Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Is CBS News reliable?

Would anyone please add CBS News to the list of sources? I want to know if it's reliable or not, and information about its reliability. Ar Colorado (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Any_reason_CBS_News_is_not_listed_in_the_RS/P? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it. TLA^tlak 08:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Faith in our Institutions

There is a problem in this day and age that people have lost faith in public and private institutions. They don't know who to trust. I would hope that Wikipedia aspired to be nonpartisan but this list was sad for me to take a look at. There is a blatant left wing bias. You're perfectly credulous about CNN and MSNBC which don't even employ conservatives. Meanwhile you don't even consider Fox News nor National Review to be legitimate news sources. This pervasive bias trickles down to ALL political hot button articles I've seen. I'd heard conservative friends say that Wikipedia wasn't worth looking at anymore and I didn't believe it. Now I'm thinking twice. 67.150.98.177 (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Loss of faith in our institutions is largely a result of constant misinformation from sources like Fox. And the false statement that CNN does not employ conservatives is one of the kinds of misinformation one finds on Fox. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue there is today is that "facts" are not always objective as the used to be, facts are often times subjective depending on the consumers viewpoint. Same with misinformation. On both sides of the political spectrum, you will find the information is deemed factual based on bias. Take for instance Joe Biden's fitness for office. CNN and MSNBC will play clips of him acting strong and clear headed, where as Fox News will usually highlight the times he does not seem all that sharp. Which is true? Probably both! Sometimes he is really strong and sound minded and other times he struggles to put sentences together. In this case, giving a strong rating for the reliability of CNN and a warning of misinformation for Fox News would indeed show left wing bias when both are omitting portions of the story. On the other side of things, Fox News repeating Trumps claim that the economy was better under his presidency and CNN claiming the opposite, what is fact is based on who you are and where you live. For the middle class blue collar worker, the economy was better under Trump because consumer goods were cheaper. However, for the the upper middle class white collar workers, they are probably fine with the current economy because the stock market is steadily rising. Blanket claiming that Fox News propagates misinformation and CNN does not is not a fair analysis and indicates bias in the selecting of reliable sources because both pick and choose which "facts" to promote. I had this argument in 2020. I was obviously overwhelmingly defeated so I doubt anything will change but Wikipedia does indeed, have a left wing bias when it comes to its source ratings whether the majority of editors will admit it or not. If it was centrist, both Fox News and CNN would have the same rating. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

GQ

As requested by @Instantwatym, I am opening up a discussion about the inclusion of GQ which I removed yesterday. Also pinging @Horse Eye's Back: since they reverted Instantwatym. The entry was added by @I'm tla back in Feburary citing this 2016 discussion and this one in 2019 and makes the declaration There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. The discussion in 2016 was about this article published by GQ UK. There were three participants, the filer and two others. One of the participants in the discussion stated This is a bit of a red herring. The disputed source for the Generation Snowflake article is not GQ itself but an opinion piece published by the magazine. The third participant made a general statement about editorials in general, not GQ so I do not think that discussion meets WP:RSPCRITERIA.

The 2019 discussion was well attended so that one does meet the criteria but it was also regarding GQ UK based on the GQ articles discussed. Neither discussion included international editions and note some international editions are published under a license (*Published under license) so under different ownership and editorial oversight. (Will add a notice at RSN about this discussion). S0091 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify I am opposed to both listing this based on the limited history and to the entry itself which I think goes well beyond what I can see in either discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion as a reliable source based on the 2019 discussion. Mutliple editors agreed that the magazine is reliable and made no distinction between between international editions. They voted that GQ overall as a magazine and entity is a reliable source, which by extension includes its international editions. Also irrespective of the 2019 consensus, I personally agree that GQ is a reliable source based on them publishing good quality factual content across different editions. Instantwatym (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

While GQ magazine's fashion coverage may not be subject to comment on its reliability, it's evident that the publication lacks credibility in reporting record sales. This was exemplified when they referenced sales figures from Wikipedia in their December 5, 2023 article, which was added by Instantwatym on August 8, 2023, without providing any sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The 217 million figure was already in other sources such as The Siasat Daily, Time Out, and Gulf News, before GQ. Months before the Instantwatym's inclusion, 217 million was reported in Tell Tales, which was published months before it said 217 million on Wikipedia. What Instantwatym did was probably WP:CIRCULAR but accurate. TLA^tlak 07:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I copy-pasted the message from a different entry and replaced it with GQ. It's not a strong consensus but there is a consensus.

