Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330
331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340
341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350
351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360
361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370
371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380

Cambridge Scholars Publishing[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion addresses the reliability of books published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing (CSP). Most of the voices in this discussion split into two camps: the one that opposes blanket removal and asks to consider each source on a case-by-case basis, and the one that lobbies for its total removal.

The evidence submitted by the participants is inconclusive. A mirror of the Beall's list mentions CSP as "potentially predatory". There are the Norwegian and Finnish ratings of scholarly outlets: the former mentions the publication as having peer review (this is disputed here, as this review says no editorial board is there at all), but in any case both give only "acceptable" grades and the Norwegian one briefly downgraded CSP to "predatory". This guide from the University of Central Missouri mentions a letter from CSP as being a typical example of an invitation to a predatory conference. Finally, there is this crispy-new paper (see also this summary from an official in the Polish Ministry of Education), which is fairly positive of CSP and says that it "has accumulated scholarly legitimacy", though notes this publishing house is "print-on-demand" and describes behaviour typical of a questionable outlet quality-wise. The Blogspot article was also mentioned, though its authoritativeness was questioned.

The previous discussions, not counting the one in Archive 221, which was not a discussion, attracted relatively few opinions compared to this one, though on average they tended rather negative. In this discussion, the general consensus of editors was that this publisher is not by itself a high-quality one - its books range from receiving critical acclaim to being panned. As mentioned, this is a print-on-demand publisher, even if aimed at scholars. There is consensus that it is should be treated as a self-published source or worse (which by default is generally unreliable, as RSP criteria suggest), but no consensus whether to go lower than the SPS level. Therefore, CSP should generally be treated as self-published.

By my count, the "case-by-case" camp had a just a little more numerical support; however, these people presented evidence of several books that received positive scholarly feedback, and this is a persuasive argument that was not effectively rebutted. Therefore, where the policy does not explicitly prohibit usage of questionable sources (see WP:BLP), CSP should not be removed on sight. However, as is the case for all sources in general, all editors who have doubts about a CSP source can obviously put "better source needed" tags, boldly proceed with removal (within reason) and engage in discussions if there is any disagreement. The onus in this case is on the one seeking inclusion/retention. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uanfala (talk · contribs) insists on restoring content sourced to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, because according to them, they aren't predatory and that removing bad sources is 'disruptive'.

I contend that CSP is a vanity press by every meaningful definition of the term. Anyone can publish with them, at no charge, and they do not meaningfully review the submissions. See also previous discussions on CSP and CSP sources

So I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers Cambridge Scholars Publishing to be a reliable publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)[edit]

