back when you first started down this bumpy road of rating whole sources and entire networks and you were doing it long before the Fox RfC was initiated, so my concerns predate the Fox RfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: - We can't deny that liberals will dismiss a conservative source or vice versa - so why is the Wall Street Journal still green then? Are there concerted efforts to remove it? Why not? starship.paint (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Starship - I'm not going to comment about the WSJ because former owners Sue Bancroft, and Ed Jones are close acquaintenances, which skirts COI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

One could also mention The Times and staunchly conservative The Telegraph, and their Sunday-paper stablemates, and others besides rightly considered "reliable" ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I would rate The Times higher than the Telegraph though, the fact that they have repeatedly promoted climate change denial, censored their reporting to appease their advertiser HSBC as well as their re-printing of Chinese propaganda puts them on the same tier as The Independent imo. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the most reliable paper in the UK is the FT. The Times is pretty good, with a right bias; the Grauniad is pretty good, with a left bias. If the Times and the Grauniad agree, then it's probably true. The Torygraph has been on a downward slide for years (it was very Brexity, for example, to the extent of denying obvious facts). And guess which periodical I subscribe to... Guy (help!) 23:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, could you please add a note under your original comment indicating that you added a link to Wikipedia:POV creep in Special:Diff/970057690? I'm trying to resolve the issue raised at User talk:Newslinger § Revert. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

SPLC

Discussion of the question Levivich is asking

Why is SPLC listed as green? I'm not seeing a discussion that was closed as "generally reliable" and many of them seem to suggest the opposite, e.g. [1]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that before seeking to change something, one should first understand why it is the way it is. So that's all I'm asking. Please, if you want to discuss whether it should be green, or how RSP works, or accuse other editors of "sour grapes", or anything other than "why is SPLC listed as green", please do that in the subsection below, and keep this one for the simple question: why is it listed green? Thanks, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is classified as "generally reliable" because that was its original designation on this list, and there has not yet been consensus to change it. While the discussion you linked, #16, is closer to "no consensus", past discussions hovered somewhere between "generally reliable" and "no consensus", most visibly in discussion #14. In a five-tier system, the SPLC would be a tier 2 source. Since discussion #16 hints at a downward trend in editors' opinions of the SPLC, I recommend starting an RfC on the reliability of the SPLC. Our reliability standards have increased since 2008, and this may affect the SPLC as well. — Newslinger talk 02:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Newslinger. Was 2008 when it was originally listed? Also thanks for linking to the five tier discussion, that's interesting. Has that been revisited since? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. 2008 is just the year that discussion #1 took place. The entry for the SPLC has not been discussed in depth, but there was an edit war in February 2019 which is the reason I listed the SPLC as one of the two "controversially classified sources" on the banner at the top of this talk page. While it is possible to change the status of entries through a discussion on this talk page, in practice, if there's any sort of controversy or disagreement about what the entry should say, the discussion is continued on the noticeboard for a fresh look at the source (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library and PinkNews). Feel free to start an RfC on the SPLC. I could also do it myself if you prefer, but I've been trying to encourage list-related participation from other editors. — Newslinger talk 02:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you meant to ask about whether the five-tier system has been revisited, it has not. The format of this list has been stable for a year and a half, and I would expect resistance to any major changes. — Newslinger talk 03:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes, I was asking about the five-tier proposal. Is there an easy way to tell when an RSP entry was added? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not yet, besides watchlisting this page and checking the page history. There is an editnotice that reminds editors to include a descriptive edit summary with each change to the list. I am working on a project that will make the information on this list more accessible, and will have more to announce in the near future. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The explanation on SPLC matches what I recall being the last RFC and the general use of it, and particularly with the last major test case against it - the Confederate statue study it did a few years back (that was deemed an RS free of bias compared to their hate group cataloging). Unless we want to split it into two like being proposed for Fox News, I think green is correct and easiest to parse, with the explanation tersely getting the point on RSOPINION aspects across. --Masem (t) 13:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of anything else

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Levivich: The banner at the top of this talkpage states:

Fox News (RSP entry) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) are the most controversially classified sources in this list. The most recent Fox News RfC is from 2020, and there has never been an RfC for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of these sources, please start an RfC (request for comment) on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist.

Feel free to call a RfC if you think that is necessary (which I would support) I called a RfC on the ADL for a similar reason. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, thanks, I know that. I meant my question literally: why is it listed green? Especially if there's never been an RFC, how did it get on this page? At some point, someone added it and someone made it green, and I'm too lazy to go diff diving to find out who and when, and I care more about why, that is, what is the logic behind it being listed here and listed as green. So I'm asking: why is it green?

I guess a second question is: who decided to add a banner saying "If you disagree with the classifications of these sources, please start an RfC", as opposed to following our usual rule, which is onus for inclusion, not exclusion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously this stems from the discussion above about the coloring of Fox News. If "no consensus on reliability" = yellow (makes sense), then we need to apply that standard to all the entries here, not just Fox News. Which means everything is yellow until and unless there is an RFC that results in consensus on reliability, in which case it's green, or that results in consensus on unreliability, in which case it's red. Until one of those two outcomes, everything should be yellow. To color it green without an RFC strikes me as very misleading to editors, who will assume it's backed by an RFC. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

False equivalency. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There are 16 linked discussions. That more than meets the inclusion criteria, consistent with every other entry on the list. There is no requirement for discussions to be formally closed. Also, I have personally participated in dozens of talk page discussions where SPLC was challenged for reliability and the consensus that it is generally reliable has always been upheld. - MrX 🖋 21:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In those 16 discussions, there is no consensus for "generally reliable". For example, in this 2019 discussion I linked to, it seems half the editors thought it was generally unreliable. Can you link to discussions where SPLC was challenged for reliability and the consensus was that it is generally reliable? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you were counting sources instead of evaluating the strengths of the arguments and their basis in policy. No, I decline to provide you with a bespoke list of links to specific discussions amongst the thousands of pages that I've edited. - MrX 🖋 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"I have personally participated in dozens of talk page discussions ..."

"Can you link ... ?"

"No, I decline to provide you with a bespoke list of links ..."

Thanks for that helpful exchange. It's always such a pleasure to work with you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, SPLC is pretty much the most widely cited source (by RS that we in turn cite) on hate groups in America. When I see SPLC cited, it is always with attribution. Guy (help!) 22:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is based on discussions, not just rfcs. You can argue the status quo interpretation of part discussions is incorrect, but a formal rfc isn't required for listing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it's green. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lev - ONUS is for inclusion and a rating. SPLC is a group of lawyers who are fighting for social justice (civil rights, racial equality) which makes them an advocacy - a good one, but an advocacy nonetheless. The Britannica states: "SPLC’s activities have long generated both widespread acclaim and ongoing political controversy. The organization has been accused of financial mismanagement, misleading fund-raising methods, and institutionalized racism. In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights. It requires caution, intext attribution, and context is highly important. It should not automatically be considered a generally RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Britannica says it has been accused. Nothing more. Accusations are often made baselessly, as in this case. GPinkerton (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. See CNN, NYTimes, WaPo, Newsweek...and on and on. You won't find it if you don't look for it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting you have to look out of a special Overton window? I see nothing whatever in those articles that suggests their reporting is unreliable, or has a "left-wing “politically correct” agenda" or is "guising" as a civil rights organization. GPinkerton (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to be helpful by providing links to several high quality RS, including EB, a long standing encyclopedia that is a reputable tertiary source with "real editorial staff, and high quality articles." Your argument is that we must prove a negative based on the logic that allegations/criticism mean nothing or they are baseless, and I might even agree if the claims were not originating from employees/whistleblowers inside SPLC which were followed by: "changes in its leadership and a company-wide review." Regardless, the homerun argument is WP:RSSELF which clearly states: Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. We actually don't need an RfC to figure out SPLC is a self-published source or that it's an advocacy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RSSELF clearly does not apply to the SPLC. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If the source cited is a feature or story published in SPLC, then it certainly does apply. If SPLC is cited by a 3rd party RS source, then see the ArbCom principle for BLP inclusion: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Quotation of material from an unreliable source states: 8) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render the information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's a simple 1+1 equation for BLP - "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people..." + Quotation of material from an unreliable source..." = find a better source to cite. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, SPLC is not a self-published source. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. - MrX 🖋 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again...yes it is - see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works which includes examples of SPS - Business, charitable, and personal websites.

1. Who is the author or creator of the work? A: Southern Poverty Law Center - it is their website
2. Who is the publisher of the work? A: Southern Poverty Law Center per Our Issues; their employees also write features. Their employees/executives conduct research & investigation, and they litigate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Um the NYTimes would be "self-published" under that criteria. nableezy - 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). See my comments above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The author and publisher are not the same person. Self-published means a person who is both author and publisher. SPLC spent $36 million on salaries and benefits last year and has offices in four states. Yes they write some features. We don’t generally use them. We also don’t use NYTimes editorials. SPLC is no more self-published than the NYTimes. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would assume that the author of this page is someone under the supervision of the organization itself. It would be highly unusual for an organization to allow an independent source to author the "about" page on its official website. Likewise this is self-published. The key issue is whether the employees are told what to write. The writers need to be independent of the publisher, and not be in fear of getting fired for writing something the publisher doesn't want to read. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously the NYTimes and SPLC both have supervisors and can both fire writers. This isn’t related to self-publishing. It could be discussed on WP:RSN as a reliability factor. O3000 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

^^^^Exactly. There is no difference. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

re: "The author and publisher are not the same person. Self-published means a person who is both author and publisher." But corporations are people too.