GQ is an international magazine that has content on basically everything, but best known for its culture and entertainment, profiles, and of course the many series' it produces on YouTube. The latter of which can be helpful with WP:ABOUTSELF. Going through a few, its editions are cited by reliable sources. Thus I'm personally saying generally reliable, also because it has some really compelling profiles on people that some of the more traditional sources might not want to touch, like the sex industry TLA^tlak 07:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment This isn't a discussion about GQ's reliability. That should take place at RSN. This discussion is to determine if it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA which states:

• For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Currently, there is only one discussion at RSN that perhaps meets the criteria to include GQ UK. S0091 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I'm tla the editor who added the entry, is now CU blocked. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with S0091 and Horse Eye's Back: regardless of the reliability of GQ magazine, there's only one discussion in the RSN archives which I can find discussing it (plus this and this, both of which relate to the same opinion piece used in the same article and don't discuss the reliability of GQ as a publisher). This isn't a perennial discussion and it doesn't fit WP:RSPCRITERIA. The perennial sources list is too long already; we shouldn't be including sources which aren't perennial too! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Loading time

This page takes a very long time to load because the size is too big to be loaded. I think this page should be divided into alphabets (A-Z). -GogoLion (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We might start by removing entries which do not fit WP:RSPCRITERIA: there are plenty which I am unconvinced are in fact perennial. At a glance, at least four link only to a single non-RfC discussion:

• biography.com
• ChatGPT and other large language models
• GB News
• USA Today contributors

Nine more link to only two discussions, the most recent of which was before 2015, i.e. more than a decade ago. Is it really useful to keep these listed indefinitely? I suspect if we had a stricter definition of "perennial" we could prune more than just that, but at least some of the current entries simply don't fulfil the existing inclusion criteria for the table! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this page should mention ChatGPT and other large language models. It can do so in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories section, but it should be mentioned. However, this page will keep growing (and not just because of Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Starting_WP:RSN-discussions_with_the_purpose_to_include_stuff_on_WP:RSP-stuff), so we may have to split it in two or something like that for technical reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented. I've moved LLMs (including ChatGPT) to WP:RSP § Large language models, merged USA Today contributors into the USA Today entry, and removed both Biography.com and GB News. — Newslinger talk 01:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger Thinks to myself "Hm, should I make a WP:RSPSOMETHING shortcut for that..?" Nope! Too late! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Credit goes to JeffSpaceman from last September. — Newslinger talk 00:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Trustworthiness

Why is Al Jazeera English, a news site wholly owned by the Qatari royal family, considered to be a trustworthy news site. It is fair to question the motivations of government owned media in producing their news stories, particularly when that government is a semi-authoritarian monarchy with limited transparency and a poor human rights record. Recommend downgrading the trustworthiness of this entity - otherwise we run the risk of spreading Qatari propaganda masked as "news" HonestEditor51 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the place to discuss whether or not a source is reliable, though if you are going to argue that Al Jazeera is not reliable I suggest you provide more evidence of unreliability than this comment. AJ has been funded by the Qatari royal family since its inception and yet none of the previous discussions have concluded that it is unreliable. It's going to be difficult to persuade people to change the reliability assessment for AJ unless you can show either that something has changed about its reliability, or there is some factor which people have not previously considered (and the fact that it is funded by the Qatari government has previously been considered!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Will go to WP:RSN to view the discussions. With respect to your comment, I would argue that the onus should be on the person trying to claim that AJ IS reliable: an authoritarian government with limited transparency and poor human rights records would not be trusted to run a reliable media organization. Unless that media org can definitively prove that they are independent from the government and have full transparency and independence in their editorial process, the assumption should be that they are run by said government (which per above is inherently untrustworthy). HonestEditor51 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has been discussed at least eleven times at RSN already and people have concluded that it is reliable; as you are the one who is advocating to change that the onus is on you to come up with the evidence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you read any of the previous discussions linked at WP:ALJAZEERA? Did you find an answer there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reply - no I did not (still learning how Wikipedia works) HonestEditor51 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Update chart at WP:RSP