  • I'm pretty sure it's well established by consensus here and reliable sources that it is in fact predatory. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very obviously unreliable That's not to say we can't ever cite them, but short of a review praising certain works, we shouldn't be citing them. Especially when other sources are already present supporting the material in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • unequivocally useless and unreliable per this discussion and the dozens of others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wish Headbomb had started this discussion before using AWB to remove several hundred references and then proceeding to edit-war with several people who have reverted him. Now, CSP are not a predatory publisher, that's not their model (as anyone would immediately notice if they bothered to read anything written about them). Are they a publisher of reliable sources on par with established academic presses like CUP or OUP? Of course they're not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything there is rubbish. We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, drafts, or actual vanity presses. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
And there is no disruption, I've removed and reviewed about 300 citations to CSP, which is obviously a predatory/vanity publisher (which loads of prior discussions all agreeing in the same direction). In all cases, the material was supported by other citations, and CSP is not needed and can be summarily removed. We should not be citing unreliable sources, and your restoration of them, knowing full well they are unreliable, is textbook WP:POINTY behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's been pointy to revert two bold semi-automated edits that were justified by the plainly wrong assertion that CSP was predatory. And to repeat and clarify what I wrote on the Kashmiri language talk page, you're proceeding from an incorrect presumption about how references normally relate to article text. If an article paragraph has two refs at its end, this doesn't necessarily mean that either one of those two refs would be enough to support the entirety of that paragraph. More often than not, parts of the text would be supported by one ref, and parts of it by the other. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the sentiments expressed above, particularly as no consensus has been reached here about the publisher. That is the sort of action that should occur after this discussion, not before or during it. As such, I reported it to ANI at WP:ANI#Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would tend to agree with Uanfala here. There seems to be a lot of MIXED viewpoints on this publisher. They have books that are hits and misses.
Quoting above: "We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, drafts, or actual vanity presses.".
Wise words. Just my 2 cents. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment from an outside perspective, I think both sides have a point here. It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable, but, as Uanfala has pointed out, the citations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than removed en mass by automation. If a particular source was written by a subject matter expert (which seems to occur occasionally at this publisher), it could still be used. If sources are removed, the relevant content should be examined and new sources found (if possible) or the content should be removed. Simply removing hundreds of sources and leaving someone else to clean up the mess is one way to do things, but in my opinion not the most responsible way. Toadspike (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is already a reliable citation for the entirety of this content. That's why it was removed. There remains over 3000 citations to this garbage publisher across Wikipedia. This was not a blanket removal, but a targeted one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What was the criteria for your targeting of these cases? Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    a) It's CSP, which is prima facie unreliable b) Other sources support the content, which makes removal warranted without replacing it with a {{cn}} tag or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You said "this was not a blanket removal but a targeted one" which I took to mean you had employed some discretion. What does "targeted" in this sentence refer to? Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it, since you're doing your due diligence you can continue as you were. I apologize for not looking into this too thoroughly yesterday. Toadspike (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable fwiw ... I really don't think it does? Where is this consensus demonstrated? Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now that I have had time to read all the links provided above by Headbomb and Praxidicae, it seems that I was a little hasty in jumping to conclusions and giving the benefit of the doubt. None of the discussions linked show any sort of consensus against using CSP, quite a few are not even evaluations of the reliability or quality of CSP, and one is literally a question which received no responses. Not only does this convince me that CSP is not unreliable per se, but it also convinces me that the language used by the aforementioned editors was rather misleading in stating that anything was "well established by consensus". Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers I don't have a real horse in this race, but -- as mentioned above -- this seems like a question one should ask before using AWB to mass remove hundreds of citations attributed to this press. Initiating what is essentially a policy decision on your own and then retroactively seeking support for it when people push back does not to me feel like an excessively good faith action. As for what to do with CSP, it seems like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. I became aware of this issue when I saw Headbomb remove a citation from Apaturia (Greek mythology). In context, the reference there was one of three works (one published by a more reputable academic publisher, Palgrave) citing a particular statement, all of which generally in reference to a primary source (Pausanias). The work in this context was a corroborating citation, in a work published by an ancient history Ph.D., and its removal in this instance does not truly cause harm, but also seems an overly aggressive exercise of policy where no policy actually exists. If this had been the only citation in the article, for whatever reason, I think this specific article would be poorer without it. If we want to have a blanket reliability policy against all works published by CSP, that seems extreme to me given the circumstances, but I think is also a reasonable decision for the community to make. I don't think it's reasonable to unilaterally implement a de facto policy that CSP references are banned unless some editor wants to make their case (see OP's talk page) to the single editor who decided this ought to be policy. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you read the above linked discussions, there is clear consensus that it's unreliable and given the fact that it is established fact that it is predatory, policy dictates that it is in fact unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    iiuc this discussion is the measurement of consensus for WP:RSDEPRECATED, so I'm not sure how you can say this has already been decided. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because it has been discussed endlessly here as linked above and the outcome is always the same. There is no point in having these discussions if we're going to rehash them every time someone wants to whine about it's non-use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it had already been decided, I would expect this to be present on WP:DEPRECATED, and it is not. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...many sources which are deprecated don't appear there but it doesn't change the fact that for example, Fandom can't be used to source anything that isn't about Fandom isn't on there - but it is never allowed because it is defacto unreliable. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there is no canonical source of truth for a policy I would submit that no policy in fact exists. If you're asking me to believe a final decision has been made about a thing, show me that evidence. This isn't rocket science. Looking at the conversations above, most of them contain only fairly glancing reference to the publisher we're discussing here, and the only direct one is six years old. And since the it seems like some relevant things have changed (addition of credited editorial boards, publishers rating in Norwegian Scientific Index upgraded). As I said elsewhere, I don't have any particular stake in this publisher's fate within the Wikipedia project, however I don't think I've seen a single genuine argument advanced here as to why exactly this particular journal ought to be wholesale denylisted from the project. Just a lot of people repeating "vanity press / bad editorial" like a mantra, without any explanation for how these standards are judged. Ford MF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are just being repetitive and missing the point. We have standards that are based in policy surrounding reliability and that does not require an RFC every time a subject is brought up. Of course, you're welcome to make the argument that everything is reliable unless proven otherwise, but you'd be wrong and quickly reverted anywhere you would add such sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which standards are you referring to that CSP violates? Ford MF (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable, should be prohibited "Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vanispamcruft. Unreliable predatory publisher. Kudos to Headbomb for taking on the unpleasant task of removing references to that predatory garbage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable- predatory junk publisher that calls itself Cambridge Scholars so that people will think it's affiliated with Cambridge University. Deceit and trickery, and I would expect very little of anything "published" by them. Reyk YO! 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I won't disagree that the term "Cambridge" today carries an immediate air of prestige. But there's a lot of places named Cambridge (many founded by people who never cared about the university -- what would the Greeks think?), and any startup company will try to appropriate local prestige. Regardless, from its reported history, they seem to have at least some justification for the name, so there's no reason to call it "deceit". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [1] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [2] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you want to make a case for the reliability for this or that book published by them, go ahead. But the default position for a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight should be against inclusion. Reyk YO! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As someone new to the discourse on this particular publisher, I see a lot of assertions that they *are* "a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight", and relatively little to back that up, other than a seeming implicit conviction that this is self-evident. Ford MF (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So...a publisher that solicits non-qualified "academics" for publication and then charges them for publication is what, exactly? Also please feel free to identify their editorial board. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    https://cambridgescholars[.]com/pages/meet-our-editorial-advisors. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, where is the source for your assertion that its portfolio consists of unqualified writers? And why is academics in quotation marks? Ford MF (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you read any of the sources linked in the article about CSP? It's pretty adequately covered there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Praxidicae, if there is any source about the claim that CSP charge authors for publication, then please provide it. I don't see that in any of the sources I've checked. – Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have! As far as I can tell there are only two references in the entire article that support the "predatory" label. One is the reference, and the other is the guy who runs Flaky Academic Journals dot blogspot dot com. The Flaky Academic Journals guy ... I mean, okay. Some guy with a blogspot made one post about this five years ago, but more recent posts from bloggers of seeming equal standing seem to represent an opinion contrary to this. The beallslist thing is interesting to me! But 1) it looks like the list itself is not without detractors, and CSP was anonymously added to it as an addendum after the original list was abandoned by Jeffrey Beall, *and* even if Jeffrey Beall did think CSP sucked, there is no evidence he thought those titles should not be carried as part of a reputable academic collection. And in fact, as demonstrated above, very reputable and notable academic librarians *do* believe that a non-trivial number of CSP publications belong in their collection. Ford MF (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, if you want to make a case for the reliability of some individual book, go ahead. It is, however, not possible to say, "It's in CSP therefore it is reliable". The default position should be that it is questionable at best. Reyk YO! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you explain why this is the default position? So far I do not see you making any argument or listing any criteria for this assessment. You've made a claim that the press is "predatory" and "vanity", and implicitly that that means citations from these works should be unilaterally deleted from the project, and imho the onus is not on others to mount a counter-argument to this when the claimant(s) have not in fact mounted any argument at all, only simply repeated the original claims as if they were already established as true. Ford MF (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because CSP is a vanity press and utter garbage. See all previous discussions, Beall's list, flaky journals, etc. And on Wikipedia, when we encounter a garbage source, the default is to exclude it, unless it can be shown to not be garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. If someone reads through all those previous discussions and still comes to the conclusion that CSP is reliable then nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Reyk YO! 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Making decisions by consensus is policy. Asserting that your position is the consensus one without some independent demonstration of this is not a policy as far as I'm aware. The closer [ie the decider of consensus] is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. WP:DISCARD There are by my count three people on this thread advancing the position "CSP is a predatory vanity press" (with the implication that citations for works from this press should by default be disallowed) but I do not see one single argument made in support of that position, only insistence that the position is prima facie true, or insistence that the position has already reached consensus in this or that other place, like the princess continually being in another castle. And there are two editors who seem to disagree with this position and/or believe that he burden of proof is on the people making the claim, and that has not been satisfied. This does not look like consensus to me. Other folks may feel otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's clear that you're determined that CSP should be treated as a priori reliable, the same way that Cambridge University Press, or Springer, or Addison-Wesley are respected academic publishers. My position is that the deliberately misleading name raises questions about their academic integrity, that actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy, that there are numerous documented instances of poor quality control, and that they are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. All these concerns have been brought up in the previous discussions linked to by Headbomb. Why are you so eager to dismiss them? The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy, IMO correctly, and if you think they are suddenly legit then you need to make that case. Reyk YO! 00:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My position is that the deliberately misleading name ... I disagree that the publisher's name is admissible as evidence of the publisher's quality one way or the other. The website claims the company was founded, in Cambridge, by lecturers from Cambridge U -- literally, Cambridge Scholars -- and I haven't seen anyone disprove or even question this, just a lot of people assuming, as you seem to be doing here, that the name has nefarious intent.
    • actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy There seem to be other academics, in equivalently good position, who do not agree with this assessment.
    • Numerous documented instances of poor quality control Definitely agree it looks like they've published a couple of crappy books over the years.
    • They are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. I do not see the source of this claim in the discussions above?
    • The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy again, there is a repeated insistence that this consensus already exists and has been decided previously, when I do not feel like any of the referenced conversations demonstrate this at all.