The supreme court said so. So we should be on the lookout for corporations that are both author and publisher. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, but since SPLC is not a self-published source, that is not an issue. Guy (help!) 19:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply to ping - I have already presented a solid argument. Also see the comment above by wbm1058 because he gets it, too. The website, it's staff/employees/directors/executives/writers are not independent of the organization. An organization's website is self-published, and when it provides information about the organization, it is non-independent. The SPLC website publishes information about the organization's work, accomplishments, research, litigation, various publications, features and articles written by their employees about SPLC's work. They admit here that they published the field guide that cost the organization over $3 million - they are responsible for their authors/published work/research/conclusions/allegations, etc.: The Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong to include Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation in our Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Since we published the Field Guide, we have taken the time to do more research and have consulted with human rights advocates we respect. They are an advocacy, and I stand by everything I've said. Please do not ping me again if the plan is to prolong the logical fallacy that SPLC is not a SPS. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How horrible that experts in the law have fought for social justice by using the law. SPLC is cited by so many high-quality sources that the fact that we are even having this discussion boggles the mind. I'm guessing sour grapes is a factor. - MrX 🖋 23:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The references to WP:ONUS are empty wikilawyering here. This is not a question of verifiability in an article; it's a projectspace page. It's been in the page as green for fully two years now. If you think it should change, you can argue that the interpretation of the various discussions of SPLC (or whatever) by the various people who added it, added to it, etc. for a couple years were wrong and make a case for how it should be represented. That's all well and good and could be a discussion here or an RfC or whatever. There is no "onus" on the person who added it years ago to explain why the status quo version is the way it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vox Media

Since Vox Media bought New_York_(magazine) (including Vulture) [2] I think the list should be updated now, to indicate that ownership, so that editors apply a suitable level of cautious skepticism to any political statements coming out NY Mag publication as they would from anything else coming from Vox Media.

Specifically I suggest (replace X with Y):
"There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." change to
"There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. Since 2019 New York Magazine is owned by Vox Media."

Thanks -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done I added round robin see alsos between the entries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That'll do.
Maybe NYMag wont even by influenced by their new owners, but an abundance of caution is appreciated. -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"unreliable sources" vs. common sense

I moved this to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"unreliable_sources"_vs._common_sense - discussion on whether a source should be used belongs there, not here - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ha. This again. Failing to explain the context too. This is so obviously a reaction to certain people who are on a crusade to indiscriminately delete all references to the WP:DAILYMAIL (and to a lesser extent WP:THESUN). Instead of doing any of the hard work to provide replacement sources, or even making any effort to argue if the facts of the material is actually inaccurate, people are deleting sources and inserting "citation needed" tags.

Deprecated is not a synonym for "delete immediately". -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Flagging references in Wikipedia articles about the source itself

I looked up WorldNetDaily. It's covered in "deprecated source" flags on all the citations to WorldNetDaily itself. This is clearly a mistaken use of the flag. If the flags are being placed by bots then the bots need fixing. If they're a consequence of the instructions in the Reliable Sources page then the instructions need clarification. 2A04:2140:2001:BC01:5D3F:902C:7A03:1CEF (talk) 09:19,https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&action=edit&section=17 26 July 2020 (UTC) (sorry, not logged in, mea culpa: JohnHarris (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC))

Why do you believe citations to WND should not be tagged as deprecated in the WND article? - MrX 🖋 10:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for being so inexplicit, I had thought the reason was transparent. It is impossible to discuss the disputes and controversies relating to the abysmal nonsense the website spouts without providing instances of disputes, with primary examples to back up the underlying controversy. Those primary examples only exist on the site. The citations are therefore needed and there will be several of them. The content of the site is the subject of the article's text at that point. Flagging the website as dubious is a metastatement rather than a warning in this context, and doing so repetitively isn't helping anyone at all - it just makes the page ugly without conveying helpful information. As for it being a matter for the individual talk page (below), no - I raised the issue here because the issue is about the shotgun way the citation is being used, not the article. JohnHarris (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a cosmetic issue, but you could simply remove the tags from the article, or discuss it with Newslinger and JzG on the article talk page if there is a dispute. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like this has to be decided on a cite-by-cite basis. An unusable source can occasionally be cited for uncontroversial statements about itself per WP:ABOUTSELF, but there are a ton of limitations on that, and at a glance several of the cites in that article seem to violate its restrictions (being exceptional claims, making claims about third parties, making claims about events not directly related to the source, and so on; it is also used a lot, which you're not supposed to do.) It would be best to find secondary sources when possible in any case, so at best the depreciated tags would just be replaced with secondary-source-needed tags. --Aquillion (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a cite-by-cite issue. I agree the cites are to contentious articles which elsewhere would be very sensibly cited as from a disputed source. My point is that in the article I raised, each of those cites is raised in order to discuss the contentious nature of the claims the site makes. As such, the citation is not itself trying to put over the contended information, it's discussing the fact that the source is disputable and giving a representative example to clarify the issue of the site's reliability. I cannot for the life of me see how flagging such a citation as "dubious source" is helpful as opposed to littering. The examples have to be shown and the context makes it clear that the content of the citation is disputed. I'd quite like to see the distinction between these two uses of citation generalized in the instructions on how to use the "disputed" flag. The specific article I brought onto this page to discuss the problem is neither here nor there, the problem itself is what I'm pointing at. JohnHarris (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter for the WND talk page (where someone else has brought this up). FWIW I agree that either the source shouldn't be used or it should be used without that tag. The only real purpose of that tag is if it's being used in a questionable way, not for basic facts about itself if there's consensus to use it for that purpose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is if WND can be trusted for claims about itself. There are cases where it can't, e.g. authorship of articles - they've removed writers from the site previously and replaced attribution with "WND Staff". I don't think I'd trust WND for claims about itself.

Also, this discussion should clearly be on WP:RSN, not here - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

300 Entries

With the addition of National Geographic the perennial sources list now has 300 entries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

— Newslinger talk 00:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Fox News

With the RFC now closed (see [3]), I have gone ahead and updated the entry for Fox News on this list. My changes can be seen here [4]. Anyone should feel free to correct it I have made any mistakes. Calidum 16:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"The decision applies to local affiliates as well.” I dont think this bit is accurate, I read "In areas outside these two subjects, as well as reporting from local/affiliate stations, Fox is generally seen as reliable; there were little to no complaints made about these areas of coverage, with some of the opposition agreeing that they were acceptable.” as saying that Fox affiliates remain generally reliable *including for politics and science.* Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I misread that bit. Calidum 17:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It should stay green (as generally reliable). The close statement concludes that it's generally accepted to be reliable for most topics except politics and science. For those two areas, there was no consensus. This should be stated in the extra statement, but it should remain green, just like we do with Haaretz, The New Republic, The Guardian, and many others, which all have 'extra considerations' to be noted for some topic areas. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I’d check The Guardians entry again, its not anything like you just suggested. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was putting bias and reliability into the same basket for a minute there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Republic and Haaretz are similar to the Guardian, so I would say your concern is moot, ProcrastinatingReader. starship.paint (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I chose to change it to yellow because the close explicitly said that Fox "should be used with caution to verify contentious claims" concerning politics and science even though it remains reliable for everything else. Calidum 17:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that yellow is probably more appropriate, as I think that the status was a bit more hotly disputed than for Ha'aretz and other sources mentioned here thus far, where there are accusations of bias but only a small fringe of editors consider them outright unreliable. While the close stated that the no consensus applies to their political and science reporting, political reporting is a significant portion of their output. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose that there should be a separate entry "Fox News (Politics)" to cover this, though how or if you would attempt to split the previous Fox News discussions or just duplicate them is a tricky question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I would restructure the entries, keeping the two-entry split (generally reliable and no consensus) but with the parenthetical text being "general topics" and "politics, science, and talk shows", respectively. The summaries should then be rewritten to fit the new scopes. In my opinion, the current summaries focus too much on Fox News' television content, when the majority of Fox News citations on Wikipedia are to their website content. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a question/comment about the "science" part. Should that be something to the effect of scientific topics that have a strong political component (please use better phrasing). For example, climate change science discussions are often colored by the strong political issues associated with them. Conversely, coverage of something like coverage of the space technology or robotics and most aspects of medicine typically have little political angle and thus shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There’s no way that a one-entry Fox News listing can stay green. The RFC close’s first sentence explicitly said: The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News (hereafter "Fox"). Therefore Fox News is no longer “Generally reliable in its areas of expertise” for a green tick. It has to be changed to either a two-entry listing of yellow and green, or a one-entry listing of yellow. starship.paint (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Workshop

Two-entry proposal

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News (general topics and local affiliates)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. There is also consensus that Fox television affiliates are generally reliable for news. See also: Fox News (politics, science, and talk shows).	1
Fox News (politics, science, and talk shows)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. There is also no consensus on the reliability of Fox News talk shows. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. See also: Fox News (general topics and local affiliates).	1

The above mockup is what a two-entry representation of Fox News would look like. In my opinion, this is the most straightforward way to portray the bolded portion of the 2020 RfC's closing summary: "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable." The "talk shows" part is carried over from the current Fox News (talk shows) entry, since talk shows were out of the scope of the 2020 RfC.

