This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Fox News (talk shows). 1 2 Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌 2010 2020 2022 2023 +27 2024 There is consensus...
Click to read more »primary sources and Fox News, which is not considered reliable per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. The MSN article is a reprint of a Fox News article. It appears to...
Click to read more »(talk) 11:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Delete if it gets political, per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ~~lol1VNIO ( s talk me) 13:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Delete I use Google...
Click to read more »stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this...
Click to read more »groups out there. --Tataral (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is marginally reliable: we can't use political articles in...
Click to read more »2025 (UTC) Comment: I suggest removing the Fox News source (per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as it is consider unreliable Warm...
Click to read more »discussion topic. Second, my search seems to indicate, even absent WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS articles, that Polumbo passed WP:GNG and not only for the WP:1E of...
Click to read more »What makes Fox News a reliable source for American politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? Fixed: Citations removed or replaced with more reliable source(s)...
Click to read more »Junglecat (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC) You might want to give WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS a look. The change in their share price has also been massively overstated...
Click to read more »#2 is Fox News, which for politics is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) #3 is GB News which is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:GBNEWS) #5 is...
Click to read more »that's just one source. Fox News is not reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Fox news...
Click to read more »protocols and processes." The claim is that the content violates WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS because the article uses the word "equity". While the article is published...
Click to read more »television stations owned by Fox Television Stations fall under WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 21:06, 12 March 2025...
Click to read more »in Archive 472#Fox-affliated TV stations and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I don't think that FOXNEWSPOLITICS covers Fox affiliates as it stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested...
Click to read more »unreliable for politics, according to consensus established in WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ✘ No New York Post Unreliable, especially for politics, according to...
Click to read more »What makes Fox News a reliable source for American politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS? Fixed: Citations removed or replaced with more reliable source(s)...
Click to read more »unreliable for politics, according to consensus established in WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ✘ No New York Post Unreliable, especially for politics, according to...
Click to read more »Fox News (talk shows). 1 2 Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌 2010 2020 2022 2023 2024 There is consensus...
Click to read more »https://www.foxnews.com/video/63693026722 Interview with subject See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ✘ No https://muckrack.com/macy-gunnell/articles Index of articles written...
Click to read more »that's just one source. Fox News is not reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Fox news...
Click to read more »science) the rating is currently green and considered reliable, while WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS(including politics and science) is white with no consensus. Given the...
Click to read more »https://www.foxnews.com/video/63693026722 Interview with subject See WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ✘ No https://muckrack.com/macy-gunnell/articles Index of articles written...
Click to read more »has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the...
Click to read more »(talk) 14:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC) include a link? see also WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, generally dont use fox news in political stories User:Bluethricecreamman...
Click to read more »treat Times Now with the same caution applied to Fox News under WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, though it's generally fine for topics that don't touch Indian politics...
Click to read more »also be made that this source is unusable on other grounds; see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. https://www.foxla.com/video/1449669 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion...
Click to read more »already attested to. Thryduulf, for your reference, the summary for WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS mentions that post Nov 2020 content is generally unreliable but pre...
Click to read more »unwilling to do that. NCdave (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS says that for political and scientific matters "Fox News is considered...
Click to read more »would require attribution and possibly a consensus to use poll data by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Also, PRAGERU personalities may receive similar push-back. DN (talk)...
Click to read more »primary sources and Fox News, which is not considered reliable per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. The MSN article is a reprint of a Fox News article. It appears to...
Click to read more »discussion topic. Second, my search seems to indicate, even absent WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS articles, that Polumbo passed WP:GNG and not only for the WP:1E of...
Click to read more »nationalism). There should be no reason we treat it more stringently than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS vs WP:FOXNEWS. Leaving this in limbo removes a major source for topics...
Click to read more »Fox News? If they are simply reposting the Fox News reports then WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS would seem appropriate for those articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested...
Click to read more »2025 (UTC) Comment: I suggest removing the Fox News source (per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as it is consider unreliable Warm...
Click to read more »This would normally justify two entries (compare WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), except that it's fairly often the case that these two areas of expertise...
Click to read more »Josh Kraushaar has a current Fox News Radio political role, and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS and WP:FOXNEWSTALKSHOWS treat Fox News politics/talk-show content as...
Click to read more »reporting, and advise caution per Fox News political reporting per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. This doesn't seem to concern Fox's straight news coverage. Are we...
Click to read more »material may be more useful, I don't see how they're any better than WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS at this point. I would also support a separate technical measure, like...
Click to read more »Junglecat (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC) You might want to give WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS a look. The change in their share price has also been massively overstated...
Click to read more »February 2025 (UTC) +1 - I'm not seeing Fenharrow's comparison to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. The problem with Fox News isn't that it's biased, it's that it's unreliable...
Click to read more »stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this...
Click to read more »#2 is Fox News, which for politics is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) #3 is GB News which is unreliable per WP:RSP (see WP:GBNEWS) #5 is...
Click to read more »(talk) 11:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Delete if it gets political, per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ~~lol1VNIO ( s talk me) 13:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Delete I use Google...
Click to read more »sources they dislike, while promoting sources they prefer such as WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS[30] I find it difficult to WP:AGF that when I suggested Rob Roilen...
Click to read more »Fox News (talk shows). 1 2 Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌 2010 2020 2022 2023 +27 2024 There is consensus...
Click to read more »groups out there. --Tataral (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is marginally reliable: we can't use political articles in...
Click to read more »the search box but the major ones have their own sections like WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I wanted to move...
Click to read more »challenge the acceptability of reliable sources, and have cited WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an acceptable source, I suggest your arguments are better suited...
Click to read more »@Polygnotus: That may be the difference between WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. I haven't checked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »update at Next Nicaraguan general election#Suspension is cited to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS which the community has declared generally unreliable. Can this be...
Click to read more »faked sourcing), instead of listening to policy such as not using WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS for contentious claims is missing the point. In both the fake or mixed...
Click to read more »"regional instability" and some poor sourcing (WP:AAPOLITICS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). EvansHallBear (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Oppose. If major...
Click to read more »Fox News (talk shows). 1 2 Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌 2010 2020 2022 2023 +27 2024 There is consensus...
Click to read more »