    Ford MF (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also feel like you are proposing an entirely false binary here in which there exist no scholarly presses between Lulu[.]com and Springer Verlag, and every press must be one or the other. I am not trying to argue that this press deserves a position among Springer, AW, CUP, etc etc. As a former academic-book-biz guy in a past life, I think it's safe to say they'd be pretty far down on my list when it came time to place orders. I *do* however disagree that the correct response in the project to an obviously not A-list publisher is for citations to be default deleted on sight. Ford MF (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There exists presses in between. CSP is, however, on the Lulu side of things, not on the CUP/Springer side of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I take your response to mean you are applying no independent criteria of your own or the project's, and are using those of Beall's list and the flaky journals guy as proxies here. That's reasonable! You can't do direct due diligence on everything personally. But I think I have clearly described why neither of these sources seem like open and shut cases to me (reasonable people seem to disagree about Beall's list, CSP wasn't even on it until anonymous inclusion fairly recently, the Flaky blog guy article is pretty old), especially when measured against the countervailing opinions here (other, more positive blogs; reputable academic libraries holding sizeable amounts of CSP in circulation; reputable review organizations like Norwegian Scientific Index changing their rating of the press). So you keep repeating "vanity press" and "garbage" without making reference to any criteria the could be reviewed or falsified, and, well, I don't think it's surprising that other people might not find this a persuasive argument? (Or an argument at all?) Ford MF (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you read any of the previous discussions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have any arguments to make other than to tell me that in some vague and nonspecific place, someone else makes an argument to justify your claims? Ford MF (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussions are linked above. There is nothing vague or unspecific about them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I other words, the sources used to make the claim that it's a predatory publisher and therefore by default unreliable are themselves unreliable sources. No blogspot is anything but a SPS, and needs to be the work of a significant figure to be deemed reliable and this one does not, while the other list is user-generated, so also fails RS. In short, if anything should be removed from article space, it's those. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Publishers are one component of evaluating a reliable source. Look at the author, editors, etc. What kind of claim is being made? Is it controversial? Generally opposed to any mass removal based just on publisher without an evaluation of the actual source in context, and generally opposed to proposals to consider a book publisher unreliable without a systematic evaluation of the kind/quality of content they publish. A predatory publisher (and there is a wide spectrum of "predatory") is a red flag, but isn't itself completely disqualifying. Some predatory publishers are the equivalent of just being self-published (and not less than self-published), but there are many flavors/degrees. Meh. Default to standard editing practices like BRD and ONUS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, with real predatory publishers, and real vanity publishers, whatever "real" is here, it should be the other way around: discredited until a particular article/book by a particular scholar can be deemed acceptable. So, I'll accept this Mellen book on Beowulf for a variety of reasons that I could explain. But in general, a publisher that produces this should not be taken seriously--until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sure, when challenged, the onus is always on those who want to include a source to argue that it's reliable for that particular use (and otherwise justify inclusion), but we need a clear consensus about unreliability to remove just based on the publisher -- unreliability, not just predatory. The latter just means it's on a spectrum between WP:SPS and rigorous review/oversight, with the "real" ones at or near the former, but that whatever "real" is here is a toughy, and it seems too often the spectrum is collapsed to a binary. These conversations often look like we're talking about publishers known for false/misleading information, not ones that simply tend towards the WP:SPS side of the spectrum. CSP may be well on that SPS side, but that doesn't mean it's "discredited"; it means it's self-published. Self-published sources aren't discredited; based on the author, for example, there are plenty of times when we use them. They're just not sufficiently reliable for most purposes. Maybe we're getting into semantics with that distinction, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I looked at all the linked discussions, and I have some thoughts about CSP (none of them are very good), but I fail to see that any of the discussions came to a clear consensus that CSP is an unreliable vanity press. And without that, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. First we need clarity here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CSP is a vanity press. Their model is to have authors write whatever they want, conduct no review, offer no little-to-no editing services, and then charges universities and random suckers for those books. They've repeatedly published fringe nonsense, (example, example), or straight up copies of Wikipedia content example). They are listed by the two main freely available sources on predatory nonsense, Beall's list (now maintained by someone who isn't Beall), and Flaky Journals. Their books are widely condemned in review, which specifically call out the practices of CSP (e.g. "the absence of an editorial board has clearly failed to guide the author in the preparation of his publication". Library Guides specifically call out CSP as a publisher to avoid [3]. Or entire book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. If CSP isn't a vanity press and a garbage tier publisher, no one is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Flaky Journals blog [4], though critical of CSP, does not characterise them as predatory. Your last link (the bit form the Scopus diaries) is also worth reading: it's explicit that vanity or predatory publishers are a lower tier than CSP, and it characterises CSP's drawback in not conferring a great deal of academic prestige.
    Their books are widely condemned in review? Well, I've had a look. Here's quotes from the reviews I checked (all except 4 (3 were excluded because of genre (popular science, memoirs), and 1 because it was as dry overview without a quotable conclusion):
    1. Di Rocco, Concezio (2019-11-01). "R. Shane Tubbs, J. Iwanaga, M. Loukas, R. J. Oskouian (Eds): Clinical anatomy of the ligaments of the craniocervical junction". Child's Nervous System. 35 (11): 2241. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04261-6. ISSN 1433-0350. S2CID 201170849. "the book is a precious contribution to the understanding of all aspects of the craniocervical junction which should not only be part of the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon involved in clinical practice but also of the students and neurosurgeons in training"
    2. Carey, Peter (2021). "Manual of Bone Marrow Examination by Anwarul Islam (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020; ISBN 978-1-5275-5890-8)". British Journal of Haematology. 193 (5): 1016. doi:10.1111/bjh.17400. ISSN 1365-2141. S2CID 236420372. "an excellent teaching resource for every haematology department"
    3. Kapparis, Konstantinos (2019). "Isaeus' On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3). Edited by Rosalia Hatzilambrou. (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. 283. $119.95.)". Historian. 81 (4): 727–729. doi:10.1111/hisn.13286. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 214471601. "an outstanding accomplishment containing reliable, informative, and thorough accounts of textual, linguistic, and stylistic matters, as well as the legal issues, the background, the protagonists, and the build-up of the case"
    4. Farrell Moran, Seán (2016). "The Impact of World War One on Limerick. By Tadhg Moloney. (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Pp. xii, 209. $75.99.)". Historian. 78 (1): 166–167. doi:10.1111/hisn.12142. ISSN 1540-6563. S2CID 218497802. "Although the author has done much homework, his thesis, as suggestive as it is, remains underdeveloped"
    5. Spicher, Michael (2019). "AAGAARD-MOGENSEN, LARS and JAN FORSEY, eds. On Taste: Aesthetic Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, 150 pp., 4 b&w illus., £58.99 cloth". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 77 (3): 349–351. doi:10.1111/jaac.12655. ISSN 1540-6245. S2CID 201566618. "Overall, [the book] offers insightful discussions about taste to help bring it back onto the fore. I would recommend anyone interested in aesthetics to read this collection as an entry point into recent thought about taste"
    6. McClain, Aleksandra (2016). "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology by Scott D. Stull, ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 275 pp". American Anthropologist. 118 (2): 457–458. doi:10.1111/aman.12571. ISSN 1548-1433. "Several papers, including the editor's own, offer strong, original scholarship [...] but a few are disappointingly underdeveloped in comparison", "while problems with individual papers mar the consistent academic quality of the volume, I nevertheless commend Stull on having the ambition to plan the conference and produce this book"
    7. Liu, Yi; Afzaal, Muhammad (2022). "100 Years of conference interpreting: A legacy. Edited by Kilian G. Seeber, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021, Price: £64.99, 242 pp. ISBN: 1-5275-6719-2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 32 (2): 349–352. doi:10.1111/ijal.12406. ISSN 1473-4192. S2CID 244890170. "this volume provides a novel and convincing reference in the field of conference interpreting, and is therefore a valuable read for interpreting students, trainers, researchers and other stakeholders"
    8. Wallis, Patrick (2021). "Andrea Caracausi, Matthew Davies, and Luca Mocarelli, eds., Between regulation and freedom: work and manufactures in European cities 14th–18th centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. xiii+146. ISBN 1-5275-0638-X Hbk. £58.99)". The Economic History Review. 74 (1): 299–300. doi:10.1111/ehr.13059. ISSN 1468-0289. S2CID 234070948. "the volume collectively makes a valuable contribution to our appreciation of the complexity and heterogeneity of economic regulation"
    Of these 8 reviews, 6 are entirely positive, and 2 offer criticisms. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reviews are going to give a biased sample of CSP's output, because only the books that people found interesting enough to review will have any. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course, as with any other reivews. But what's the relevance of that here? If someone wants to do a big analysis and look at the proportion of reviewed CSP books vs. the total published and then compare that with the same ratio for benchmark publishers, sure: that will be useful. But in the context of this discussion – where the baseline question is whether CSP books are unadulterated crap that should be automatically removed from articles – I think it was useful to point out that there were plenty of reviews of those books in the best journals and that most of those reviews were positive. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose a blanket removal, but recommend a "use with caution" guideline per WP:MREL. Some of the authors published by CSP are respectable academics in their fields with other publications from reliable publishers written by them. As such, WP:SPS's guideline seems like a good fit here. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Further, some of the books have been reviewed in reliable secondary sources. So, I think each source needs to be scrutinized individually for reliability with particular attention given to the book's author and their background. Removing content on mass without taking the time to examine each source and its author is not the responsible way to handle this issue, and seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal, recommend "use with caution". Various publication level rankings (Norwegian, Finnish) list the venue as an acceptable quality scientific publication venue, albeit with an imperfect history. This alone gives me much pause about a blanket ban. Above descriptions about the publishers being predatory also seems confusing, given that the venue does not appear to charge Article Publishing Charges based on their FAQ. As per the above descriptions re: the Beall's List entry (anonymous, added after Beall's involvement), I'm not terribly convinced by that argument either. Given further that WP:SPS allows for the use of pretty much anything from an established subject matter expert, a blanket removal seems unwarranted. That said, the spotty history clearly warrants a case-by-case review of any sources used. -Ljleppan (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment In addition to what I wrote above, I'll note that this RFC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL rather spectacularly. Ljleppan (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cambridge Scholars Press is not someone I'd consider an acceptable academic publisher - so what that means is that I would try to avoid citing anything published by them, as I have no confidence that their peer review process has been sufficiently robust to detect material which has errors, is not accurate or which is fraudulent in nature (as evidenced by some of the material they have published, including material plagiarised from Wikipedia). I would also not use the company as a publishing house for my own work, because I cannot trust what other works may appear alongside our own, and obviously if I consider it to be problematic, people would question anything I publish there.
    Books published by CSP primarily, from what I can see, are typically submitted via the CSP route for two reasons, firstly they're submitted there to satisfy funding requirements (as is the case with books and articles published via Wiley, Elsevier and others, of course) but they have a strong reputation in academic circles as a publisher of last resort - if you can't get a book into a more prestigious publishing house or journal series, then CSP will take it and it'll technically tick off a deliverable so you don't lose funding or have someone chasing you to return part of a grant. Secondly, almost all of us are vain and want to publish - for many fields, that involves doing an experiment or undertaking a project, generating data, processing that data and generating results, which are then discussed. That's the broad outline for a journal article. There are many fields where research doesn't work like that and a book is the logical outcome, particularly where your research is one contiguous body of work during a PhD or for a number of years post-doctorate, unfortunately for a number of people with such contiguous projects, their work will generally be of interest to a small number of people and publishing via an accepted academic publisher (Wiley or others) will not be possible (that isn't a comment on the value or importance of the work, just a reflection on what the large publishing houses will accept because it makes them money). I say this as it explains the peer review issues - if you can't get a conventional publisher interested in your book because of audience limitation issues, it's going to be very difficult to find reviewers who are capable of a proper peer review of your material, which risks absolute drivel making it onto the market. It's also worth noting, the presence of CSP material in university libraries is no indicator of their reliability - most university libraries will purchase material at the behest of students - I drop a request into our library every year or so for a new book either I would like to read, or which I think will benefit our students. I note a comment about CSP and the University of Cambridge Library - it's worth a reminder that the University of Cambridge Library is a deposit library and can receive at no cost any books published in the UK that it wishes - it does not necessarily mean the University of Cambridge Library or students from Cambridge have asked for/purchased CSP books.
    I'd therefore have to agree with the "use with caution" suggestion - there will be a number of authors with CSP who have been forced to publish there by circumstance, and there will be little wrong with their work, but similarly, there's a lot of authors who will make use of CSP's tendency to accept anything with no real oversight, which would obviously preclude its use going unchecked. Nick (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Never use. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, etc.; this publisher has a reputation as shite. No source from it can give confidence that WP:V is being satisfied. Anything worthy of inclusion will be covered in decent sources; use then instead. If not, the material will not be the kind of “accepted knowledge” Wikipedia must reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal, support replacing with better sources. I looked at a few random articles with references to CSP and I didn't see any problems requiring a purge. Tagging with {{bettersourceneeded}} would be a good idea. Alaexis¿question? 11:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive by tagging while keeping the sources in never works, it will just stay there forever, just ask @David Gerard:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion it's not a positive example. Alaexis¿question? 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Never use If there are clearly reliable sources supporting the text you are trying to source, use that. If there aren't any other than a CSP source you shouldn't be adding the text. One book from a dubious publisher isn't enough.
  • Comment. I did what several folks insisted on and read the previous discussions. None of them established a consensus that CSP is unreliable; most of them weren't even really about CSP. Let's put a pin in that claim--CSP may be unreliable, but this is the first discussion where that question is squarely presented and proceeding as though that's already the case is not accurate. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • CSP can be a reliable source as demonstrated by reviews from the academic community, eg:
    "In sum, From West to East provides a compact, but very readable overview of approaches to medieval archaeology practised in North America." Kerr, Sarah (January 2016). "From West to East. Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology". Medieval Archaeology. 60 (1): 185. doi:10.1080/00766097.2016.1147856. S2CID 164034768.
    "the volume is a worthwhile read and valuable resource that paves the way to refine the studies on this, without doubt, an exceedingly promising multidisciplinary topic." Basik, Sergei (19 October 2020). "Naming, identity and tourism: edited by Luisa Caiazzo, Richard Coates and Maoz Azaryahu, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020, 233 pp., ₤ 61.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-1-5275-4286-0". Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 20 (5): 540–542. doi:10.1080/15022250.2020.1853603. S2CID 228084528.
    "Overall, this is an interesting take on a fairly well-covered topic. It brings to light some hitherto neglected sources and provides some useful insights" Doney, Jonathan (4 March 2022). "For God and country: Butler's 1944 Education Act, by Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann: Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, xii + 151 pp., £41.99 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-44-388383-2". History of Education. 51 (2): 304–306. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2020.1825834. S2CID 226352364.,
    "the book serves as a door opener to the ceramic traditions of Europe and opens up further reading due to interesting articles as well as rich reference lists" Eigeland, Lotte; Solheim, Steinar (10 September 2010). "Dragos Gheorghiu (ed.): Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe". Norwegian Archaeological Review. 43 (1): 86–89. doi:10.1080/00293651003798846. S2CID 162493819.