As you can see, the summaries in the example are extremely minimal. If you are interested in a two-entry split like the one above, please feel free to suggest pertinent additions to the summaries that are representative of past discussions (including the 2020 RfC) and would improve the reader's understanding of how Fox News should be appropriately used on Wikipedia. If you prefer just one entry for Fox News or would rather see the entries split in a different way, please create a new section with a mockup of your suggestion. — Newslinger talk 05:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the contentiousness of the discussion and the huge number of calls comments in that direction, I find it remiss not to add "many editors consider Fox News to be biased, opinionated, and unreliable". GPinkerton (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The term biased or opinionated is fairly standard in this list. Which entry or entries would you include it in? The word unreliable was not used in the closing summary and conflicts with the "no consensus" status, so I would use something else. — Newslinger talk 05:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Ideally both. I would also like to extend "politics and science" into something like "society, culture, and economics" (and politics and science). These areas of reporting can hardly be considered separate or neutral. GPinkerton (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

None of that is in the closure. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably should add (general topics and local affiliates) in the first entry per the close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've added it. — Newslinger talk 05:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a slight inaccuracy in that approach with the list column, where the 2020 RfC is listed as the discussion for the talk shows too. But I can't think of a better option, and 3 rows would just be silly, so imo your table as-is is a good presentation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it best to retain the separation between their talk shows versus news. The latest RfC was about their news content. I expect there will be more RfCs, if for no other reason that to clarify what "political" means when it comes to content from Fox News. Use "political" rather than "politics" for a broader scope. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion:

  Fox News: generally reliable; some newscasters may be politically biased. For science topics, it is best to corroborate such information with higher quality scientific sources as we should with all news sources.

  Fox News Channel's talk shows: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News Channel's talk show commentary, particularly pundit opinions relative to politics and science; use with caution and verify contentious claims with higher quality sources. See also: Fox News (general topics and local affiliates).

• Adding that there is a difference in the actual news bias because the newscasters are of mixed political persuasions - some lean left, some are center, and some lean right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Can you name a left-leaning Fox employee? I have never heard of such a rare novelty. GPinkerton (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's see...I don't watch TV that often because it's too much like work...but see Hollywood Reporter, Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, Donna Brazile, Michael Starr Hopkins (Democratic strategist), Chris Hahn (progressive radio host), Jessica Tarlov, Sheps gone now but he was an afternoon anchor, and they have lots of guests including academics on various talk shows, and then there's the obvious. Here's a 2018 Fast Company article. Hope that helps. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I said left-leaning, meaning in a global sense, not whatever passes for left-leaning in the furiously right-wing USA today. These example support the centre-right Democratic Party ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"furiously right-wing USA today"??? WTF are you talking about? I don't know if you noticed, but in the last national election, Democrats got a lot more votes than Republicans. In the national election before that, Democrats got a lot more votes than Republicans. In the national election before that, Obama won re-election by a significant margin, although Republicans did pick up seats in Congress. If anything, the USA is furiously split, not furiously right- or left-wing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: There you go again, calling the Democratic Party left wing. They and their policies'd be considered centre-right in most of the civilized world. They're certainly far more conservative than the right wing of the right-wing where I live. GPinkerton (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the DP is not considered center-right in most of "the civilized world". Also, I didn't call the DP left wing. Here's a secret: there are no wings. There is no such thing as "left wing" or "right wing", those are just terms people apply to their political opponents. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well their policies and style of government would be considered conservative where I live, which is one of the most conservative countries in the West by voting record. Our article "Centre-right politics" quotes the "New Democrats" as an example in the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Although they are (at this point in history) generally one and the same thing, don't confuse "fact based" for "left-leaning". Wallace is "fact based", which, to extreme right-wingers and typical Fox News viewers, is seen as "left-leaning". They aren't always the same thing, and it doesn't make him, or some of the others listed, "left-leaning". They just happen to side with the facts, along with most of the mainstream media, unlike Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, but not sure if the political persuasions bit is needed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, Fox is not generally reliable. It is only generally reliable outside the area for which it is most commonly cited. In the area where it is most commonly cited, it is "use with caution and only after verifying with other sources". Guy (help!) 19:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, you are an excellent reader, and a brilliant editor. There is absolutely zero ambiguity in the closers' statement as follows (my bold underline): In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. Please, do not attempt to change consensus or reword what the closers' stated. We do not need anyone else's interpretation or opinion of that close. Just use their exact statement, and we're good to go. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, the framing you laid out lumps the "politics and science" under pundits' views. That is not the text of the close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill - newscasts are straight-up news, often with on-the-scene reporting from local broadcast news stations where journalists might be standing in a hurricane or covering a riot, or it could be a news anchor at a desk reporting straight-up news with cutaways to the event. The bias comes in after the field producers submit the footage, and then the segment producers and editors review the footage and select the clips and soundbytes. There's really not much time to inject a whole lot of bias - and also keep in mind that much of the 24 hrs cable news networks depend on wires. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the pundits/commentators/talking heads on talk shows with an entirely different approach. Their shows are outlined days in advance and they don't do straight-up news coverage unless it's breaking news and even then, they switch to the newscast, and that's why the newscasts need to be separated because some of the talk shows, like Fox & Friends, break away from the couch and go to an actual newscast with a news anchor - 2 totally separate things - and that happens throughout the day. It appeared to me that you were all aware of the channel's formatting and understood that we were dealing with two separate types of programming. I can understand why it would be confusing to people who don't watch the Fox News Channel, and that's what I tried to explain during the RfC. But hey - I'm just trying to help editors understand why there's a difference - but I'm a team player and happy to go along with whatever consensus decides. I thought y'all did a good job but based on what I read, I thought it was understood that the commentators were the op-eds and not the news. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: standing in a hurricane or covering a riot "If Fox tells you it's a riot, how do you know it's a "riot". Who is describing it that way? Fox. If Wikipedia says there was a riot, that fact had better be sourced to something less biased than Fox. My view is that Fox might be unbiased in its weather (not climate) and its sport. Everything else they touch is political. GPinkerton (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: - your words: Fox News: generally reliable. Whereas, the closers' words: The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News. Given the difference, your proposal is a non-starter. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Starship, the exact words in the summary of the closing that I read are (my bold underline): In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. Rosguill, Primefac, Lee Vilenski and Newslinger - the comment by Starship.paint is one reason the wording we use needs specificity relative to the actual newscasts vs talk shows. If I may ask, do any of the closers watch the Fox News Channel? I am aware that many participants in the RfC do not watch it and have conflated news with talk shows, which was a concern I expressed at the beginning of the RfC. I do watch Fox News Channel, and CNN (was a former field producer for CNN Headline News, but now retired after 35+ year in television production). I occassionally tune in to MSNBC and the big 3 broadcast networks, primarily for the purpose of corroboration. I initially agreed with the close, but only because I thought there was separation between newscasts and talks shows. Rosguill's comment above tells me otherwise. My concern is that comments like "no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News" will continue to plague WP:RSN if the close is not worded properly, and that is what I'm hoping we can avoid. I believe my suggestion eliminates ambiguity and potential issues in the future but I'm certainly open to further suggestions. I prefer that we avoid calling a newscast unreliable for politics due to the network's conservative bias because to do so is noncompliant with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have no issue with the science portion because we should alreday exercise caution regarding all news sources that report/publish science-related news, and it is our job to seek high quality scientific sources to cite, such as reputable science journals, acedemic publications, etc. but that is also covered in WP:FRINGE/PS and MEDRS. I look forward to your input. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: - by your own underlining, other subjects is not all subjects. Your writing of Fox News: generally reliable implies as coverage pertaining to all subjects. starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I don't regularly watch TV news anymore but I have watched Fox on enough occasions to understand how their programming works. While there were several editors who conflated the talk shows with the news reporting, there were also editors who recognized the difference and nevertheless raised concerns about the news desk's reliability. It is in a sense unfortunate that the discussion resulted in no consensus rather than a clear yes-reliable or no-unreliable because this will require more work from editors on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a given citation is appropriate, but we can't extract a result from the discussion that isn't there simply because it would be more convenient. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, which is exactly what I said. It's not generally reliable for the area where it is most often cited (politics). Which is why I support the two-line solution: Fox is generally reliable (green) for affiliates (which are, as noted elsewhere, not actually Fox News) and for content outside of politics and science; fox is no consensus, and should be used with caution in the areas of politics and science.