Could someone please add this 2023 RFC on Venezuelanalysis to the chart? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I did it myself. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

​Thanks, and your changes look good. I made a minor spacing tweak to match the other entries, and everything else was perfect. Please don't hesitate to update any other entries in the future. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It was scary :) I feel like now I can add "can update RSP" to my resume! Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Patch.com

Is it a creditable source? I did not see it on the list. Mikiko609 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mikiko609 You can check the hits here:[1]. WP:RSN is the place to ask "is this source good for what I want to use it for?" while WP:RSP is a list of sources that have often been discussed before. Context matters. It's cerainly used some:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Paywall

Mentioning a preference of using a source without a paywall versus a source with a paywall should be added with a link to the term. Thoughts? Twillisjr (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Although many editors and readers do prefer non-paywalled links, that is not a matter of reliability. To the contrary, paywalled and hardcopy-only sources are often more reliable and, when so, should be preferred. I would not want to say anything that detracts from using the most reliable sources. John M Baker (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with John. The correct place for this is WT:RS, but it won't get anywhere as there isn't even a requirement that sources have to be on the internet at all, much less free on the internet. Zero^talk 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

TED Talks (from ted.com or youtube)

A discussion came up on Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid RS —it's not listed on RSP. My gut says "no".

Con

1. TedX has no quality standard
2. TED talks are cliche, coastal, rife with business speak & pseudo-intellectual
3. the talks don't distinguish fact from opinion or anecdote. Sources are not cited.

PRO

1. True TED (not Ted X ) do have an implicit editorial bar for content and speakers, but it's not a journalistic BAR IMO
2. Speakers often have respectable pedigrees or are notable

What's your take? Tonymetz 💬 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) }}

TED talks are not edited material and are usable as reliable sources (rather than opinion) only if they qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SME. But if you want to discuss this further, you should do so at WP:RSN. John M Baker (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Local news

I suggest adding this as a subject under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories. Text, based on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Local_sources,_again:

"Local news" is hard to define, use your best judgement. WP:Notability (organizations and companies) has subject-specific guidance at WP:AUD.

Thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How to attribute MondoWeiss

WP:RSP on MondoWeiss says: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. I've consequently added attribution a few times, along the lines of "According to Ira Glunts, writing in MondoWeiss,...." Zero0000 has removed these, arguing as follows: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice. If this is right, it means that all the sources on RSP where there's consensus attribution is required, we don't actually have to attribute them in text (unless it's an unsigned editorial), but only their contributors. Is that how this is generally understood? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That first one looks like double attribution, if the source is Ira Glunts, then attribute them. If they are not in themselves notable/reliable for their opinion (undue weight), then go with an attribution to MW instead. Course, I might have all this backwards as well, lol. Certainly, biased statements of opinion need attribution rather than being stated as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If we mention an opinion in a book published by Princeton University Press and wish to attribute it, we write "according to <author>" not "according to Princeton University Press". Attributing it to PUP would be a false attribution, since it wasn't PUP who gave the opinion. There are cases where it is appropriate to attribute something to a publisher, such as newspaper articles which have no byline, but that does not apply to articles which are the work of a named individual, especially when the author is an expert or notable in discourse on the subject. The place where the article is published should of course be in the citation (the usual way of "attributing" a publisher) and I don't recall any case (including this one!) where there was a consensus to mention the place of publication in the text as well as in the citation. I don't think this is a reliability question, but just a matter of how to attribute something. Zero^talk 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But what if the community had decided that Princeton University Press was problematic? Wouldn't that make a difference? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That would just mean we are relying on the author and not on Princeton, and we’d attribute to the author. We attribute to who it is we are saying is reliable. We don’t attribute so as to say hey this source ain’t reliable. If it isn’t reliable it shouldn’t be used, but here the reliability is coming from the author and so that’s who we depend on and that’s who we attribute to. nableezy - 11:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