Richard Nevell (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it can be reliable. Much like vixra or the Daily Mail can be reliable. However, when we don't have these positives reviews, CSP books are not reliable. That's no different than any other vanity presses out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have a reliable source that describes CSP as a vanity press? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. They don't explicitly list CSP as a vanity press, but press much say you should only publish with them if you're comfortable publishing in a vanity press. Alternatively, this library guide, which goes further and labels them predatory. Again, the model of CSP is to publish pretty much anything they can with little regards to what it is they publish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Headbomb, the chapter you've linked has two things to say about CSP: 1) that publishing there isn't going to earn you the respect of fellow academics, and 2) that vanity presses have lower academic prestige than the likes of CSP. I really don't know how that text made you conclude that CSP are described there as a vanity press, when in fact the opposite is the case. The library guide you link only quotes an email sent by CSP as an example of a "predatory conference letter" without giving further commentary. That's a bit odd to begin with (the email is clearly soliciting book proposals, not advertising conferences), but the characterisation as predatory is incorrect. Yes, CSP have been criticised for their unselective solicitation emails (a practice in common with actual predatory publishers), but they themselves are not predatory (because they don't charge authors), that much I thought had already been established in this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Predatory encompasses a spectrum of terrible practices. Spamming emails is one of them, because they're preying on the young and foolish to submit their work for free, so Cambridge can exploit these people and make money off their back. They're a print-on-demand vanity press. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case I would recommend not pushing beyond the bounds of what reliable sources say. On the subject of whether CSP is predatory this article in Science as Culture is an interesting read. My own view is that the situation is not as black and white as you are presenting it. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a damning picture of CSP. High-volume with little-to no review output to maximize profits, spamming campaigns (but it's nice, personalized spam!), specifically reaching out to people who wouldn't be able to publish fringe viewpoints anywhere else. These all the characteristics of a well-organized vanity press. It's only better than Lambert because CSP is better organized and better at PR. Note that the article specifically is less concerned "... judging the quality of the monographs Lambert and CSP were publishing than in their negotiation of existing credibility economies, with the elite university presses at their apex". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In one instance an academic listed on a CSP editorial board replied to insist that she did not know she was listed as an editor. Whoops. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience they're not even that careful with their personalised spam. I once received an unsolicited email from them in which they got both my first name and employer wrong, quite the howler as my email address at the time was, asking me to contribute something quite outside my area. They're sloppy, period. I have tried over the years to defend this encyclopedia from those who want to turn it into viXra with a side of TVTropes, but I think I'm done. I have other things I want to be doing and it no longer seems worth the effort, especially seeing a few editors who really ought to know better defending this manipulative garbage. If that's how it's going to be then I'm outta here. Reyk YO! 01:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh they're not. It's a spam operation after all. I'm just going by what the source said. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reyk: I think most editors here harbor similar feelings towards CSP and their likes as you do. At least speaking for myself, I have no inclination whatsoever to defend CSP or their unethical practices. I just don't think immorality is inherited, so to speak: it's not because some scholars who-knows-for-what-reason have published there that their work should automatically be discarded and ignored. More importantly for Wikipedia, that work may be of very high quality, and there are certainly some cases where it would constitute a major loss not to cite it. We need to look to reliability as such first, not morality. I just hope that even if you don't agree, you don't let this drive you away. We are by and large on the same side here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: why not treat as self-published? I've occasionally come over this publisher when following citations and bibliographies in high-quality sources, and my impression is that competent scholars do sometimes publish there. For example, this is mainly authored by top scholars, this is also good quality, and this contains contributions by absolute top scholars like G. E. R. Lloyd, as well as lesser stars like Helen King or Mario Vegetti, who are still scholars of the highest rank. This is not like a news source where authors are anonymous: apart from the publisher, there is also the scholar and their academic reputation to take into account. It's also probably not a coincidence that I just named three edited volumes: these by definition have editorial oversight. Use with caution, certainly, but outright banning seems like a bad idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Add as this seems to be a separate issue: also oppose blanket or semi-automated removal, per the arguments of Visviva and No such user below. It's tempting to just remove everything published by a company whose practices are unethical, but when one is not engaging with the content the reference is supposed to verify, it's far too easy to break text-source integrity, and it's too difficult to fully anticipate other negative consequences which may not outweigh the advantage gained by removing an unethical publisher. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No one is proposing outright banning. Like with any other vanity press, when a CSP book is accompanied by a positive review, it can be used as a reliable SPS source. Absent of those, CSP books are inadequate as sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, a positive review would be a very good indication that a SPS or equivalent is reliable. But why require it? In my experience, the status of the scholar in their field is a far more important indicator for reliability than the reputation of the publisher. On the other hand, not every high-quality volume gets reviewed. For example, of the three books I mentioned above, I found (very) positive reviews for the first two ([5] for [6] and [7] for [8]), but for the third one –arguably the one with the best scholars– I did not find a review. Should we treat a book chapter by someone like G. E. R. Lloyd (please have a look at where he usually publishes) as unreliable because it has a bad publisher and there happens to be no review? I at least think we shouldn't. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 00:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because vanity presses are crap and are by definition not reliable (which is different than being guaranted to be wrong). It's the same if a 'good' scholar publishes in predatory journal. They've dodged the reviewing process, and they don't get a free pass. See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I find it by no means credible that the three volumes I cited above were dodging peer-review. As edited volumes, they also enjoyed at least some form of editorial oversight. This is simply not vanity publishing: all of the scholars involved could easily have published elsewhere, and have in fact done so often (again, see here). The positive reviews also indicate that. This all rather shows that CSP cannot be treated as predatory without a case-by-case evaluation. Speaking of evaluation, the essay you're citing is using self-published primary sources to prove a point that editors can't evaluate any self-published sources without engaging in original research... But here on this noticeboard we are going to evaluate (secondary) sources, and as many have pointed out above, the publisher is only one factor in the equation. As someone also said above, we should avoid putting the cart before the horse. Let's first see whether CPS is a vanity press, shall we? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 01:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal. I don't see CSB as being in anyway different from self-published sources, which may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The discussion has proven that CSB occasionally publishes works that qualify as reliable sources either because written by well-reputed academics or because accepted as valuable scientific contributions by the academic community; there's no reason for removing them for the sole reason that they were published by CSB. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal - I'm not convinced that this publisher is as some have claimed in blanket statements relative to predatory, unreliable, etc. It would be wonderful if all publishers had experts in every field of academia comprising their editorial boards, and while we strive for RS, it's rather ironic that WP itself is considered an unreliable source - in part, because of perceived systemic biases. CSB states on their about page: We are proud of our reputation for author satisfaction. The publishing process should be a rewarding experience. There is no cost to our authors/editors to publish. We offer complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, and a generous royalty scheme. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal The sources given above seem to be quite clear in showing that CSP does publish valuable academic books (even if it's despite themselves, rather than because of themselves). And the repeated attempts above to claim them as a vanity publisher and then, when that statement is refuted by actual sources directly saying they're not as bad as that, the original people making the vanity claim then not responding or addressing those sources makes said original claimants look like they're purposefully trying to avoid engaging with the subject and are on the verge of lying. Clearly, this is not a vanity publisher, it is not a predatory publisher, it's open publishing blatantly just makes it fall under self-published sources and any books from it should be treated as such around the importance of the author. SilverserenC 17:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose removal to echo User:Alaexis above. I agree that {{better source needed}} should be added instead of removal with |reason= "Cambridge Scholars is considered unreliable per WP:RSN" or something similar. To address the counterarguments: regardless of whether the page editors address the tag in a timely manner or not, it's there for the reader to see if they are verifying content. Even though it appears that Headbomb is only removing Cambridge Scholars material in multi-sourced contexts, that is still problematic if the remainirial is not checked that it is still verified in the remaining source, and there is no tag like {{please verify that I didn't remove something important because I'm too busy to do it myself}} Sorry to editorialize but that does reflect my interpretation sometimes.) I don't get the edit-warring either -- One thing this page teaches is that the reliability of sources needs to be interpreted in context, so if the editors who have been maintaining a page for months disagree with your agnostic source removal, maybe they have a reason, and picking a fight over an article you haven't read maybe isn't the most constructive use of everyone's time. Of course that is an entirely separate issue from whether Cambridge Scholars should have different considerations as far as reliability, but apparently we're trying to have both conversations at once here. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Treat as self-published. Which in most cases should mean removal as unreliable, but we can use it if we can determine that the author is an established subject-matter expert. Why an established subject-matter expert would be using such a publisher, rather than just directly self-publishing if self-publishing is what they want, is another question, but not one we need to answer here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Treat as self-published and go ahead with blanket removal, restoring on a case-by-case basis when an argument can be made to do so. {{better source needed}} tags hang around and don't get resolved until somebody pushes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Other relevant past discussions: a failed Featured Article nomination where CSP was called a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing; a deletion debate where the closer wrote that they ave an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best. In this discussion, which also ended in a delete, the possibility was raised that they've made some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries which ends up boosting their WorldCat holdings numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal, but "use with caution" sounds about right, based on the edifying discussions above. Regarding removals, with respect to the edits that led to this RFC, I think it's worth noting that even when multiple citations appear after a statement, it can't be assumed that all of them support all of the statement. There are all sorts of common scenarios where this isn't the case -- classic citation overkill where it may turn out that none of the sources cited fully support the statement, or where only one of them turns out to; a compound sentence where the sources each support different parts of the sentence; a source added by a well-intentioned editor to support their edit but without removing the previous source that no longer supports the sentence; etc. (None of those are best practices, but they happen all the time.) Ultimately questions like "is this citation load-bearing? can it be relied on in this particular context for this particular statement? even if it is reliable and load-bearing, can we replace it with something better?" can only be addressed by engaging in depth with the sources and subject matter of that specific article. There are no rule-based shortcuts. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Treat as self-published. I came here following a brief edit-war with Headbomb on Othonoi. [9] is probably a typical case: there's a citation to a Greek-language journal accompanied by a citation to an English-language book published in CSP by the same authors, conveniently available on GBooks and easy to verify. Blanket removal of CSP books written by scholarly authors is disruptive, and publisher is only one factor to consider the source's reliability. No such user (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose automated removal, treat as self-published although I'm a bit late in "voting", due to the number of concerns raised by other editors, it is clear to me that any automated removal does not consitute due diligence. Even removing CSP sources where another source is provided seems unneccessary - variations on "it's garbage", with little to back up such strong language, are not enough to justify any contentious action on Wikipedia. CSP is not unreliable per se, arguments for which have been expounded at length above. Additionally, due to the changing (and possibly improving) situation with regard to editorial practices, deprecation or any blanket statement of unreliability requires stronger and more recent evidence than has been provided. Toadspike (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blanket removal vanity press, etc yes, but if we can't find better sources than that's a basic problem that means the text probably shouldn't be there anyway. This means removal would require searching for a better source. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal and prohibit it, unequivocally useless and unreliable Totally agree with above users that it is vanity press. Have seen multiple promotional junk about Indian cults from this publisher on Wikipedia.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blanket removal and general unreliability. CSP is a vanity press, which is a type of self-published source. AKK700 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blanket mass removal was inappropriate. It is clearly not a vanity press, and doesn't even fall within the criteria for a predatory press, since it doesn't charge authors. On the other hand, it appears to be willing to publish almost anything, with minimal editorial oversight. So it should not be regarded as an academic publisher. Its books should be treated on a case-by-case basis on the same criteria as a WP:SPS, based on the specific proposed use and context. Banks Irk (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Judge on case-by-case basis. I cannot find any evidence that this is either a vanity press or a predatory press. It is not a vanity press because submitted manuscripts are subject to an acceptance review. It is not a predatory press because authors are not charged to publish and receive royalties on sales. The most that seems true is that this publisher provides less editorial support than the big academic presses provide. This means that the reliability of each book should be judged according to the expertise of the author. The reliability of books published by mainstream academic presses also rests mostly on the author; it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish. Zerotalk 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. I think that the last point made by User:Zero0000 is very important and it's something I've been thinking about since the beginning of the discussion. Books are different from journal articles. The reliability of journal articles mainly depends on the outlet: quoting from "The New York Times" is not like quoting from "The Daily Beast" which is not like quoting from "The Sun"; when we quote, we always mention the journal and often we omit the author of the article; discussing about the reliability of the source-publisher at RS/N is vital. The same doesn't apply to books. Yes, Cambridge University Press is more prestigious than Ashgate which is (way) more prestigious than Cambridge Scholars Publishing. But no serious researcher would ever judge the quality of a book from the quality of the publisher - it would be like judging a gift from the package. The reasons why a book gets to be published by Cambridge University Press, Ashgate or Cambridge Scholars Publishing are various and not exclusively related to the quality of the book. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the case of a journal article, the reviewers get much more time to study the article relative to its length, compared to a book. But even then the reliability depends mostly on the author, depending on the subject. Reviewers of a chemistry article don't repeat the experiment to see if they get the same result, nor do reviewers of a history article visit the dusty archive which the author haunted for several months. However, they check what they can check from their desk and they recommend accept or reject according to their best judgement based on experience. Reviewers of a book are generally only given time to scan the book to look for obvious problems and overall quality (I've been there), so the author is even more responsible in that case. Zerotalk 12:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Judge on case-by-case basis. User:Gitz6666's comment above is of critical importance. Also, like User:Zero0000 says, "it is a wiki-myth that academic publishers "fact check" the books they publish." This is why prestigious imprints retire books after publishing: it is because it is the readership that often comes up with the discoveries of plagiarism, fabulism, etc. In any event, User:Fordmadoxfraud's comments are on point: a couple of people are making prima facie declarations of "vanity press," etc., and no consensus or proof has been presented. And the "third party" sources for such claims is what, a blog? This whole RFC is quite absurd. In any event, as shown above, the books it publishes are frequently reviewed by respected journals and included in respected libraries. Finally, it can't possibly be a predatory press because it does not charge authors and because it pays royalties. XavierItzm (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blanket removal, judge on a case-by-case basis. Per @Fordmadoxfraud, there are no reliable sources that would confirm CSP as a predatory publisher (except Beall's list, badly outdated). Their website states unequivocally that they do not charge for publishing and actually pay the authors a percentage of sales. While I'm unable to evaluate this, I largely fail to see the predatory element of their business model.
In my view – echoing many others above – they are a low-quality, third-tier, yet still an academic publisher who strive to produce content written by academics. Sure, renowned experts won't likely publish their works through CPS, but this doesn't mean that whatever they've published should be thrown out of Wikipedia automatically. A case-by-case judgment would be best here IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Case-by-case like a self-published source. From what I've seen in looking into this, they may not have the most rigorous editorial, and their solicitation for submissions methods are spammy, but there's no justification for a blanket removal. It depends on the authors themselves more than the publisher. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