  In practice of course if a source cannot be relied upon without first confirming with a more reliable source, then the more reliable source should always be used instead. But that much is obvious. Guy (help!) 12:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Seriously, I don't want to argue with either of you because I've already explained my position: the close needs specificity as the 3 of us just demonstrated. As it stands now, the close is an open door to potential misinterpretation based on POV creep, unknowing or otherwise. I see a clear misunderstanding of newscasts vs talk shows, so please allow the closers an opportunity to respond after reading my concerns. The original proposed close by Newslinger is not that far off and I don't see where specificity is going to hurt anything. You simply don't downgrade 24 hrs worth of reliable newscasts based on what some perceive to be the channel's political bias. If we do that, then all political and science reporting by all the other news channels should be downgraded for the same reasons - and that is exactly what Masem tried to warned us about. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, the close is pretty specific. We don't legislate Clue. Guy (help!) 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm kind of confused as to why television affiliates are grouped under "Fox News". Fox News doesn't have affiliates, it's a cable channel. Fox News is a separate division in the company. Fox affiliates would fall under Fox Broadcasting Company or Fox Television Stations I think? Perhaps that warrants a separate section in the table, and I guess that refers to their newscasts/websites? Heartfox (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Heartfox, fair point. Guy (help!) 19:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe that suggestion properly summarizes the latest RfC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What is the meaning of "general topics"? What exactly are we considering "general" as opposed to "political" or "science". Weather and sports? What else is newsworthy? Shouldn't this be more specific to earn a green tick? GPinkerton (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"General topics" just means "topics that aren't in any of the categories that have been specifically mentioned". Sunrise (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Newslinger's proposal seems pretty close to ideal. I agree that "Fox affiliates" are a separate matter. The phrase "...and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims seems vague. I would prefer something like "...it should be used with caution, if at all". - MrX 🖋 21:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We should stick to what the close actually said. Calidum 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Alternative wording: "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics that are not political or science-related." --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would actually suggest three entries, only to minimize confusion, and in this order (but otherwise same language).
  1. Fox News - talk shows and for political/science news - no consensus
  2. Fox News - All other news - reliable
  3. Fox News affiliates - reliable
• I'm probably thinking more like a programmer but if I'm on this page and do ctrl-F to find Fox News, this order distills the cases down in the cleanest way possible. --Masem (t) 14:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Newslinger's or Masem's proposals. We need to stick to the language of the closure and not add our own. Any suggestions that use language not in the RfC closure must be rejected. That's the only way to avoid introducing personal POV and effectively re-closing it ourselves. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think that Newslinger's suggestion is good, although I would consider splitting the "talk shows" listing from the "politics and science" listing. Yes they're both yellow in the current schema, but their status is the result of different discussions, and listing them together conflates the news reporting on controversial topics with their talk show content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Why are we lumping in talk shows (Hannity and Carlson, for example) with political and science reporting? The talk shows are to be treated as opinion pieces and require attribution, whereas Fox "should be used with caution to verify contentious claims" concerning politics and science. Calidum 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Fox News - All other news - reliable" Would this include the coverage of recent protests? Among the Fox News controversies was the use of "digitally altered photographs" to present the Seattle protests as an "armed unrest". Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would prefer we dropped the “and local affiliates” part, Fox local affiliates are a diverse group that should be evaluated individually. Not all are gonna be generally reliable so anytime we lump them together we’re gonna have issues because we’re lumping together low, medium, and high quality sources with a wide range of editorial independence, geographic reach, level of reporting, etc etc etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose combining the talk shows and science/politics. There's no consensus for science/politics; not for the talk shows. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News (non-science and non-political topics and local affiliates)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is consensus that Fox News is generally not reliable for news coverage of politics or scientific topics. There is consensus that Fox News is reliable for news coverage on other topics. There is also consensus that Fox television affiliates are generally reliable for news. Many editors believe Fox News is biased and opinionated for politics and science. See also: Fox News (politics, science, and talk shows).	1
Fox News (politics, science, and talk shows)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. There is also no consensus on the reliability of Fox News talk shows. Many editors believe Fox News is biased and opinionated for politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. See also: Fox News (general topics and local affiliates).	1

This proposal takes into account the large numbers of editors that felt Fox News was wholly unreliable in the various RfCs. If The Guardian is considered "biased or opinionated" "by some", Fox News needs an equivalent or stronger wording; "many editors" and "biased and opinionated". GPinkerton (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: "There is consensus that Fox News is generally not reliable for news coverage of politics or scientific topics." is not found in the RfC closing statement. Was there a previous RfC that reached this conclusion? Also, I think the phrase "generally reliable" is preferable to "reliable" for the purposes of RSP. - MrX 🖋 12:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox talk shows were excluded from the RfC. I think we should keep the old text for these: Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. O3000 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, this uses language not in the RfC close and is therefore effectively a re-close. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think, not least because I think Fox affiliates are not branded Fox News and should be separate (as should Fox Business, probably). Guy (help!) 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Calidum's proposal

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	A 2020 RFC concluded "For science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable." Local affiliates were deemed reliable as well.	1
Fox News (talk shows)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. See also: Fox News (news and website).	1

• Comment. Since I made the initial edit to the list, I would like to put my version back up for discussion. It summarizes the recent RFC's close without editorializing and leaves the talk shows piece untouched because they were not addressed in the recent discussion. Calidum 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• While this is a valid way to split the entries, I have a feeling that assigning a "no consensus" status to the entirety of Fox News would be more divisive for the community than if the entries were split more granularly. There was an edit war over the original Fox News entry in November 2018, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Fox News changed to "no consensus", which was resolved by splitting Fox News talk shows into a separate entry. The 2020 RfC closure defined two sets of topics with different consensuses (politics and science; topics other than politics and science), and in my opinion, reflecting this division clearly in the entries would help stabilize the list. — Newslinger talk 18:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - too confusing, and per Newslinger. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This does not reflect the consensus of the editors. It is wrong to label the entire network as being mixed in reliability when the consensus was that their non-political coverage is reliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Four-entry proposal

Quite a few editors have pointed out that Fox television affiliates are not actually part of Fox News, even though "Fox News" is often colloquially used to refer to them. On this basis, it would make sense to have a separate entry for Fox affiliates, since "Fox News" is a misnomer here. The following mockup also splits Fox News talk shows into a separate entry; I'm not entirely sure this is necessary, but you can see what it would look like:

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News (general topics)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. See also: Fox News (politics, science), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (politics and science)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. See also: Fox News (general topics), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (talk shows)		2010 +11	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. See also: Fox News (general topics), Fox News (politics and science).	1
Fox television affiliates		2020 +TBD	2020	There is consensus that Fox television affiliates are generally reliable for news.	—

— Newslinger talk 18:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support this. RSP gets used a lot and people will be coming here often; best to be as clear as possible. I don't consider 4 to be too many since we need to be clear, stick to the closure, and people can easily scroll to whatever they need with "find". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: this is the most precise translation of the RfC into a table: it doesn't mix together politics/science topics and talk shows (which need to be treated differently, since one is assessed as factual reporting where the other is assessed as opinion), it doesn't give the at-a-glance impression that all Fox News content is considered questionable, and it doesn't alter the status of anything not discussed in the RfC. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the language change of the talk shows row. It's not accurate to say "There is no consensus on the reliability of the talk shows". The most recent RfC wasn't specifically about the talk shows, but those who did mention them indicated there's no change to them being unreliable for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for their opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Another proposal

Following the discussion below, another proposal. This time without mentioning affiliates (except by footnote, as proposed below), and presenting talk shows in red. The most recent RfC didn't focus on the talk shows, but to the extent they came up it does not deviate from long-held practice of considering them unreliable for statements of fact but sometimes usable for opinions. Yellow makes sense if there's one entry for Fox and we differentiate between the talk shows and the news desk, but with separate entries, if they're going to be included in the list it seems like red is the most accurate. Apologies if I missing a prior discussion/RfC about this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News (news coverage on topics other than politics and science)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (politics and science)		2010  2020 +TBD	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. See also: Fox News (general topics), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (talk shows)		2010 +11	2020	Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news coverage on topics other than politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).	1

Notes

• In light of the clarification in WP:RSN § Question about close, the footnote looks like the best way to address Fox affiliates. On the other hand, I don't think the generally unreliable status in Fox News (talk shows) is consistent with the entry's summary. Since the due weight policy only considers viewpoints from reliable sources, classifying Fox News talk shows as generally unreliable would prevent citing them for anything other than uncontroversial self-descriptions (WP:ABOUTSELF). — Newslinger talk 20:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer. I don't see value in including see also text (e.g. See also: Fox News (news coverage on topics other than politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).) since these entries are adjacent to each other. It's a niggling point, but I cherish simplicity. - MrX 🖋 20:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually prefer it without, too, and only included it for consistency. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this something you would prefer removed from all adjacent entries? I think this pattern was first added to clearly indicate that the Forbes entry is distinct from the Forbes.com contributors entry, since many editors were not reading far enough to see the latter entry. — Newslinger talk 21:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

imo, unless the styling can also be changed (eg like a big ↪ as a 'mini column' to the left of Source for applicable entries) I think the repetition should be retained for clarity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Arguably: the coloring on each row is necessary on the first two columns throughout the table (to quickly ID the status), which then would allow for clean use for rowspan="" parameters to group explanations like for Fox and Forbes. But that's a major change to the overall format to deal with a tiny bit of duplication. Since these three rows will always stick together, we could always say "See above for Fox News () for details" on the last two rows." --Masem (t) 00:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a deal breaker for me. It's more of a preference. I would prefer that we not alter the overall table format because it's pretty effective the way it is.- MrX 🖋 00:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This version looks the best to me of all the proposals so far. Neutrality^talk 03:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• The footnotes do appear more adequate but with regards to the Talk show, instead of classifying them as generally unreliable it could be specified that they should only be used for attributed opinions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• This one would get my vote. GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with this one, Fox News talk shows definitely should not be used to support statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Hemiauchenia on the talk shows. I also think that this proposal best reflects the RFC's consensus. However, I'd prefer if the reliability of Fox's local affiliates were mentioned. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• This proposal has the strongest support so far. Unless substantial objections are raised, I plan to implement it in 24 hours. — Newslinger talk 19:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm agreeable to this as well. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Implemented with minor changes. I've shortened "news coverage on topics other than politics and science" to "news excluding politics and science", and I've added a note on WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT to the politics and science entry. The footnote about Fox affiliates is now in the Source column of all three entries, immediately after the words "Fox News". I've also re-examined all of the discussions and sorted them into the new entries. For some of the discussions, the entry or entries to put them in were judgment calls, and feedback would be appreciated. Feel free to propose any further adjustments to the new entries. — Newslinger talk 21:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Post RfC comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editors involved in this discussion should consider for a second the fact that the biggest news source "on the right" is rated now as unreliable, while sources like BuzzFeed News is greenlit. Every editor knows that active editors are especially on the left-leaning side of the political spectrum, yet somehow, that is not taken into account in a "no consensus" closure. WP:Cabals was created 12 years ago and has never been more foreshadowing. 2601:602:9200:1310:28C6:21DD:5792:96D7 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Every editor knows that active editors are especially on the left-leaning side of the political spectrum Is that a fact? GPinkerton (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Bias in Wikipedia content in relation to U.S. politics - The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the actual study?