but doesn't this mean that all of the (80+) entries in RSP where it says we should always attribute, it's redundant unless it's an unsigned editorial? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I take those 80+ entries to mean we attribute to the author, not just accept as fact what is in the source. When the source is an editorial by the editorial board then yes it should attributed to that editorial board. I take "attribute always" to mean that we treat the website as a blog basically, only usable when the author themselves are a usable source. nableezy - 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The key thing is that we don't state things as fact where it is unwarranted, which is policy anyway. I think perhaps some of the confusion here is equating "2" with "attribute". It just means "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" so it is more of a case by case thing Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

yes, but for clarification my 80+ (very rough!) figure is entries which say something like "always attribute", some of them green or red, most yellow, rather than all the yellow entries. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The attribution is because the publisher is weaker than other types of sources, so we rely on the author. Attribution doesnt mean "According to John Smith, writing in Mondoweiss", it means "According to John Smith" because we attribute the idea to the person espousing it. nableezy - 08:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's my take:

I feel like different formats have different degrees of publisher responsibility over the content

News articles should get "According to <author>, writing for <newspaper>" unless marked as or implied to be provided by a news agency (in which case that agency should be attributed, e.g. "according to <author> writing for AP News / Reuters / etc." or "according to AP News / Reuters / etc." if no author is specified), an organization/company (in which case that organization should be attributed in the same way; this should be assumed for advertisements), or an individual (in which case only the author's name should be mentioned; this should be assumed for comments, obituaries, opinions shown as alternatives rather than standalone articles, and articles written by anyone who is prominently labeled as an external contributor rather than a staff member). "An article/advertisement/comment/obituary/etc. published in / run by <newspaper>" is true nevertheless.

I'm not sure about magazine articles, so I would lean towards the neutral position of "according to an article by <author> in <magazine>".

For scientific journals, "according to <author> writing for <journal>" is only true if the journal specifically commissioned the authors; if in doubt, use "according to <authors>" or "according to an article by <authors> published in <journal>.

For books, the author is pretty much always in charge, so "according to <author>" is best. "According to an book by <author> published by <publisher>" is okay, whereas "according to <author> writing for <publisher>" and especially "according to <publisher>" are unacceptable without a strong overriding reason.

Whatever you do, don't attribute the content provider (except in the full citation) outside of extremely unusual cases. I've seen this multiple times with the National Library of Medicine, though in classmates' writing that I'm giving feedback on, not on Wikipedia.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If there's a statement that the publisher is not responsible for something, it might be best not to mention the publisher when attributing that thing.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that in an essay anywhere? Maybe write it up if it isn't, looks helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I came up with it as a reply to this discussion. Should I just create a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, put {{essay}} at the top, and copy-paste my comment? Solomon Ucko (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea, never done one. There is Wikipedia:Essays. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree this would be a helpful essay. It'd be good to hear other views too, as it looks like there isn't a clear policy on this. I wonder if it should be raised at a more prominent board, e.g. village pump (not in relation to this specific source, but in general). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier and Bobfrombrockley: I've written up an essay here: Wikipedia:Who to attribute in-text; anyone can edit it. Feel free to bring this up somewhere else if you'd like more input; please link the new discussion here if you do.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great, hopefully people will use/edit it. Going to take a look at the policy pages and see how it fits in with what's there right now (V, MOS, NPOV etc). @Zero0000: Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

A discussion of MEMO is currently petering out at RSN [Update: now archived.]. It has been discussed there four previous times - very briefly in 2012, in 2019, in great detail in 2021, and in passing later in 2021. Could anybody summarise these discussions and add to RSP please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that for an RSP listing, there needs to be an RFC?

Both MEMO and Eye do appear in Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide, the former as Unreliable based on the 2021 discussion (which may change with the current discussion) and the latter as nocon also based on a 2021 discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion: two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, so the current discussion on MEMO would make it two significant discussions, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Eye

MEE has been discussed five times at RSN: in 2015, in 2018, a second time in 2018, in 2021, and again shortly after that but rapidly abandoned. Can somebody read and summarise these discussions on RSP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Should sources with only a single discussion be listed here?