RfC: Cuepoint Medium publication reliability[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion was started one month ago, and discussions ended around one week ago. Despite the low number of participants (only five, including myself), there is unanimous consensus for Option 2, in that additional considerations should apply for Cuepoint Medium, with editors considering that reliability depends on the qualification of the author. Another more active editor could tweak the closing statement and add it to WP:RSP as marginally reliable. VickKiang (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been some disagreement over whether the Medium music publication Cuepoint, which is edited by Jonathan Shecter, directly owned by (the platform) Medium itself, and routinely featured a column by longtime music journalist Robert Christgau, is considered a reliable source. This was most recently raised at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/addition1. This publication does not have an entry at WP:RSMUSIC nor RSP. The publication appears to have gone dormant in 2016 but is routinely used in Taylor Swift related articles.

Is Cuepoint a reliable source for music industry coverage?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

TheSandDoctor Talk 17:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey (Cuepoint)[edit]

  • Optoin 2. Reasoning below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2: usability depends on the writer (and the fact/opinion being cited). The column by Christgau is definitely a reliable source. For other authors, take a look at their other writing background (e.g. on MuckRack). If they're even just a little-known reviewer who has written for sources that would be reliable for the information you're trying to cite, I'd take it as reliable. That Shecter edits Cuepoint counts for something. — Bilorv (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2, mostly per previous respondents that it depends on the reviewer's qualifications. Medium is generally unreliable, per RSP, As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. I don't see clear editorial policies here, but I think (I don't know much about the music industry, so sorry) the well-known journalist Robert Christgau is a very famous subject-matter expert and is probably reliable (Option 1). Others who apeeared in credible journalist outlets or other RS are IMO generally reliable (but I think better refs could be found, still, it's passable). Looking at the prose quality, there are long, detailed articles, but also short, maybe superficial articles, and they could rely a lot on Twitter and other social media posts. Contrasting with this, niche reviewers and contributors that hasn't written much in other RS would probably be considered generally unreliable (Option 3) IMO. VickKiang (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. There is no consensus on the reliability of Cuepoint. AKK700 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. Seems to be the better point that fit this example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (Cuepoint)[edit]

  • I believe Cuepoint can be used sparsely. Robert Christgau is a very regarded music journalist, so basically, anything he says goes. So if they have an article written by someone that has a journalism degree and/or has written for other publications it will be fine to use. However, if none of these conditions are met the article is better not used, as Medium is deemed as an unreliable source and Cupoint belongs to it. However, some pieces are written by musicians, such as Mark Ronson, which seem fine, at first glance, to use as he discusses his personal experience with George Michael, but it shouldn't be used to give a certain song(s) a review. It should be used like Sound on Sound is used and other magazines alike. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your explanation. Just to clarify, "Medium is deemed as an unreliable source" because it can be used to publish your own blog (etc). The difference here though is that this publication on medium had reputable editorial control and appears to fall outside of the WP:MEDIUM RSP entry's coverage area. It is "self-published" in the same (philosophical) way that The New York Times or Rolling Stone are -- it simply isn't the same thing as the Medium entry's coverage. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I forgot to add this in but it is a key point that just dawned on me. An analogy here is how WordPress is considered unreliable but sites running WordPress can be (i.e. Variety, Global News, and Time). WordPress -- or Medium in this case -- is just the platform. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see. But is also deemed as unreliable as it is a mirror source, so it copies from other sources and publishes those articles as if they were their originals. Nevertheless, the other conditions are still the same. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MarioSoulTruthFan: I am confused. What is considered a mirror source? Where did you see that/get that from? I don’t see that listed at the RSP entries for either WordPress or Medium? TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm saying it is a mirror website, it copies articles from other websites. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Like all sources...WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and they do have some expert authors writing material, but keep the following in mind: their website: We’re an open platform where over 100 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Our purpose is to spread these ideas and deepen understanding of the world. They are as much a RS as is WP. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Highly recommended: User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js. You may not have to come here as often. Atsme 💬 📧 03:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Atsme: Again, these are two different things as I've already explained. This is for the Cuepoint publication that happens to be on the website Medium (see my above comments) but has reputable editorial control etc. as already described; this is not for the entirety of Medium and is a very specific question/scope. This essentially makes the website page you linked to moot/not relevant. I am also aware of Headbomb's script and use it, but I came here with this RfC because others had raised a point worth considering and isn't covered by Headbomb's script per se; this was also filed for the benefit of resolving a dispute that was ongoing (to which I was not an involved party). It doesn't really matter to me which way this goes, I just don't like seeing things misunderstood in the backstory and question being asked (that I thought was extremely straightforward) and work to get us all on the same page. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Understood, but please consider the following: To contribute, please email your Medium “draft link” or published piece to our EIC: Shecky is also the Director of Programming for the Wynn in Las Vegas. Cuepoint EIC is not his dedicated position in life. Look at the long list of contributors on their about page, and compare their writers and format to say...Mojo, Rolling Stone, or Sports Illustrated for example. Frankly, the difference between Cuepoint and the overall Medium site is minimal. A group of Wikipedia editors, a few with some expert credentials or experience in a particular market niche could create a standalone website for their area of interest in much the same way using WP articles to launch it, solicit the contributions of WP editors at the expert level. Would that make it an unquestionable RS? Do you consider the way Cuepoint operates to equal the editorial control of the NYTimes, Time Magazine, a scholarly review, an academic paper or book published by an expert on a particular topic? What is an expert? I think the position I stated above covers my position well because I tend to be more of a skeptic. Oh, and I apologize for not being more clear as to my intentions for including those scripts as they were meant to be for the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of them. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying your position and re the scripts comment. I don't dispute your viewpoint, but will just note that a publication asking for pitches isn't that unusual; The Verge does it, as does even The New York Times (both listed as generally reliable at RSP). TheSandDoctor Talk 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations[edit]