In its initial years, Wikipedia’s crowdsourced articles were tinted very blue, slanting more toward Democratic views and displayed greater bias than Britannica.”Wikipedia content, it’s true, starts out as a little bit of a loud Democrat, as I sometimes joke,” said Greenstein. However, with more revisions and more moderators volunteering on the platform, the bias wore away. In fact, the upper quartile of the Wikipedia’s sample had enough revisions that there was no longer any difference in slant and bias from its offline counterpart.[5]

O3000 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Press Coverage

As I predicted, the Fox News decision has recieved mainstream press coverage, including this story by CNN, and I would expect more in the coming days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, seems a pretty fair statement of the facts. Sure, it doesn't reflect well on the network, but we know better than to confuse cause and effect: we're reflecting a problem which they could have fixed at any time. Guy (help!) 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy about the "yellow-level source" aspect being picked up by media outlets, since it is not representative of the proposals we're currently discussing. I've cleared the status of the current Fox News entry until this discussion is complete. — Newslinger talk 17:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting move. Do you think the media will pickup on that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect the existing articles (like the CNN Business one above) to be changed, since they were accurate at the time of publication and Wikipedia pages are known to change over time. But, any new coverage would have no reason to use "yellow-level source" to describe Fox News as a whole. — Newslinger talk 17:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Insider has run an article too now, not too different from CNN's coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It will be equally as interesting when we do CNN and the other news networks with all their errors, Pulitzer returns, etc. Maybe it will help them improve in the long term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Would that be what it takes to convince you Fox is less reliable even than they? GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: which of our reliable sources has had their Pulitzer Prize revoked? I searched and can't find it. Maybe I need different search terms. -- Valjean (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I commented on it here back in June. You can start with Janet Cooke and check the cited references, and also check The NYTimes article to see just how many years the deception went on without them knowing it. It wasn't their first encounter with revocation because there was an incident much earlier but the Pulitzer panel chose not to revoke - got Russian collusion? Proper research will turn up some recent calls for revocation of Pulitzers which spells trouble in the house of cards, and brings diminishing returns for what the Pulitzer was originally intended to represent. That's what happens when people throw stones from glass houses. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You are pointing to a 17 year old incident, a 39 year old incident, and an 88 year old incident in two different sources as evidence this is a house of cards? The NYTimes and Wapo have won 199 Pulitzer Prizes. O3000 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That made me wonder about Fox News, but since the Pulitzer is not given to broadcast news, I did find this interesting info: https://www.quora.com/How-many-Pulitzer-prizes-has-Fox-News-won Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards: "Once again, public broadcasting is the cream of the crop. PBS has 23, WBGH in Boston has 21 (many shared with PBS), and National Public Radio has earned 17. CBS and ABC each have 13, NBC 7, and CNN 6. MSNBC and Court TV have two, and National Geographic , CNBC and Current TV all have one. Fox News Channel? Zero."

BTW, the "collusion" has been proven in spades, so anyone who repeats that misinformation only damages their credibility. It is "conspiracy" that was not proven, likely because of the massive and successful proven obstruction by Trump. Fox News is complicit in that obstruction and spread of misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahh ha!! Something we can agree on, Valjean - PBS is the cream of the crop - and yes, I'm biased in that regard. It's the network I worked with for many years. That was back when a Pulitzer meant something. I also worked with APT, and my entry stations were KUHT-HOU, and WKNO-Memphis. Before PBS I produced/did post for a couple of weekly series for KTVT-Ch 11 when it was a Gaylord superstation. Before that I wrote feature scripts for FNN and TTC. I also produced a weekly water sports program for Prime Sports Network, HSE, and the Sunshine Network before they became Fox stations. And that doesn't count the footage I provided to Discovery, NatGeo TV, or Animal Planet. I stayed pretty busy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Now also on OpIndia, for a different take than CNN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? O3000 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

People interested in press coverage about the WP-FOX-thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. That is why the would be keeping an eye out here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, the fact that you have to consciously alter the formatting of the URL so that you can avoid the blacklist that is on the site should tell you exactly why such links shouldn't be posted. Please don't do it again. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wired which gets it partially right ... --Masem (t) 12:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

General discussion

Sorry for the new header -- there was no obvious place for discussion about the proposals in general. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Both of the proposals above change the wording about talk shows, but the RfC wasn't about the talk shows. Based on the various discussions of the talk shows I've seen, it's far from "no consensus". It's on the "additional considerations apply" side of yellow. The most charitable version is "it varies, but they should generally be treated as opinion", but so many comments in all of these discussions are largely critical of the reliability of the talk shows that I don't think it should make it seem like they're the same as Fox News science/politics coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That's right, I think we'd already discounted talk shows to unreliable/RSOPINION (and even there very careful use due to bias), a priori to the RFC. The issues of how the reputation of the talk shows impacted the news side came into play and why the political/science facets should be considered with caution. --Masem (t) 17:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding to my point above, this means we need 4 lines for Fox News: Fox News talk shows (unreliable), Fox News political and science reports (no consensus so use caution), Fox News all other reporting (reliable) Fox News affiliates (reliable). Might seem overkill but the RFC closure is clear that the answer isn't simple and to be very clear, multiple lines are necessary --Masem (t) 17:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that we really need the last one. At least not as a consequence of these discussions. They were primarily mentioned in the RfC in the context of the RfC's main questions not really applying to those affiliates. They're Fox affiliates, after all, not Fox News. I don't think I've ever even seen a substantial debate regarding treating them any differently than we do any other local TV news. I wouldn't want to just say green/reliable because it depends on the individual affiliate. Some are going to be better than others and they have independent newsrooms. So I'd say sure to the first three, and omit the fourth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right that the reliability of local television affiliates varies from station to station. As a category, I believe that local news stations (affiliated with any network) fall under the news organizations guideline and are assumed to be reliable unless there is evidence otherwise, which is consistent with the consensus in the 2020 RfC. If we omit a separate entry for Fox television affiliates, I think it would be helpful to include a note in summary of the Fox News (general topics) entry, or equivalent, clarifying that Fox television affiliates are not to be confused with Fox News. — Newslinger talk 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's covered by WP:NEWSORG there's no need to include here. I'm also not sure that "well-established" (the qualifier for those generally considered reliable) applies to every local news station. Maybe, but regardless, there's not much point including something here just to say "there is consensus that it should follow WP:RS". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to mention Fox affiliates on this list. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps we could add a discrete footnote that explains that news from affiliate stations should be evaluated individually on their own merits. - MrX 🖋 19:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the footnote suggestion. We really haven't discussed the affiliates enough to merit an entry, but I think that a clarification that affiliates are distinct from Fox News is worth having in the entry in some form. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're being clear that the Fox News lines only applies to the national cable channel or the www.foxnews.com, and affiliates have to be evaluated wholly separately from the RFC, that's fine with me. That just brings my suggest back to 3, but that's on the basis that the talk shows were already presumed "not reliable" going into the RFC. --Masem (t) 00:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable? I thought it was "no consensus". Fox Corporation owns the Fox Broadcasting Company (which includes Fox-owned and independent affiliate stations operated by Fox Television Stations LLC), Fox News Channel (cable/satellite), Fox Business Network (owned by Fox Media), and Fox Sports (complicated). Fox Broadcasting is over the air so the individual stations are subject to a completely different set of FCC rules from the cable/satellite subscription channels. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question_about_close regarding affiliates. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the comment, I think a footnote next to Fox News (news and website)—not a sentence in the summary—would be helpful, or just not mention it at all. Heartfox (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the summaries

Newslinger, I've come across a few summaries in the chart that do not properly represent discussions that had not been formally closed by a neutral closer or that were added to the chart and are listed as generally reliable without having been reviewed to achieve consensus. A no-consensus finding should not automatically downgrade a RS, rather it should be summarized to reflect the actual status quo ante outcome. It is too difficult to determine who summarized what and added their summary to the chart, so I'm refuting it here. One in particular that speaks volumes is the Times of India which I just updated to better represent an actual fact-based consensus, not opinion based where there is no conclusive evidence. I'm not sure what policy authorizes WP editors to determine what is or isn't accurate/factual/misleading/false reporting in mainstream media but it requires more than just an editor's opinion in violation of WP:OR. I do believe that the opinions of media experts should be given careful consideration, not unlike we do in all other topics, and I will humbly stand corrected if RS evidence determines that my concerns are not valid. I will also keep in mind that consensus can change. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I'm not sure which entries you are referring to. Could you please list these summaries and explain how they are not representative of the discussions?

From the page history, I see that you've shortened the summary for The Times of India (RSP entry). The RfC does show that editors have two main concerns about the TOI: that it publishes churnalism in some topic areas, and that it has a "bias in favor of the Indian government". The closing statement refers to "Fowler&fowler's substantive argument", which only addresses the political bias. I'll ask Buidhe (the entry creator) and El_C (the RfC closer) for comment.