I saw that TED talks were just added to the RSP list [3]. Does it make sense to add a source that has only been discussed once? The same is true of a source like Sydney Morning Herald which lists only a single, short RSN discussion [4]. Many treat the RSP list as if it were a gold plated wikipedia assessment on a topic. That may be true in cases where we have had a long, well attended RfC (or RfCs). However, when we have just a single discussion, especially one without a RfC I would suggest we should keep such sources off the list. It made sense to establish the list to handle frequently discussed sources (how many times was Fox News discussed before the list was created). But does it really make sense to add a source that has only a brief RSN discussion? Is it reasonable to start trimming such sources from this list? Springee (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Every entry on this list should meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, which requires a minimum of two significant discussions, or at least one uninterrupted RfC on RSN. I see that there are several entries that do not meet this criteria (as discussed in #Loading time) and I agree that they should be merged into a related entry, moved to the "Categories" subsection, or removed. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've refactored or removed the four entries discussed in #Loading time. On the other hand, the entry for The Sydney Morning Herald does appear to meet WP:RSPCRITERIA with its one RfC and one additional discussion. I don't think this entry should be removed unless WP:RSPCRITERIA were revised to be stricter for all sources. — Newslinger talk 01:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Should CNN be broken into CNN, CNN Politics, and CNN talk shows the same way Fox News is?

I don't think there is any question that CNN is a reliable source for news, however, I think the same considerations should be made for their political coverage and talk shows as was done for Fox News. Each section should be debated as a separate source on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and each have their own rating. I think this should go for all cable new sources that cover politics and have opinion talk shows. In my opinion, this would be a move to combat the notion that Wikipedia presents left wing bias in their reliable sources by allowing open debate separate from the the news portion of the source. This would also allow future debate to change the reliability of only a portion as time goes on. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I really see little comparison between Fox and CNN. I've asked when Fox news shows are on a few times and no one has provided an answer. It's nearly all opinion these days and the opinions appear coordinated. CNN has news throughout most of the day and invites conservatives daily while showing live feeds of news. CNN is not perfect. But they make an attempt at balanced reporting and criticism. Certainly talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces which I just copied from the current rating. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Daytime shows like America's Newsroom from 6:00am-8:00am and Fox Reports from 10:00am- 12:00pm are the most objective news shows. Even the other shows like Your World with Niel Cavito are more news than opinion. In fact he will fact check guest on the spot if they say something blatantly untrue. Once you get into prime time, then the opinion comes out, just like CNN. Erin Burnett and Laura Ingram go head to head at 4pm. Anderson Cooper and Jesse Waters go head to head at 5pm. The rest of the night is talk opinion shows on both CNN and FOX. I listen to both everyday on XM radio. Both have about the same amount of opinion throughout the day and provide the news from different perspectives. Most of the opinion on both networks comes from the guest that are on the shows. Most of the negative opinions of Fox News come from people who never watch it. Same goes with the negative opinions of CNN. BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Erin Burnett and Laura Ingraham in the same sentence.:) The Dominion lawsuit transcripts (which include Ingraham) make it clear why Fox paid nearly $800 million to avert a trial. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I cant stand Laura Ingram for a multitude of reasons including her bludgeoning of the Dominion stuff, but Erin Burnett is not an objective newscaster. If she was, she would carry Trump's press conferences. Like him or not, he is a newsworthy figure in this country and what he says is news. The comparison between the two was opinion for opinion, not who is better or worse. The intent of this topic is to separate the news from the opinion of CNN just like Fox News, if you look, Fox News, the news portion is under the generally reliable category. I think it would benefit the community to have CNN politics and opinion split just like Fox is. When it comes to opinion shows you are going to like the person that says things you agree with and dislike the person who doesn't, it's human nature. BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's human nature, guess I'm not human. CNN covers Trump's "press conferences" all day to the point it is horribly boring as he just keeps saying the same thing over and over and over and it's nearly all lies: All these women are liars, bad judge, I'm not allowed to talk, Biden trial-Biden trial-Biden trial, not a single legal scholar believes this trial should be held, not one. As for Erin's show, she mostly asks questions while trying to stay awake. I don't know her opinions. Anyhow, our current text for CNN states: talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Update as you mentioned Jesse Waters. Just saw a clip of him yelling that Trump was just fined for talking. He could say the Loch Ness monster is real and boom, a thousand dollar fine. When has Erin Burnett or Anderson Cooper done anything like this? It ain't news or opinion. It's outright lies. There is no comparison. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I heard both of them push the claim that Trump wanted to be a Dictator and that he said there would be a bloodbath if he didn’t win. Taken in correct the correct context it’s not a story. Just like Waters, you can selectively take facts and make it in to a story. Waters may be more dramatic but it’s the same concept. None of this comparison really matters. The question was, why is it not split like Fox or why can’t we combine Fox and have the same note? BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's usually helpful to link the specific pieces you're referring to so that they can be evaluated as more than ruminations. Remsense诉 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion and comparison has nothing to do with the original question. Out of all the cable news networks, Fox is the only one split into three. To err on the side of neutrality, would it not be best to open up the other cable news political and opinion wings to debate? BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion and comparison has nothing to do with the original question.