1. Source in question:
2. Article: GB News

Requesting a consensus be formed with the source being added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the appropriate Legend upon a consensus being formed. Helper201 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that this request is malformed. Please retract this request, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, and then submit a request that is neutral. Also, include what you want to use from the source, and now you want to use it. - Donald Albury 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Donald Albury, with all due respect I don't see how I have not already done that. That being said I am open to doing as such if you'd recommend a new wording. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm requesting the source be valued as a whole/generally in regards to its suitable as a source of evidence for citations. It seems to be mainly politically focused so I'm guessing that will be the primary subject matter it will be used for. But it’s a news platform so I assume it will have a range of content. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not used the source and don't plan on doing so, it’s just I've seen someone else use it for a citation and wanted the source to be evaluated before its use becomes more widespread. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the notice displayed at the top of this page, which gives instructions on how to ask for a consensus on reliability. Context is important. - Donald Albury 20:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done so but I honestly don't see what you think is the problem. Please just say exactly and specifically what the issue is and how you want me to change the request or wording to fix it. Helper201 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for barging in, the following information is missing (see the instruction above):

Alaexis¿question? 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regardless of how this is formatted, I think we can be fairly clear that a "news" channel that includes a section called "Wokewatch" [10] is probably going to be generally unreliable for anything to do with politics. Not to mention the presence of Neil Oliver, Darren Grimes, Mark Dolan et al. British version of Fox, effectively. See also the anti-vax fake news links in my post below which suggests to me it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Black Kite Comment If this is a section of a commentary show on the channel – like the commentary shows on Fox, CNN and other American outlets – and not part of its actual news content, then it doesn't necessarily indicate the reliability of the channel's reporting. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That said, it is presumably at least a rung below more established sources such as the BBC and newspapers such as the Economist and Guardian. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable, but its really going to depend on the context. Which is what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • partisan source, generally unreliable, any syndicated content it carries could maybe be considered on a case by case basis. Acousmana 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: A cursory search on Full Fact reveals a number of failed fact checks for GB News (source: --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [11]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [12] [13] [14] [15] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be made to make conclusions. Alaexis¿question? 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry, I just wanted to try and get the analysis running instead of the RFC being bogged down with whether the request is malformed or not. --Minoa (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable: when a news source is created with the sole intention of "telling you what the mainstream media won’t" or something similar, then that’s an immediate red flag that within hours of launch they’ll go straight to the fake news well (c.f. the Corbynista blogs who tried to argue that February has over 2,000 days, because Steve Walker couldn’t read a WHOIS record properly). The hiring of Andrew Neil was, out of the gate, an attempt to bring some legitimacy to the new channel; once he resigned, the channel quickly devolved into basically the British version of Newsmax. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable: Sources are seemingly about its TV station rather than its website, but: described as "opinion-led" and as "[challenging] to traditional notions of impartial and objective news" by the Reuters Institute (1,2). Also, has been compared to Fox News (1). In fact according to the NYT it was staffed with alumni from Murdoch media ventures (1) around its launch date. --Chillabit (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Impartiality and objectivity are about bias rather than reliability. Do your sources say that they are unreliable? Alaexis¿question? 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have a point, though, if a news org is lead too strongly by its own bias it can affect reliability. The comparison to Fox is not doing any favors for them, either, as Fox are known for that sort of coverage. --Chillabit (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable As it seems (and seems to be regarded as) as a TV version of tabloid churnalism. As to the comnlp;arsion to (sayh) the guardian, GB news has been around for a year, the Guardian fact check page goes back 8 years, of course they will have made more mistakes, 10 a year (as opposed to 70 in its first year). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable, and other sources should be used in preference to it. However, it may be useful within certain contexts - e.g. direct quotes where X said Y on the programme, but even these should be covered by other RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable GBNEWS is a largely opaquely structured and financed, purpose launched station to deliver specific alternative facts against a range of perspectives. As Sceptre states above - it's an OAN and Newsmax, much the way TalkTV is. Most of the noteworthy content it produces will be opinion, which is appropriate for their opinion only but unlikely to carry any significant weight in any serious topic compared to actual reliable sources, and notable experts in those fields. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. There were 6 !votes and only three sources have been brought up. Of these three, two (Reuters report and Stephen Jukes's book) do not discuss the reliability of GB News and one (Full Fact) requires analysis to understand if the source is better or worse than the average (How many failed fact checks are there? Is the frequency higher or lower than that of other outlets? Were retractions issues? etc.). I don't think I've ever used GB News as a source and I would happily reconsider my vote if there is good evidence of their unreliability. Alaexis¿question? 07:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does it matter if some of the fact checks "fail" if a significant number clearly show the station peddling fake news? This isn't just "stories that turned out to be false", it's actively pushing a POV based on lies. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Other outlets' publications have also failed fact checks, e.g. The Telegraph. This is insufficient to declare all of them unreliable. If you are basing your argument on fact checks, you should at least demonstrate that GBNews are significantly worse than others. Also, it would be good to see the breakdown between the news and opinion as the latter "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:NEWSORG. Alaexis¿question? 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're missing the point. There is a massive difference between a news source that prints/broadcasts a story that is later found to be untrue (and retracts it), and one that regularly prints/broadcasts them knowing them to be false for an ulterior motive. The latter is why the Daily Mail is deprecated, and why GBNews needs to go the same way. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand it very well, however no evidence has been presented in this thread that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." Alaexis¿question? 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. Seriously? Anti-knowledge channel of zero use to Wikipedia. Anybody wanting to use this drivel probably needs banning for WP:CIR issues or as a WP:POVPUSHER. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • GB News is generally unreliable as it is a biased or opiniated source. AKK700 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable, the channel is a TV version of a tabloid newspaper. No evidence of editorial oversight, it markets itself as opinion led and telling the stories/opinions you don't get to hear. POVpushing. Just because you tell a story or have an opinion not listed elsewhere doesn't mean its correct. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. The television reporting is more or less talk shows and opinions. The network kinda flopped in terms of quality and it doesn’t appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It might be reliable for non-political reporting on events that take place in the UK; and the vast majority of this conversation appears to be focused on political reporting. But generally we don’t carve out those sorts of exceptions for less-established news organizations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose classifying as unreliable insofar as no sources have been provided that demonstrate that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." It stands to reason that any opinion articles are opinion and should be treated as such but blanket blacklisting the whole medium based on editor perceptions and absent objective proof would be unencyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable. I'd even go so far as to blacklist. Disinformation has no place in an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable both due to editorial policies and age. It takes years of good editorial practice to earn the badge of a reputable source, and they haven't yet started. — kashmīrī TALK 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable at absolute best, for all the reasons stated above - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable per above. Andrevan@ 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose classifying as unreliable OFCOM hasn't sanctioned GB News for anything yet alone false or misleading stories. Dougal18 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on Aon, particularly in weather related articles[edit]

What best describes Aon’s reliability in weather related articles because there appears to be edit wars?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option 1 While NOAA is superior, NCEI is often inferior and has holes in its data, leading to underestimated damage totals. For a tornado outbreak as big as the Tornado outbreak of March 21-23, 2022, what seems more reliable - $47.7 million or $850 million? Especially considering the Tornado outbreak of March 29-31, 2022 was confirmed by NOAA to have $1.3 billion. Aon often gives a more complete view of the storm, and WikiProject Weather, which has problems with being insistent, shouldn’t insist on just using NCEI data. -- (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the edit war, but no discussion on the article's talk page. Is there a discussion with other editors already (as is recommended before your RfC) that you could link to, or where you told the other editors about the RfC here? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a discussion on this in the past - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Aon. (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SamuelRiv: This RfC apparently does go directly against what a previous RfC said for this exact same topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? There was no formal closure or consensus, so this is to firm that up. (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 — Conditional: They are generally reliable and should be used in articles when NOAA has not provided a damage total. NOAA is the US Government’s meteorological organization, and while they can have errors, they should be accepted as more reliable over an insurance company. So AON is generally reliable and should be used on the condition that NOAA has not provided a damage total. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting: I switched to Option 2, as I was actually meaning Option 2 with my wording and not Option 1. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is specific for weather articles, I will ping the active WikiProject Weather members: ChessEric, United States Man, Joshoctober16, Colin777724, Cyclonebiskit, RandomIntrigue, LightningComplexFire, TornadoInformation12, Mmapgamerboy, Ionmars10, JimmyTheMarble, Awesomeness16807, Daniel boxs, Layah50, Cyclonetracker7586. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the same stance that I did before; I trust the government agencies more than I do an insurance company that I've never heard of before, especially since AON may put more or less value on thing in comparison to the NOAA. I'm not saying that they should be totally disregarded and deemed untrustworthy, but I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that talks about them reliably making damage estimates for storm systems. NOAA may not always provide reliable damage estimates, but we still use to establish records for the costliest tornadoes, hurricanes, derechos, etc. I just don't believe an insurance company should have more weight on damage estimates than a government agency and I have a serious problem with using their damage estimates. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's much better to do what Slywriter did: notify the project. WikiProject Weather doesn't just consist of 15 people. Chlod (say hi!) 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC lasts 30 days, so there is no reason to relist an RFC that began 5-6 days ago. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 1 Based upon what I have seen, AON is generally reliable in their reporting of damage and death estimates. These estimates have often been used in place of estimates from the National Hurricane Center because the latter does not put much effort into researching the effects of tropical cyclones outside the United States. It's also helpful for countries in which it's hard to find sources for damage totals. NoahTalk 04:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 1. AON is generally reliable for estimates of damages that can paint a better picture of a storm if we don't have any good sources that can be used. A guideline I generally use when writing is when there's conflict between official estimates and AON, it's important to emphasize official counts over AON's, since official sources are more likely to have boots on the ground that can assess the damages (well, depending on the agency; can't say much for US government sources). I, for one, use the NDRRMC's counts for storms that hit the Philippines, since they usually publish a gigantic table that confirms each estimation they make. But when it comes to storms that hit other areas in the Western Pacific basin (say Vietnam and neighboring countries), the numbers published by AON may be a better fit in terms of accuracy, much like what Hurricane Noah said. Chlod (say hi!) 04:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 – AON should not supersede NOAA, which is the most official source we can use. United States Man (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 1 - AON is not your typical insurance company. No cute little mascots or funny spokesperson. It is a reinsurance company, in other words it sells insurance to insurance companies for cases of extreme disaster, for instance. It also sells things like catastrophe modeling to insurance companies. Insurance companies with billions of dollars at stake are not prone to depending on unreliable sources. As tornadoes are not in my editing repertoire, where there is discrepancy are we sure they are measuring the same thing, i.e. total losses vs. insured losses? For disclosure I work in the insurance industry (in areas related to pricing) but have no connection whatsoever to AON. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
78.26, Do you believe Aon should be used over NOAA if/when NOAA provides damage totals? This question is more toward the NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters, which is where NOAA states how much a weather event did in damage if it is at least $1 billion. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elijahandskip that’s not the question posed at this rfc, it’s whether or not AON is reliable, and I believe it is. However, to answer your question, I think that is an MOS question, not an RS question. I think we’re comparing apples and oranges, because of the way losses are calculated. Total loss vs. insured loss. Pay close attention to how the source describes the loss. Can you point me to a specific as to where the two sourced disagree. Even if both sources are calculating total loss, are they calculating in the same basis? Actual Cash Value? Replacement Cost? Functional Replacement Cost? If the figures differ, perhaps it would be valuable to include both figures, as long as an appropriate description is included. It would give a better, more complete picture of a disaster. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
78.26: Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022 is a perfect example (and the one listed in the RfC request. NOAA Part1NOAA Part2 (49 million) to Aon (850 million). Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what the discrepancy is. NOAA has 48.105 tornado and 803.5 other wind damage, for a total of $851.605 million. AON has a figure of 850+ million. What’s the problem? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
78.26 The wind is 803,000. Not 803 million. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes, so it is. My bad for doing convenient but sloppy math. So the difference in NOAA is measuring direct property and crop losses on a physical damage basis, while AON in measuring total economic loss. Very different calculations. So the NOAA numbers are a subset of the calculations going into AONs figure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per 78.26, that means the NCEI storm database numbers (not the billion dollar disaster pages), is actually less reliable then NOAA. (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they said it was different calculations. Comparing apples and oranges as they put it. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Total economic loss sounds more reliable to me. (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As also explained by 78.26, this RfC is not to determine if it is more reliable, just that Aon is reliable for weather articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science[edit]