Finally, I don't think reverting to the status quo ante would always be the best approach if an RfC or high-participation discussion were closed as no consensus. For example, if a source had only two noticeboard discussions with low participation that found it to be generally unreliable, and then an RfC or high-participation discussion resulted in no consensus, I believe the entry for the source should be changed to "No consensus..." to better convey the opinions of a broader set of editors. More recent discussions are also typically assigned more weight than older discussions with the same level of participation, since newer discussions reflect the current status of the source more closely. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe and El C: As the entry creator and RfC closer, respectively, do you have any thoughts on the entry for The Times of India? (See Special:Diff/971489710 for two different versions.) — Newslinger talk 00:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with Newslinger on all their points. When writing the RSP entry, I did consider the entirety of the well-attended discussion, which was significantly more high participation than any previous discussion of Times of India. The discussion did come to a consensus of sorts and was closed as reliability 2–3, which is reflected in the RSP entry. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, Newslinger, I certainly will and I'll start with Al Jazeera. I went back through the discussions, and the results tell me the decision should have been that it is not a RS by any means. I don't know how anyone could've come to any other conclusion based on the arguments and the fact that it is owned by the Qatari government and our own article Al Jazeera controversies and criticism has a list of sources to help confirm its reliability. If that isn't enough, look at the sources I added today in the RS/N discussion. If that was happening to Fox News, what do you think would've happened. If it does turn out that AJ is operating illegally in the US and in other countries, that alone is reason enough to deprecate it. Putting recent developments aside, I went ahead and did a recap of the discussions dating as far back as 2012:

No. 9 - not an RfC, it was a rather brief, nonconclusive discussion for adding a specific label to a group. Adding that label may very well be noncompliant with WP:REDFLAG and BLP since it is based on that one questionable source - but that's an issue for another time.

No. 8 - it was determined to be an unreliable source for that content - editors suggested citing other RS instead.

No. 7 - very brief and about the .net website

No. 6 - it was suggested to use better sources

No. 5 - it was between 2 people - sorry, but that is not how we arrive at consensus

No. 4 - it goes back to 2012 - it was a nothing burger, and it wouldn't matter anyway - it's stale

AlJazeera needs an RfC, especially in light of the new developments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As for The Times of India - the generally reliable arguments were much stronger because the opposes primarily expressed concern about a pro-government bias with no proof that one even exists - but even if it is biased, that is not a valid reason to downgrade a RS. It is owned by the Times Group which is a family owned business, not a government owned busines as is Al Jazeera. Something went wrong with the logic that was used to rate Al Jazeera a RS knowing full well it is government owned and highly controversial while downgrading The Times of India for no other reason than suspicion of a pro-government bias. Newslinger, we need to do something to improve this rating system because something is clearly not working properly. It may or may not be the result of a partisan influence but whatever it is, something has to be done to neutralize it. I'm concerned that RS and NPOV are being neglected as a result. I remain cautiously optimistic that we can get the kinks worked out by ourselves without having to elevate it to...hell, who knows where? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we not change entries in the perennial list such that they become inconsistent with the closure of the RfC(s) which they are based on? That is without at least before a proper review of the closure or preferably a new RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The summary for Al Jazeera was added more than a year and half ago. I think discussion #9 could be dropped from the list. Otherwise, the summary is an accurate encapsulation of the previous discussions and its widespread use on Wikipedia (more than 39,000 links). In some respects, its reliability is so obvious it doesn't even need to be included on RSP. I have never seen anyone challenge its use in an article as far as I can recall. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because a formal consensus was never reached, therefore it's status ante before the downgrade. There are enough red flags waving right now that tell us Al Jazeera should not be rated as a RS. It always better to err on the side of caution. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how this works. This is a list of summaries of previous discussions. RfCs are not part of the requisite inclusion criteria. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? And who exactly approved the process and how it is supposed to work? You? Newslinger? Please add the link to the RfC or VP discussion because unless it was widely approved and accepted by the community from the very beginning despite it conflicting with WP:RS, it is not approved, as far as I can tell. I am perfectly willing to stand corrected when you demonstrate to me how this process came to be. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and several other editors. You can find the discussions in the archives of this page and WT:RS. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

So you can't provide the diffs? Then that tells me there are none, and this discussion is over because I sure as hell can't find any. I know full well how it all began, and I also know how efficient you are at collecting diffs. It is possible I may missed one or two, so either provide the diffs that support your position or stop using it as your argument. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I could, with some effort, but since you alone are demanding the information perhaps you could simply search the archive for keywords "inclusion" and "criteria". The discussions spanned several sections and several archive pages. Refreshingly, thanks to the collaborative attitudes of the participants, the discussions evolved naturally into the consensus reflected in the current work. - MrX 🖋 01:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve not seen any problems with Al Jazeera as a source for news. Far better than Fox. I don't think an RfC should be spawned any time someone doesn't like a source. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've restored the long-standing wording describing the Times of India. We can certainly discuss further whether the wording should be changed, but I think it's a bad idea to have long-standing summaries changed unilaterally by any editor wandering by, as that will ultimately compromise the accuracy of the board and greatly increase the work of maintaining it. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I know you mean well, MastCell, but considering there is an issue relating to the legality of the source in the US, you should not have reverted it. You might also do a bit of research like what I did regarding the discussions that evaluated the consensus - there is no discussion that supports such a consensus - and if you came to the same conclusion that supported the downgraded status quo, we may have a bigger issue on our hands. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted your description of the Times of India, which, as best I know, is not under any sort of legal cloud in the US at all. But you've done more research than I, apparently, so please enlighten me. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• If an entry has been on this list for long enough, that is itself a form of precedent and implicit consensus. Even though the entries are supposed to only reflect the original discussions, a lack of previous objections to the classification suggests a "consensus that there is consensus", especially for a page as heavily monitored as this one. Certainly it is enough for BRD to apply, for example. However, any existing classification will normally be overridden by an RfC about that classification, even one that closed with no consensus, because unlike most areas on Wikipedia, in this respect "no consensus" is essentially an outcome in itself rather than simply a lack of agreement. Even if one can argue that an existing summary does not reflect the original discussions (which in a certain sense is always possible, if one is willing to stretch interpretations far enough), it is probably better to go through the usual mechanisms of establishing a new consensus at RSN, which is more likely to lead to a definitive resolution. Of course, arguing that the current classification is flawed or incorrect would be a valid approach at such a discussion. Sunrise (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If an entry has been on this list long enough, it's evidence that we've failed in our responsibility to consider to what extent sources are actually reliable. The world changes, and so do sources. Our articles are added to as information becomes available. Ican't think of a single major source that I trust, that I trust to quite the same extent that I used to. Our requirements for RS over the years have gradually become more stringent--the principles in MEDRS and NCORP are gradually being applied more widely. It works the other way too. Some sources I would never have cited 5 years ago I would sometimes cite now, though with qualification and care--and I'm not just meaning myself, I see others using similar care and detailed consideration. We are , fortunately, moving from a period that said that if it's in a generally RS, it's reliable and we have no need to examine it further, to the degree of intellectual awareness that says thatto evaluate the use of a source in a given circumstance, one must actually read the specific item, and even more difficult, think about it in connection with other sources. We have much more experience in doing that, and need have many fewer sources ofn an actual blacklist, because we're better at judging what makes sense to use it what context. When I was in high school the way papers were written was that any reference was good enough. Most of us are past that level now. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I need to add that my first sentence above was somewhat unfair--I think that to a large extent Sunrise and I are aiming in the same direction. DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This list is two years old, and sources are being added to it and re-evaluated all the time. Better yet, the existence of this list has increased the community's awareness of the fact that source reliability can change over time. For evidence of that one need look no further than the volume of carefully structured RfCs that have taken place at WP:RSN in the past year or so and the volume of traffic to the list itself. - MrX 🖋 01:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

mises.org.br

Have they removed the site? 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:5062:AC88:2465:892D (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the reference from the Hyperinflation article, the other two articles are probably fine under WP:ABOUTSELF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

2020-08 Wikidata

Please look at Category:Latest stable software release templates and Template talk:LSR/Archive 1#Proposal: Migrate to Wikidata. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

May WP:RSPSCRIPTURE discussion

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)

I would have preferred to have a closure of the discussion to point at, but not yet: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). I think the May discussion merits a change to the RSP entry, so I suggest this version:

"...Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research. There is no consensus on if a scriptural summary (or "plot") should be written based on a version/translation of the primary text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we at least separate the sentence to be like this:

Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies). The content should be attributed when appropriate.

This would make it clear that the "when appropriate" is referring only to the attribution. Someone argued that the "when appropriate" opens the door sometimes interpreting the scripture without any reliable sources.VR _talk 21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also I disagree with striking out "summarizes". Is it too late to contribute to the discussion that's been archived (but not yet closed by an admin)? VR _talk 21:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. I am not seeing a consensus for that change there at all, and I'm baffled that you could read it that way. In a quick nose count I don't see a majority supporting your proposed change, and the arguments for it are mostly very weak (primarily citing WP:PLOT, which is a controversial guideline that I don't think enjoys consensus itself.) If you want the change, start an RFC (but given the discussion I would presume it has no chance of passing.) If anything, I would suggest striking out the "generally" instead, which numerous people objected to and which seems a bit vague / weaselly - WP:OR / WP:SYNTH always require proper secondary sourcing for any sort of interpretation or analysis, and cannot be overturned or restricted by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in any case. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

LiveMint - increasingly used in India. Reliability disputed

Increasingly cited in articles in India. LiveMint appears to be a mixture of syndicated press releases (example from Bloomberg) and byline articles (example). I am not confident that the byline artices are more than putting a byline on a press release, however. As a former PR person in real life I used to write articles in this manner and send them to jouranlsist for them to 'tidy up' before they put them in their paper.