What? Then why did you mention it? I would think it is relevant.

Moreover, like other editors have said, this approach is backwards and wrongheaded in general. Broadly, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not itself a reason for anything—I understand I'm linking an essay commenting on our content policies, while here we are instead discussing how best to judge sources internally, but I trust that the analogy is clear and uncontroversial. To analogize another content policy in order to illustrate a philosophical point—neutral point of view is not "no point of view". If a source acts unreliably, we treat it as unreliable. On what grounds does this notion of "fairness" you're imagining get to emerge and involve itself in what is otherwise more or less an entirely empirical process? It can only be based on egregious assumptions about how sources work or what it means for sources to be reliable. Remsense诉 05:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: No, because no one is trying to use CNN's opinion pieces as fact, like many are trying to use Fox news's opinion pieces as fact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not entirely true, there was quite a bit of it during the 2020 election cycle. A lot of colorful conversations on the talk pages. CNN opinion citations vs Fox opinion citations. Not sure about this election, haven’t been paying attention to the pages. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this would be a move to combat the notion that Wikipedia presents left wing bias in their reliable sources. that is not a valid reason to do any of this. What we would need, is evidence that CNN is being misused as a source in the same manner that some have tried to use Fox.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a valid reason to have discussion? I’m not questioning the reliability of the source more the lack of constancy in how the sources are broken out. I can and will if need be, find CNN opinion pieces being presented as fact, although I do not think it is necessary for the question I presented (just to note, both CNN and Fox present a lot of their opinion pieces as “analysis” even though they clearly fall into the opinion bucket based on content). Per the rules of the talk page, this falls under discussion of the list itself which would make it a valid topic. BlackBird1008 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Constancy can lead to an equivalence of false balance reducing the value of RSP. Fox is a special case given its history and how it has been used here. There are other listed sources that are special cases in other manners. RSP is an editor guide on how to best use individual sources in Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia article on sources. The entries are tailored to the sources and their history. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The other factor is, has anyone found any CNN opinion pieces (including their talking heads non-news shows) to be distorting and manufacturing the truth in the way FOX has come under fire for? Yes, we should not be using opinion pieces as fact (but attributions to opinion pieces are fine), but the reason we absolutely disallow them with FOX is that they speak falsehoods and lies in their opinions which don't even have a place here on WP. Masem (t) 12:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Last night, Jesse Watters claimed "professional activists" are infiltrating the college protests, "awash in Soros money, anarchists, antifa, sinister faculty and foreign influence." Meanwhile, last night, Erin Burnett questioned Eric Adams about his allegations of outside agitators at Columbia. The comparison between Erin Burnett and Fox opinion hosts is laughable. The lack of Wikipedia diffs showing any problem with how CNN sources are used on this platform is also telling. We do not treat CNN and Fox the same because they are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Soros turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A newt? I hope you got better. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That user was previously insisting that WP:NEWSMAX be considered a reliable source for broadcasting "an alternative perspective to the MSM" (read: debunked fantasies of election fraud in the 2020 US elections), so it seems like WP:CIR is an issue. Isi96 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? This user argued that Newsmax was reliable? I think we can stop wasting time discussing the reliability of CNN now and get deeper into that CIR discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct! However some context is required, I posted that in response to other users (not me) attempting to add context to the election article that was evolving. Nothing had been debunked as this was November 12th 2020. I asked for a reconsideration due to its increase in viewership as "the other side" of the evolving story. Obviously they blew all their credibility shortly after that hence, I have never argued that again. At the time users were getting belittled for even mentioning something that differed from what the MSM was reporting. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)