Please can a discussion be held by wiser heads than mine in order to place this correctly on the list with a categorisation. The increasing use of this publication is concerning since it is being used "both ways" at AfD (example) and its reliability is in dispute. Obviously context applies, but guidance from here in the table is very helpful Fiddle Faddle 07:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I copied this over to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint_-_increasingly_used_in_India._Reliability_disputed, because that's the board where this sort of question is sorted out - we should continue there - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Greetings. While an independent discussion on Livemint is surely good, this specific case I want to clarify that (the example being cited) is a syndication from this Bloomberg article which is a named article with a dedicated by-line and not a press-release. (additional link here). So, this is a syndicated article (from Bloomberg) that LiveMint has published, perhaps, with due commercial agreements for Syndication rather than a press release that has been picked up as-is. Ktin (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Anti-Defamation League (ADL)

I have closed the Anti-Defamation League reliability RfC in case anyone wants to add it to the list. Some previous discussions:[6][7][8][9][10] - MrX 🖋 14:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliability

I would say that the idea of a reliable source in our current age is up for interpretation. Certainly it should't be Wikipedia's be all end all qualification for sources since reliable sources have often been wrong. So other considerations should be made, one could be to make less assumptions when posting stories and waiting until facts can be verified rather than relying on the idea that :they were reported by a reliable source". BenW (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, but this page is for discussing improvements to the perennial sources list. If you want to propose a new system for identifying reliable source then you can do that at WT:RS or WP:VPR. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Straits Times

Should we do an RfC on this prominent Southeast Asian publication based in Singapore? It is government-sponsored but at the same time appears to stick strongly to factual reporting. NoNews! 11:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You can if you want, but WP:RSN is the place. Per [11], it hasn't been discussed there very much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

CNN & MSNBC

CNN & MSNBC are considered 'top' reliable news sources? GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't rate sources beyond classifying them as generally reliable based on consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

@Leutha: Sorry that was maybe an overly quick revert for a clearly notable paper with (at a glance) a probably clear-cut designation of generally reliable. You link to discussions with the page name from the archive and hash before the section, so "[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#NLPC|1]]" gives "1". See the other entries for more examples. With so many mentions it's good to pick out a few that are relatively focussed, though you likely don't need that many if it's unlikely to be challenged. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look and these ([12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]) look like the most relevant comments, though some are kind of old and only one is a discussion addressing a Tribune source directly. Often things like this never get added to the list because they're uncontroversial enough that they're not technically perennial (as in perennially brought up). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the rough criteria for inclusion on the list is "two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability" with significant meaning at least two people discussing the source in a dedicated discussion or three in a separate discussion. I actually don't think that's met here. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This list is too big to edit

I tried editing it to add [19] this RSN discussion on Signpost, but after two minutes I gave up. I think this list does not need to be sortable (who sorts it for what?), and it is so long it needs splitting into few subsections like A-F, G-M, N-Z or whatever. If you can edit it, please consider adding the above link.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It's already there under Wikipedia. The list is fine as is, though it might need to be split in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If it's there, it's great. My only concern was that my browser window crashed when trying to edit that list, presumably due to the it being too long for the edit window to handle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Forbes Contributor

When the anchor text doesn't say either staff or contributor, how do we know which it is? This author comes up as "Tanya Prive Subscriber Entrepreneurs" https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2016/03/23/the-10-hottest-startups-in-nyc/#100b386e243e Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be another variety of "contributor" - see the author page. Loking for something from Forbes setting out the status - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine to reliable sources noticeboard

The Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers is the world's largest professional organization for the Advancement of Technology for Humanity. Headquarters in state of New Jersey with an operations staff of 1500 employees.

Is is possible to add the following as a reliable source? IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine (CEM) is the award-winning flagship magazine of the consumer electronics (CE) society of IEEE (http://cesoc.ieee.org/publications/ce-magazine.html). The magazine is published on a bimonthly basis and features a range of topical content on state-of-art consumer electronics systems, services and devices and associated technologies. There is consensus that IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine is generally reliable for news related to science and technology. Almost all editors consider IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine a trusted source for news related to technology, science and STEM topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindoverUS (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

As the name implies "perennial sources" require that the source be discussed on mutliple occasions. As far as I can tell, the magazine has never recieved any discussion on the noticeboard and therefore does not qualify. The language as is is too promotional anyway, @MindoverUS: can you disclose your affilation with the IEEE and whether or not you are a paid editor? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Scribd exception

The following edit [20] was reverted with the edit summary, "We should almost always use secondary sources."[21]

Whether the source is primary or secondary is not relevant here. The consideration is whether a given source of any kind, e.g. primary or secondary, is reliable. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The removal was correct nevertheless. References a reliable source uses are not automatically valid or reliable reference for Wikipedia, Pretty much the only valid use of scribd for WP is as convenience link to (legal) digital copies of valid sources that have been published elsewhere already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That raises the question of how a source can be reliable if a source it uses for information is not reliable. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

because ... assessing unreliable sources to form more reliable text is literally part of what RSes do? - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. For the case of Scribd, are you considering the situation where a reliable source is assessing whether a Scribd entry is a true reproduction of a document and finds it lacking? If you are, that situation seems too unlikely to be worth considering. On the other hand, if you've come across such a situation with a reliable source assessing a Scribd entry and finding it to be a false reproduction, I'd be interested in seeing your example. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There should not be much of issue as scribd document are not sources for us to begin with. Now if we provide a convenience link to a scribd document being supposedly a digital copy of a source we use and some other reliable source points out it isn't, we'd simply remove the convenience link.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Crudely speaking reliable sources can assess/use unreliable sources reliably. The issue here is we don't want unknown WP editors to decide which information in an unreliable might be correct, usable or the hoew the source is to be assed or used in general. So we delegate that decision to reliable sources and hence ask WP editors to use those reliable sources only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I already responded to this point in my message of 10:54, 10 September. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Status of PinkNews

@David Gerard: Could you please explain why you reverted my update of the status of PinkNews, with no explanation? The summary literally says "additional considerations may apply and caution should be used". I want to assume good faith, but obviously we have come across each other on another page recently where you reverted me. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Because changing a status like that, as found in an RFC, without fresh discussion, is bad. (I also got a thanks for the revert, fwiw) - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I was changing it based on the summary, which was based off the RfC. Congratulations on getting a thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is WP:Silence from you I am going to take that consensus to include. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And reverted. It was found in the RFC to be "generally reliable", so warrants green. Get consensus, rather than seeking excuses - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The summary literally says "additional considerations may apply and caution should be used" i.e. not green. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And other green-rated "generally reliable" sources may have "considerations apply", if you look at the page. Get consensus, rather than seeking excuses - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not making excuses it literally says "additional considerations may apply and caution should be used". If you think there is something wrong with other sources then feel free to update them too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Far and away, most of the summaries mandating "caution" are shaded green. I don't see why PinkNews should be differently from the majority of "caution" cases. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying to treat PinkNews differently. If people want to update the others too I am fine with that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But Emir, there seems to be consensus that "generally reliable, but use caution" entries be shaded green. You, by contrast, appear determined to defy this consensus: whether only in the case of PinkNews, or in all cases, does not really affect the BOLD nature of your (discussed, to my knowledge) proposal. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for a formal proposal then. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You could do that. I'd note, though, that most of the time the string of qualifiers is on WP:RSP because even "generally reliable" closes will mention editors' qualms in the discussion - but that doesn't affect general reliability. Why are you so keen to apply a different standard to PinkNews? - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said I am happy for others to be changed too. Not keen to apply a different standard to PinkNews, just trying to do what makes sense. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

YouTube RFC link?

Is the RfC information under YouTube (WP:RSPYT) linked correctly? I can't find this RfC on the noticeboard, in the archives, or at WP:RFC/A. I'm either searching to broadly or specifically... -2pou (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally found it... kinda... Looks like it was mistakenly "unarchived" along with an unclosed RfC: Special:Diff/974812646. I'll probably screw something up, but the archive and the RSP info will need to match. -2pou (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I "found" it in a history, so it's technically not visible to anybody without a Special link. Courtesy ping to unarchiver @King of Hearts: -2pou (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, my mistake, sorry. Fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Record

Maybe Daily Record (Scotland) is worth an entry? I found various RSN threads mentioning it in passing as a tabloid to avoid for BLPs among others, but this thread was also explicitly about it. I'm not sure if it's considered perennial enough though. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Discogs

"The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable." Loving the irony here. --Jameboy (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. At least it is consistent, I give credit for that. --Jameboy (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider

The list shows it as a caution item and noted as using syndicated contents. How do I determine the actual source in BI articles? For example, this one. https://www.businessinsider.com/atlassian-mike-cannon-brookes-scott-farquhar-interview-2019-4 Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

​That article is authored by a staff writer and does not appear to be syndicated. Articles like this one (attributed to the Associated Press) are syndicated, and would take on the reliability of the original publisher. — Newslinger talk 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

112 Ukraine

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#112 domains removal

Note that thread. The RSP entry does not seem to be accurate here. The 2019 RfC cited does not mention 112 Ukraine at all. It is mentioned in another RS/N thread which apparently was a basis for the spam blacklisting. However, even that thread does not provide any links that mention 112 Ukraine. Googling myself, the EUvsDisinfo does in fact have articles which indicate that 112 Ukraine has publicized disinfo[22], so it's possible or even likely this is deprecation worthy, but it seems out of process to have a RSP entry that goes into a lot of detail: 112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. The use of 112 Ukraine as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. 112 Ukraine should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.

@ToThAc: Why did you write all this when the RfC didn't even mention 112 Ukraine? The RSP entry is supposed reflect consensus, not just one's own reflection. It doesn't make a difference usage wise because it's spam blacklisted, but this is not the right way to operate this list. --Pudeo (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So there was a RfC clarifying this, but it was archived without a close: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#112.ua. So the incorrect/unclear status is being left to float here, I guess. --Pudeo (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

​I've marked the entry as disputed, and filed a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309#112.ua. The entry's status will be resolved after the RfC is closed. — Newslinger talk 02:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of RNS as "generally reliable"

Looking at the two discussions Feminist links in this addition, neither of these seems to substantiate the question. One has a single person saying RNS is generally reliable and another saying "they seem reliable" and no further discussion, the other is about a long-running dispute concerning Anne Frank where RNS is a side issue at best. I would suggest removing this entry unless and until there is a substantial discussion to address the question. Feminist, what struck you as reason to add this entry? - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Both discussions are "significant discussions" as defined at WP:RSPCRITERIA. The source is included in the section headers for both discussions, and in both discussions there is enough commentary regarding RNS and particular articles from the source. feminist (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The second discussion is barely about the source, though, except a passing mention - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of it concerns a particular article from RNS. The discussion qualifies under our criteria. feminist (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This still barely technically scrapes under the wire as a proper discussion of RNS, though, because it really isn't one - it's about a particular topic and mentioning an RNS article, it's not actually a discussion of RNS generally or its general reliability. RNS's general reliability has not been meaningfully discussed twice - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

MEMRI

Please could this RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) be closed and added to this list? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I declined to close this discussion when it was listed at AN/RFC, you can see my justification here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion and have added an entry to the perennial sources list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

The 2019 RfC concluded, in part:

...facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.

This should be (but is not currently) reflected in the wording on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're diving that many paragraphs down into the conclusion, what makes this a particularly noteworthy statement to add? Assuming that the RSP summary should not be literally just the text of the three (or four?) RFC conclusions in their multi-paragraph entirety.

This sentence would need to be in the context of the 2017 RFC conclusion saying: The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.. Stating it, as you propose, without that would seem a distortion of what deprecation means: don't use this source on Wikipedia, and if you're looking to RSP for excuses to use this source on Wikipedia then you're doing Wikipedia wrong in deeply fundamental ways.

In any case, the last change to the Mail listing on RSP required an RFC on RSN. So this proposed change would presumably require one too - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It my indeed require an RfC; it had one, as I quoted above. I take it you don't dispute that the 2019 RfC says what I said it does? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It indeed does; however, you have failed to address why this particular quote is more relevant than any other of the several paragraphs of RFC result, nor that the last change to the text, since the 2019 RFC, did in fact take an additional RFC to stick - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, list of things that merit inclusion in Wikipedia that are covered only in the Daily Mail:

None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the closure of that RfC specifies non-controversial facts, not simply facts. The quote is missing a leading adjective. Sunrise (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Distractify

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315 § Distractify.com

Distractify website is described by The New York Times as "a viral content site that fills Facebook news feeds with feel-good posts built largely on repackaging content from other websites" (NYT). Crunchbase describes it as "creates and covers what's trending on the internet", and with only 2 "current team members" (C). SimilarWeb states "specializes in content that sparks conversations around news, entertainment and pop culture" (SW). Distractify is increasingly being used as a source, including in BLPs (e.g. blp). Should brakes be applied on the use of this website as a "reliable source"? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably - you should post this to WP:RSN, which would the place to discuss it - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

blacklist or blocklist (BRD discussion)

With this diff, I made a bold edit that changed the visibility of the embarrassingly dated term "blacklist", replacing it with "blocklist". This was just a change to the piped name: it did not change the underlying articles. From discussions elsewhere, I gather that this fundamental correction is more difficult than it seems.

Crossroads reverted my edit with the note "Blacklist" is the standard term here and using something different can lead to confusion. I for one see no problem with it whatsoever. So this is the 'discuss' part of wp:Bold, revert, discuss.

I disagree.

1. 'blacklist' is loaded language: black = bad, white = good.
2. 'blocklist' is an accurate description of what the list is: a list of sources that are blocked, deprecated or to be avoided where possible. "Blacklist" is meaningless of itself, it can only be understood via point #1
3. the term 'blocklist' has been in widespread use in the circles where I move, for rather more than ten years: the usage 'blacklist' is very dated.
4. regrettably, the term is indeed still used on wikimedia but I have seen discussions apologising for that fact, explaining that it is on the 'to do' list.

All the usages here are piped, so to retain the current language is making a positive choice, there is no hiding behind "it's too difficult". That is not a choice that I can support: "silence signifies assent", I do not assent.

I invite comments towards a consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Support as per nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as (1) not the proper process for changing terminology, (2) confusingly creating a second term for the same thing, and (3) an unnecessary attempt at purging the mainstream term "blacklisting", seemingly imitating those who push WP:RGW linguistic reform based on discredited theories of linguistic determinism. It is not loaded at all. Does society have to memory hole Star Wars too because of "the dark side" of the Force? I see no evidence whatsoever that "blacklist" is "embarrassingly dated"; all the evidence I see is that the push against it is from June and July. Did any of it even succeed? "Blacklist" still appears to be mainstream. In any case, this is not the place to propose such a change. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is not at attempt to right great wrongs, but choose how we decide to things on Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is not even an attempt to change the names of the underlying articles because apparently that is too difficult. It is an attempt to right a small wrong: how this article presents its lists. (BTW, Star Wars distinguishes between darkness and light, a very different phobia). There is no memory hole: are far greater wrongs forgotten by their artefacts being put in a museum rather than on a pedestal outside city hall?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per EmirCrossroads. "Whitelist/blacklist" is common phrasing in computer speak and has nothing to do with the racial implications that are suggested. I'd agree if there was a larger popular culture shift to try to move away from this term but I've seen nothing like that, and we should not make ourselves PC if no one else is. --Masem (t) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Masem. Can you please check your vote, or clarify how it is oppose if I said support. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ooops, I named the wrong editor. --Masem (t) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, actually there's a bigger issue here, which is that the "spam blacklist" is not a spam blacklist, it's a link blocklist. It includes petition sites, redirects, link shorteners and other domains that are there to control both abuse and massively repeated good faith errors. I've been asking for a change of name to "link blocklist" for years. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  I was going to argue that there's a subtle distinction on blacklist and blocklist. "Blacklist" generally implies that there is a corresponding "whitelist" which is what is generally true for RS/P here - we're basically describing which sources are good and which are bad. "Blocklist" need not have a corresponding "whitelist" equivalent, working on the assumption that potentially all sites could end up on it but we only add when it is proven such. --Masem (t) 13:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Support why use outdated terminology? This move is consistent with changes in technology firms and circles, such as Apple, Twitter and Github:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
• https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-engineers-replace-racially-loaded-tech-terms-like-master-slave/
• https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-to-remove-masterslave-and-blacklist-terms-from-coding-platforms

Being consistent with modern terminology is a good thing. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Contrary to Masem's assertion, the "blacklist or blocklist" discussion does indeed have "a larger popular culture shift to try to move away from this term", including Linux, the UK Government, GitHub, Google, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Many places may indeed do so, but the many who do not will simply not get mentioned in the media. There is thus a fatal selection bias in this sort of analysis. What do recent textbooks on programming say? I would change only when they do so. Just because something was trendy in June and July does not mean we need to do it. And I do call it "trendy" because this term does not have racial origins at all, there is no evidence that it brainwashes people into racism, nor does changing this term actually reduce racial inequality in any way. Those organizations really just seem to be virtue signaling - I'm aware that some overuse that term to put down actually worthwhile efforts, but this is not one of those. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• blocklist - has been gathering momentum in Mediawiki itself too - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is this discussion? "Gathering momentum" is still not a decision to switch over. And the fact remains that that is the place where a terminology change would occur; it is not our place on this random page to do our own thing. Even if English Wikipedia broke with Meta-Wiki and did it if they didn't, that's still not decided here. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • You demand a cite, then immediately state you'd ignore it anyway? That's hard to take as being a good faith request. Also, badgering everyone who disagrees with you is not a winning debate strategy - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• ✗ Oppose – For whatever reason, "blacklist" and "whitelist" are commonly accepted words in the English language, especially in technical disciplines (where there is less chance to confuse "blocklist" with something referring to blockchain data). What's more, the terms work, and people are accustomed to them. While I'm not opposed to change per se (I work in IT), I do resist change that carries a low ROI (i.e. high-cost & low-return). I probably would feel differently if this proposal was the result of a high-order change in the meaning of a word (e.g. "barber"), or one that has acquired an NSFW meaning (e.g. "junk", "dick", or the phrase "hook up"), but this seems like a solution in search of a problem that does not yet exist. On the lighter side, I'm left-handed, but not in favor of eliminating the word "sinister". ;-) Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your view. NB that my proposal is not a wp:RM of the articles, but just of the pipes presentation of them. My own experience is of spam blocklists that have been called that for a long time now. (Not a lot of people know that sinister is Latin for southpaw. I'm fairly dextrous myself.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have to accept with surprise and disappointment that there is insufficient consensus to change the status-quo at this time. Well, at least contributors have considered the matter seriously and have made their choice in good faith. Thank you all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Can I still vote? I think John may be on to something. And not only for blacklist/blocklist, we also need to work on the invidiously named "Little black dress", which is both misogynistic ("little"? What, as in, "How's the little woman?") and racist. Along with "spam blocklist", I'd like to see this article changed to Appropriately-sized colorless dress. Who's with me? Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T254646

• John Maynard Friedman, MediaWiki has already started to phase out certain terms throughout the software. This includes the replacement of blacklist and whitelist with denylist and allowlist, respectively. You can track the progress at T254646. The language used in this list reflects the language used on other Wikipedia pages. If the blacklist/whitelist pages are renamed, then we can also update the language here for consistency. Until that happens, we should probably use their current names to avoid confusion. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Newslinger here. This page is not itself the blacklist and a discussion here isn't going to change the name of the blacklist. If we're adding sites to a blacklist, we should call it blacklist. If we're adding it to a blocklist, we should call it that. Saying blocklist here when they're actually on something called a blacklist is just confusing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)