Should Fox News (the news website, not the TV shows) be considered reliable or unreliable for politics and science?

  1. Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting
  2. Status quo to maintain present situation; No Consensus, Unclear, or Additional Considerations Apply
  3. Downgrade to Generally Unreliable or Questionable for factual reporting
  4. Deprecate entirely to Generally Prohibited

Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey (Fox News news website)[edit]

  • Downgrade (proposer) (I would accept deprecate as well, but I think downgrade is a more accurate view added Andrevan@ 01:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)), due to several recent instances of failed fact checking, as well as doubting the fact checkers, pushing COVID misinformation, promoting other conspiracy theories, and blurring of fact and opinion in coverage marked as news coverage, news portion should be downgraded to questionable and generally unreliable. Like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp), both are sensationalist and right-leaning at the expense of factual accuracy. It's beyond a bias and goes into the realm of "alternative facts." See discussion and sources for my reasoning in separate delineated sections below. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    note to closer, I changed my signature, but not my username. Andre🚐 18:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 - Downgrade to generally unreliable for any reporting. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. Edit: I would accept Option 4 (Deprecate) as a close second. (edited 23:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Personally I see Fox News on par with The Daily Mail and I think this is supported by the source bundle provided below by Andrevan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deprecate (expanding beyond politics and science) - While what they are reporting on is true, it often ends up over sensationalized to the point that it is designed to sway a reader to the right. The new NewsGuard rating also partly plays a role. According to them they do a terrible job at gathering information responsibly (so as not to mislead readers), correcting errors regularly, or handling the difference between news and opinion. This expands beyond politics, as some of the stories that are being published are almost as sensational as Daily Mail. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo - I don’t see a significant change in Fox’s actual news coverage since the last time we had an RFC on it. Most of the fact checking that are outlined below is about inaccuracies in their headlines, and while those have gone downhill (less accurate and more clickbaity/sensationalized) - we already say that headlines are unreliable. Fox is much more careful about how they phrase things in the body of their articles. Are they perfect? No, but none of the major news outlets is. More importantly, they do issue corrections when they get something wrong (a mark in their favor). Indeed, the only reason why I am not !voting to promote Fox to “generally reliable” is that I don’t think any of the major news outlets deserve that status. We should use them all with caution. Finally, this RFC attempts to distinguish between the on-air reporting and the on-line reporting. I don’t think that is realistic. Are we saying that a news item that appears on (say) Special Report with Bret Baier is reliable, but the same news item appearing on the website isn’t? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not think the fact checks pertain solely to headlines, perhaps you'd be willing to analyze them more closely. I do not think we say that special reports on TV shows are reliable, I believe per WP:RSP: 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. This RFC pertains to just the politics & science news content, which is the bulk of how Fox News will likely be used in a citation onwiki I would expect. I would tend to agree that a TV news talk show is probably unreliable regardless. [18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)] Adding to clarify, Fox News Digital is a separate division from their TV production, though there may be overlaps and I don't know their exact corporate structure. But if you pick any random Fox News article, you can distinguish the ones that simply recap TV video clips versus the ones that are reporting and original writing for web. The latter is where I have serious concerns, but I have no reason to believe the former are reliable either.Andrevan@ 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are free to disagree with my remarks, but I stand by them. - ‘nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Indeed, thank you for your comment and participation. Please do not interpret my engagement as bludgeoning, however it is still proper to engage in discussion so that other editors and eventual closers can evaluate the veracity of arguments. Thank you again for weighing in, and have a good weekend. Andrevan@ 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo all the examples are from science or politics, which we already don't consider Fox News relialble, and we already consider their talk show nonsense to be unusable. The online articles from their news division are a lot more sensible than anything you'll see on TV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a point of order or clarification, we do not currently consider Fox News science & politics, generally unreliable. If you do believe so, you should downgrade not status quo. Andrevan@ 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo Every example falls into the existing language that tells editors to be cautious of using Fox News for political or science topics on contentious claims, which these all are. No evidence has been presented of them being wrong all the time and particularly on more straight-forward news reporting in this area. I still would think editors can do better than Fox if there are alternate sources for the same story but there's no reason to downgrade to "generally unreliable" due to that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 - Downgrade I don't like that I have landed here, and I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of factual reporting still happening at Fox. It does seem to me, however, that as the opinion arm of the operation has accrued more power, the standards seem to have slipped. It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, and so I think a downgrade is called for at this time. All that said, reasonable minds may differ, of course. Happy Saturday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3. At the least. The evidence below shows that any objectivity is pretty much lost and the website has gone full yellow journalism. Honestly, I could even say option 4, but I don't think it would carry. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo, I guess, or downgrade as to science in particular. I am confused by the combination of "politics and science", both here and in RSP. I cannot envision any circumstances under which Fox News would be a cromulent source for any scientific or medical claim. If Fox News is the best support for a scientific statement, it is not supportable. But their coverage of political events and processes can be quite decent. The existing RSP entry seems to express the need for reasonable editorial judgment pretty well. If there is a pressing problem of Wikipedians adding Fox News to science articles (and not being swiftly reverted), we should probably discuss that more specifically. If not, it doesn't seem like there's a problem requiring a solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    100% agree, except when Fox is used for the "scientific" views of politicians and talking heads. I almost made the suggestion myself that politics and science be separated, since I've found Fox more reliable for politics than science. Still, selection remains the major bias in their actual news, not opinion, science articles. YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, downgrading it will not embiggen Wikipedia overall. I think the issue on science is not when they talk about say the James Webb Telescope [16] but when they talk about something that is the intersection of science and politics. Historically that has been climate change and more recently COVID. Springee (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade as the full yellow journalism description is apt. I share the regret expressed above but concur that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, or to put it differently, the work of doing so would require in each instance finding better sources, at which point we should just use those instead. Likewise, debating over what counts as a "contentious claim" is a drain upon the scarce resource that is volunteer time, and resolving any such dispute means finding sources that, again, we should just use instead. Doubtless people will be upset about a downgrade, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that giving in to whining is poor parenting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade or deprecate. It's true that on occasion Fox reports a citeable fact reliably, but in general it's rife with selective reporting and spin. When I see it cited, I generally look to corroborate whatever was said in a different, less partisan source; this is a sign that we should cite other sources in the first place. FalconK (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Fox News isnt a reliable source overall, especially for science and politics. It constantly blurs the line between news and entertainment, and is always pushing a POV. Softlemonades (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade but do not deprecate I think deprecating goes too far, as there can be some legitimate uses for Fox as a source, but I do agree with a lot of the above, in particular the sensationalism aspect, especially with regards to science and politics. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 - as it's on par with MSNBC news, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    MSNBC site is far different from MSNBC tv in that it is actually pretty reliable. Fox News used to be in the same boat, but the website has markedly dropped in reliability in the last several years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo, unless there is something concretely indicating that major changes have occurred to the editorial integrity of the site since the most recent RfC on the subject. I'm not saying that there haven't been, but nobody has linked any. I think Fox News sucks, which is why I don't read it, but whether it sucks (and vague gesturing to the effect that they are full of crap) shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether to deprecate it. The issue at hand is a specific list of instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue, rather than whether they run stupid op-eds (yes) and make partisan choices in what to cover (yes). Deprecation is an unreasonably broad tool to deal with something as simple as biased coverage, and if this were an official policy, it would leave us with virtually no sources. Wikipedia editors are smart enough to think critically about what sources we cite. We already have a litany of policies and guidelines against this already, and people are already not allowed to write shitty articles that disproportionately cite sources from one side of the political spectrum. jp×g 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    JPxG, please see failed fact checks in section below. Info on the editorial changes in the online operation: Dec 2020 - "Hannity’s Crony Has Taken Over Fox News Digital—and It’s a Disaster, Staffers Say" "Over the past several years, the conservative tenor of Fox News’ opinion coverage has seeped more and more into the company’s popular digital brands." "Close observers of Fox News’ digital properties note that the main site has skewed even further to the right under Berry’s leadership. Under its previous leader, former Today show producer and Daily Mail editor-in-chief Noah Kotch, the site more closely resembled a right-leaning tabloid, mixing breaking news with politics, salacious crime stories, and celebrity news. But in recent months, the website—ostensibly part of the network’s “straight news” division—has leaned more into aggregation of conservative culture-war stories and straight write-ups of commentary delivered on opinion shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity. At the same time, the site has been called out for burying or wildly spinning news that is unflattering or negative for Trump" "One recently departed Fox staffer described Berry’s leadership style as wanting to “toe the company line regardless of the fact gathering or editorial importance of a story.”[17] Also this NYT piece [18] "Soon after the Capitol riot, Fox replaced its 7 p.m. host — Martha MacCallum, a news anchor and part of the political reporting team — with another hour of right-wing opinion programming. Mr. Stirewalt, the political editor, who had vanished from the air after defending the Arizona call, was fired; his boss, Fox’s Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, retired. More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Publicly, Fox portrayed these changes as a restructuring, but as with the Moneyball initiative, their impact was felt chiefly in the news ranks, now an expensive and increasingly distracting legacy of the Ailes era." Andrevan@ 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrevan: I think everyone is aware that they're quite biased, which is why their RSP entry is yellow and has an exclamation point on it and says "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions", and why their talk shows have an RSP entry which is red and says "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact". I guess I am not just seeing anything that goes beyond the existing restrictions on the use of this source.
One of the articles you've linked is from WP:DAILYBEAST, a similarly RSP-yellow source with the same note ("There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons"). What it says (and what you quote from the Times article afterward) does not seem relevant to what I said, which was instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue. The fact that they refuse to cover stories which reflect negatively on certain topics (which they've always done, and which we've always known about) is not relevant to their use as a Wikipedia source -- how would that even work? If Donald Trump did something bad, and Fox News refused to report on it, other sources would, and we would cite them. There is no circumstance in which we would just be forced to throw up our hands and say "guess we can't write about this in Wikipedia". jp×g 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again this is not about their bias but clear false statements, failed fact checks, and misinformation, which I appreciate you will look at below - those links were all posted before you left your comment. I quoted the Daily Beast and Times piece to show that there is a reason why their quality and reliability has gotten worse due to changes in the newsroom, a new leadership, firing people in the research and fact check division, pressure to adhere to the company line and align with unreliable opinion sources, etc. Andrevan@ 17:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum: I see you have posted a huge amount of links to specific examples of things in the section below. Thank you for doing this: I appreciate the effort, and I will take a look at what they have to say. I am fully prepared to, if necessary, become history's first documented instance(?) of a Wikipedia editor changing their mind about Fox News in one of these clusterfuck RSN RfCs. jp×g 08:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - to clarify I posted all those along with the posting of the RFC, but I appreciate that you will evaluate. Andrevan@ 17:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo (first option, but reword) or Downgrade (second POV from me, especially for science-related articles). The below evidence show excellently Fox News's worsening in bias. Even in 2010, it's biased and probably contributed to the Tea Party Movement, but in 2020, after COVID-19, increased polarisation... it's becoming worse. Yes, IMO its opinion pieces and cable shows (mainly Carlson, Hannity... whose show is appalling conservative propaganda-like). The headlines of Fox News are disturbingly distorted, though WP RS guidelines doesn't judge headlines. At least its main reporting typically is a bit more careful to avoid downright false or misleading info, but over these years, it's pushing the boundaries. Though its controversies are far too many, see the refs provided on our WP page [19], it participates in weak, occasional climate change denial (it isn't Daily Mail or Daily Wire in unambiguous climate change doubting, but is, in some cases, fairly close). And then there's the occasional misleading (not entirely false, at least in news articles) coverage of COVID-19, so I don't understand why this should be science (I might support downgrading generally unreliable for science-related issues, firstly, scholarly peer-reviewed papers should be confirmed, even if citing mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, while not the best, are still far better. Similarly for politics- Fox News's failed fact checks are very clear, though it doesn't rountinely publish false info, but it does somewhat distort and mislead the reader occasionally to its own advantage, considering there're far better media refs, why should this be cited (if there's no other good refs, it could be cited as a last resort)? Further, for contentious claims only present in Fox News, I would think these are generally unreiable. Still, IMO deprecation is... too much? It still has occasionally some usable content for politics and science, and probably is marginally reliable (quite biased to the extent it's more than WP:BIASED, but isn't extremely misleading) more than when it's generally unreliable, so I don't support deprecation. And the downward trend of Fox News is fairly clear; I had a look at the 2020 RfC, with additional consideration being the middle ground; right now, generally unreliable seems to be the consensus. But if the closure is status quo, the current wording is far too weak: 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. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). IMO the bias of Fox is way worse to just say [editors] perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics. PS: I know this isn't relevant, but I support full deprecation for talk shows. Many thanks, please see the fact-checks and the more concise comments by other editors! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable or even depreciated. Over the last year, coverage of Fox has only gotten worse. See eg. The second is that Fox News disseminates misinformation. This is the case for some proconservative misperceptions (Feldman et al., 2012; Harmon & Muenchen, 2009; Nyhan, 2010). Fox News ran stories with themes similar to...[1], or Discrediting the elite creates a niche in the media market filled by non-elite outlets (e.g., Fox news) which, because they are only demanded due to beliefs in the alternative reality, spread misinformation to reinforce those beliefs.[2], or [Fox News] produces almost exclusively misinformation and disinformation on a daily basis.[3] or [4][5][6] - a lot of these touch on COVID misinformation in particular, but they show that the problem goes beyond that. In past discussions people have theorized that a line of separation can be drawn between Fox's talk programs and its news coverage; but that isn't actually something most coverage focuses on, and what coverage there is actually says that on Fox, there is little distinction between news and commentary.[7] COVID in particular shows that Fox's ideological mission-statement means that it will produce misinformation across the entire spectrum of its output when doing so is necessary to advance its political agenda. Being biased, of course, is not itself a reason for a source to be unreliable; but systematic, institutional bias that leads a source to regularly produce deliberate misinformation in the service of its biases absolutely is, because it means that these problems are not one-offs but are inherent to Fox's structure and purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upgrade Broadly similar reliability to similar left-wing sites like MSNBC. Sure they get things wrong, but so do other sites, Hunter's laptop being an excellent example. We should not have double standards. And everyone, please do use arbitrary breaks like the above in overlong threads. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be happy to consider supporting such an RFC for MSNBC if any editors can provide similar evidence towards its unreliability. Please provide it if you have it available. In the meantime, whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem like an argument to upgrade Fox News. Andrevan@ 00:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, "getting it wrong" is very different than consistently providing misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade per evidence presented by others that Fox News has rolled steadily downhill from news to sensationalist crafting of a desired narrative. The news arm has been slowly subsumed by the talking head side. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo. No significant change since a discussion in March 2022. It was just 4 months since the last discussion, and I do not see any new evidence from March to today that should change the consensus. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Several of the links in the reference section below are newer than March 2022. Others were not discussed at that time. That discussion here does not appear to have been a full RFC. Andrevan@ 17:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo. This ^^^^ No significant change since this early 2022 discussion. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo for a number of reasons. First, where are any examples of status quo causing issues? For politics and science we already caution people when using Fox as a source. Is there any evidence this caution isn't being followed? If not then we aren't solving a problem, instead we are creating a problem, one that Wikipedia is already suffering from, by violating the idea that RS should be judged on a case by case basis rather than using lazy/strategic bucketing of sources based on popularity. Second, what has changed since the last, stillborn discussion from just a few months back [20]? Some of the cited sources against fox predate the previous RfCs so nothing has changed there. They were considered but couldn't get consensus. That seems like people are just hoping if they ask the question enough times they will finally get the answer they want. As for evidence, Fox has a big target on it so it's not surprising that a lot of sources will try to score points with readers by attacking it (while ignoring the same out of sources that are on their own political side). One of the editors who open this considers it to be evidence that Fox has criticized Politifact as biased. That criticism from Fox is well founded. There are a number of examples of Politifact taking a set of facts and arguing to a conclusion rather than answering if that set of facts could reasonably draw the conclusion they are claiming to be false (I've considered opening up a RSN discussion related to this exact problem as I've been collecting examples). Some have cited News Guard's recent downgrade. If we are accepting NG then we need to upgrade source like the Post Millennial (green per NG) and downgrade MSNBC as well as the Daily Beast (a source that is already yellow). Really, this illustrates the problem with the RSP list. Rather than considering sources on a case by case basis it becomes a strategic effort to throw out sources wholesale. This is dangerous if Wikipedia's mission is to truly provide a range of views rather than become an echo chamber of just the sources editors like. Given the lack of evidence of an issue the status quo rating is clearly working thus no change is needed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) edit to fix per Firefangledfeathers's catch below! Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The 2022 discussion does not appear to have been a proper RFC. So to clarify, you do not consider Politifact reliable for fact-checks. As to a current problem with this being followed, ere are two recent diffs [21] [22] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Warnock quote in the first diff appears to be real. The second thing with the Israeli company seemed odd, but it also appears to not be supported directly by the Fox News source anyway. The source is talking about the system being hacked through a backdoor, rather than Comverse Infosys providing information to Al-Qaeda. So yes, the second was inappropriate, but it was inappropriate because the content wasn't supported by the Fox News piece. Only the text of the CounterPunch piece directly supported that statement, and WP:COUNTERPUNCH is a thing in part because of the magazine's tendency to publish 9/11-related and other conspiracy theories. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think the Warnock quote is fake or fabricated, but the Fox News source is accusing Warnock of lying or flip-flopping, it matches exactly a right-wing GOP talking point, and the reality is more complicated. The Warnock statements were taken out of context, the larger statements/sermons were generally about voter suppression, and most of them date to a time before Warnock was in politics so it lacks the precision ascribed to it by Fox. Warnock stated he never opposed voter ID, which is true to the extent of the specific bill that he ended up supporting, or any bill in his political career. So the Fox News piece is misleading at best, and a smear that directly copies right-wing talking points. It goes to their general blurring of opinions and facts, not marking opinion as opinion, and it's being offered here as evidence that Fox News could simply be downgraded to make it clearer to editors it shouldn't be used in these ways. Andrevan@ 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here we are inadvertently wrapped-up in what appears to be WP:POV creep, and what I see as a cancel culture style approach to eliminate a RS that doesn't align with the partisan POV demonstrated by some on the left, which is understandable to this pragmatic editor in the center. Clickbait media is the epitome of partisan politics that purposely gathers and publishes material that appeals to their demographics; it's something experienced editors already know. They also know that our job is to leave our biases at login, and to present all substantial views from a NPOV, whether we like what was said or not. Granted, Warnock denied that his statement meant what that Fox journalist reported, but he did say it and the job of journalists is to interpret what politicians say and get it published - that is not our job. Ironically, Trump also claimed that a lot of things he said were misinterpreted by fake news, and some RS agreed with his POV and others did not. The material Andrevan removed per his comment above is similar in that Warnock denied that what he said actually meant what that journalist published, but he did say it, and some interpreted it to mean one thing whereas others interpreted quite the opposite. That is the heart of politics. Editors are expected to leave the interpretations to the journalists and use intext attribution if it's controversial, or we risk an OR vio, especially when the material is politically subjective. We present all substantial views based on what's published in reliable secondary sources, and avoid our own interpretations. We can include Warnock's denial but we should not eliminate the published material simply because our POV doesn't agree politically with what's published. We certainly should not even consider downgrading or canceling sources just because they don't agree with us politically. I align very closely with [[User talk:Atsme#Politics|Jimbo's POV] in how we should approach politics, presidents and NPOV, and I expect the same from all editors. Atsme 💬 📧 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, it's a BLPvio to smear politicians with inaccurate and misleading talking points. Andrevan@ 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Springee: it seems like maybe the first part of your reply was cut off. Care to make a bolded declaration? And is this properly indented? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed! Thanks, Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bad RfC. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option is ambiguous because readers might think it means what was accepted e.g. in the last RfC -- but buried below is a quote not from there but from the WP:RSP essay, so I fear that anyone who !votes for status quo will be misinterpreted as !voting for what's in that. Option 3 could have been an excusable question if it had been alone and had been about what to do (see WP:DAILYMAIL1 for an example), but it wasn't. Option 4 is confused because "deprecated" merely means "not approved" so saying "generally prohibited" -- which lacks even the qualifying wording associated with the Daily Mail ban -- just makes the second part of the option a contradiction of the first part. And I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed, which unfortunately may have inspired an idea that discussing Fox stories, without showing where in Wikipedia the story was used and disputed, is appropriate. Option 1 = WP:NOTCENSORED but I fear that !voting for it helps legitimize this procedure. I won't bother with potentially disputable claims, e.g. whether Fox is "owned by News Corp" or whether the "Past RfCs" list is even partial. I won't reply to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not to badger you, I agree narrowly that really we should be considering Status Quo vs Downgrade and I did think this would be clearer with fewer options but per the talk page, editors clarified that it is standard and more neutral to have 4 options so I relented on that point. I copied the language "Generally Prohibited" as well as the text in the status quo section from the current page, so that is not my invention. I will copy the closing from the last RFC into the status quo section to help clarify. As far as your point about current impetus, here are two recent diffs [23] [24] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upgrade This partisanship on Wikipedia is so shameful. Imagine claiming to create an encyclopedia but then declare facts you don't like to be off limits? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well the point is that they dabble in disinformation and misinformation, not facts [we] don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Disinformation, no; misinformation, somewhat (in talk shows, not in mainstream news); misleading claims, yes. Daily Mail is no different. Being reliable does not just mean reporting on facts, it means reporting on facts in a responsible manner, separating news from opinion, avoiding switch-and-bait headlines, and correcting errors when they arise routinely. These are the five of nine criteria that NewsGuard assess on in "credibility"; Fox News according to NewsGuard fails on three of these criteria. I think Fox News can probably be used as a source of attributed conservative opinion even if it is deprecated completely, but I don't think it should be used to establish notability or for verifying facts about anything ever. Unless if other, more credible news sources like New York Times or Reuters or BBC News report on that same fact (and in those cases it might be better to cite that source), I don't think Fox News should be used. Also Fox News is not to be confused with local Fox-affiliates like KTVU or WNYW. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do think it does have misinformation and disinformation in news coverage. Andrevan@ 04:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What are some examples of facts provided by Fox News that we should be including in the encyclopedia and/or which would no longer be included if this were downgraded? (FWIW I'm about to also ask elsewhere for examples justifying a downgrade.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 Generally unreliable for politics and science. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: could you elaborate on your reasons? The closer might discount vote-like replies that don't present an argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      All of the evidence presented by other users below is so compelling that it seems obvious. But, from a CTRL+F search, I don't see that any of them mention how Fox News pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory or the Dominion Voting Systems conspiracy theory, so I will add those two major deceptions pushed by Fox News as reasons to depricate their work on politics and science (that's for their COVID misinformation and disinformation). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Agree that these examples should be included as well. To your point, these lawsuits were only litigated or settled recently, with those two links dated 2020 and 2022, so they are good recent instances of the issue of Fox pushing actionable misinformation. Andrevan@ 17:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo per WP:NOTBURO and Springee. I do not support using Fox News and a source and would replace it with a better source every time it's possible. But absent any big conflicts in the editing room which would require a broader consensus I don't see what's the purpose of this? The examples given below are all in the politics and science areas, for which using Fox News is already discouraged. In addition, I am very skeptical of the evidence assembled below, which, IMO, is original research by a fellow Wikipedia editor. Now, I know that this is not the article space and that OR is acceptable for the purposes of these discussions, but (as I said last time) I would prefer it if we were provided with high-quality secondary or tertiary sources stating unequivocally that Fox News fabricates information before deciding to deprecate one of the most popular media outlets in America. JBchrch talk 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The status quo does not "discourage" Fox News. The fact checks below are mostly cited to Politifact, which is reliable for this purpose. Andrevan@ 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, it seems there is now consensus to do so given the discussion above, but my point about WP:NOTBURO still stands. As for Politifact, it's still hand-collected evidence, and I would like to see it being done, assessed and published by a subject-matter expert or a reputable organization before supporting a downgrade for something as big as Fox News. JBchrch talk 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo. Having reviewed the first two four examples I do see bias, a bit of selective reporting but no misinformation and one minor factual error (see details in the discussion subsection). Some of the evidence closer to the end of the list doesn't stand to any scrutiny, e.g., since when is doubting the credibility of various fact checkers fake news? Alaexis¿question? 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per the discussion below, I'm still not sure why, if Fox claimed, citing the indictment: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House", and they never did that - White House servers weren't even mentioned at all in the indictment. How isn't that misinformation? Andrevan@ 18:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose downgrade. Marginally reliable sources may be usable depending on context and should be subject to a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Generally unreliable sources should normally not be used, and should never be used for information about a living person. Fox News is not the New York Post. We can trust its news reporting for basic biographical facts on figures involved in politically frought areas; this profile piece is more than sufficient to describe the marital status of Thomas Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecutor) and that he has three children with his wife; I would not generally trust the NY Post (WP:GUNREL) for a public figure or a celebrity's relationship status or for the number of children they may have had. Fox News should not be used alone to substantiate exceptional claims, nor should it be used in cases where WP:MEDRS would generally guide against using news sources (WP:GREL news sources screwed up the bogus vaccine-autism connection pretty badly; for example, Mother Jones published content alleging a conspiracy to cover up a supposed vaccine-autism connection in 2004 and The Telegraph gave credence to Wakefield's wild allegations of 170 particular autism-vaccine links in 2001, but I don't think that bad medical reporting is really something we should be holding against news organizations.) Many of the sources provided here largely analyze Fox News's commentary television shows, which is generally unreliable for facts and often flargrantly not BLP-worthy, but we have to analyze that separately from its digital news reporting (which is the typical thing cited when a Fox News source used on Wikipedia). The previous RfC actually did find a consensus that there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts, though its headlines are misleading (WP:HEADLINE) and it's used edited photos (I can't imagine that photographs contained within news articles are ever cited anyway?). I really don't see substantial research presented that Fox News makes an such an extraordinary number of errors in the political area that it's less than marginally reliable for ordinary claims of fact. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, Mhawk! You put it better than I did. YoPienso (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Only one point I'd like to specifically respond to to correct, all of the sources I cited in my section of evidence below, are about the news reporting and not about TV shows. Andrevan@ 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a lot of jostling between Fox News and PolitiFact. Much of the flak that PolitiFact gets from pundits, etc. is undue, but the sources you're citing in which Fox News denigrates it doesn't exactly fall into the "clearly baseless" category.
    There's a longstanding gripe in conservative circles that alleges methodological bias in which sorts of statements get selected for fact checking. Politifact doesn't so much as claim to check random samples of facts, and they specifically denied that their data is good for telling which party lies more than the other, which CJR discusses more in-depth that I will here, but I think you might find the read interesting as it applies to this sort of analysis. That a right-leaning source characterizes this as a pro-liberal bias is not quite the mark of general unreliability. More recently, libertarian magazine Reason (WP:GREL on WP:RSP) has criticized the fact-checker similarly by alleging partisan bias, and others have criticized them for labeling subjective analyses as fact checking, though this criticism is lodged against fact-checks more broadly as well, with Politico noting that, at PolitiFact, statements that are literally true get ratings other than “true.”
    After the Rittenhouse trial, Politifact was panned (largely in right-leaning circles) for a fact-check that most people initially read as implying that Rittenhouse acted illegally in carrying a rifle at age 17 in Wisconsin. Journalists generally aren't lawyers and, as it turns it turns out that related charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed. But Politifact defended their ratings and said that they were talking only about the phrase "perfectly legal". Say what you will, but it looks like the judge ruled that Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was not illegal, and a lot of people saw Politifact as being stubborn or retroactively engaging in spin on that topic. Other related fact-checks were similarly panned after the acquittal on the basis of self-defense. It ain't just Fox News saying this about the Rittenhouse fact-checks, though this feels more like like analysis-land rather than news reporting-land.
    PolitiFact, on the other hand, maintains that it is completely unbiased. But I don't think this is enough to imply that any criticism of PolitiFact is inherently indicative of poor editorial standards at the criticizing publication. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Without getting into the reliability of PolitiFact, which is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, that only applies to my sources 10-17, there are other blatant false failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 19:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrevan: I suppose that I might have to agree with Mhawk10 a bit on this one. I slightly prefer status quo (but with stronger wording and caution) but also IMO is open to a downgrade. Politifact is considered reliable, no doubt, and won a Pulitzer, see for the RfC, but our WP article does suggest some controversies. Still, IMO its failed fact checks for Fox News are reasonable. Though, Anachronist's evidences are all opinion/TV cables, which we're already considering unreliable. Another evidence provided is a opinion video from MSNBC. I think MSNBC is generally reliable for straight news, but its opinion videos are not the best thing to quote. Besides, the fact checks for ref 10 and 17 show Fox News's misleading and distorted headlines, though its body text isn't to the point of being extremely misleading, but IMO it's very, very biased. IMO its challenging of Politifact shows its right bias, but a lot of conservative media (see previous link) challenged Politifact, so that alone is very opinionated and biased, and slightly (but not very) misleading, and mainly drives its right-wing agenda, instead of being downward untrue, unlike the The New York Post, The Daily Mail, The Daily Wire and so on. Many thanks for your launching of this much-needed RfC, it's much more neutral and brief now! VickKiang (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that! As far as the question of why is it a sign of unreliability to question the fact checkers - it gets at the "alternative facts," conspiracy theories, alternate-reality tunnel nature of Fox News today. It is no longer a mainstream source with some right bias. It believes it has an in on the straight dope and the real dirt of a different reality where Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton are guilty of huge crimes and Donald Trump is unfairly besmirched. Andrevan@ 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With response to is considered reliable by Wikipedia currently, yes, but WP:BIASED sources can be reliable sources. The quality press in the United Kingdom is probably the best example of this. But also when we say a source is WP:GREL, we don't mean that it's the Gospel Truth, we mean that it's generally reliable for facts. Even WP:NEWSORG notes that most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, so criticizing particular stories from GREL sources isn't per se evidence of unreliability. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Politifact isn't gospel, but it is reliable enough to be used for fact checks. Andrevan@ 00:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In general, yes. But when there are other RS that are criticizing particular fact checks (such as Reason and CJR), we have to use our common sense and see if the generally reliable sources are erroneous in a particular instance. This is much in the same way that WP:GREL news sources can contain errors, be challenged by other RS, turn out to be bogus, and yet still remain on the internet years later with no correction or editor's note amended onto the page where it's hosted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As pertaining to whether the information should be used in an article, I agree. If there's some dispute, we need to balance the POVs per NPOV and attribute the positions as appropriate. But when it comes to evaluating whether Fox News is reliable, continuously casting doubt on the fact checkers does go to its unreliability and its tendency to push conspiracy theories and alternative realities. And when it has fact-checked false statements that remain uncorrected, for political propaganda spin, well, that makes it even worse. So you may dispute that Fox News doubting Politifact goes to its unreliability, but that doesn't address the fact that Politifact fact checked Fox and those errors remain uncorrected, that is a black mark against Fox's operation. Also, its Editor's Notes when they do correct, are frequently partial, themselves misleading or disingenuous. Andrevan@ 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can concur with this. Neither is NewsGuard gospel, but it details very well its methodology for rating these various news organizations. And while it has gotten criticism among conservatives, its nine criteria system seems to be a fair way to assess the reliability of a news site. Their detailed reports have a lot of citations as well in the footer to refer how a site fails a specific criteria. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 05:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a note to closer, my username (and thus my signature) changed significantly mid-discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo per reliable sources, listed below. Fox News has multiple iterations; I'm referring to their basic news homepage, most definitely not to Fox Nation, Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson, etc. In years of personally checking CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and the Guardian every day, I find the bias at Fox is one of selection, not inaccuracy. That is, what Fox ignores and what it headlines stems from a clear right-wing bias, although their news stories, in my experience, have been as accurate as those from the other media, who also have systemic bias in selection, and do make an occasional error. Please note that the NYT has recently seen a new turn away from Trump at Fox. (Other Murdoch outlets have turned against Trump, not away from him. This indicates to me Fox may become more mainstream, although it might as likely simply support another extremist.)
I believe we should assess articles from the Fox website on a case-by-case basis. I would hate to see a consensus that totally excludes Fox as a RS.
Fox Nation and Fox & Friends and the commentators featured at the top of the WaPo article--Watters, Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, and Gutfeld--should be used only to source their own opinions. YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is Gutfeld!, being a comedy show, reliable for Greg Gutfeld's actual opinion? I'm generally not inclined to take statements by people doing comedy to literally represent their opinions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the WaPo is referring to Gutfeld's contributions on The Five (talk show). YoPienso (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken on graphs. But Fox corrected the photo collage and apologized. The NYT has had to correct and clarify many articles, so that can't disqualify Fox unless they do it willfully and way more than other outlets. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The charts are far worse than I felt it would be, using distorted graphs and (deliberate or not?) mathematical errors. Sometimes it's probably a mistake, other instances when it clearly drives its right wing agenda. But of course, while there's a RfC launched for Insider, the current RSP statement say it's marginally reliable. IMO, a better, more credible ref provided for the misleading graphs could be better, and might be possible to be added to the latter failed fact checks section. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pie graph on the 2012 election was broadcast in 2009 by only the local Chicago Fox affiliate, as reported by the local NBC station. Note that while it was a Fox affiliate that humiliated itself, the chart is attributed to Opinions Dynamic. I don't have time to research the other charts. YoPienso (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, for mistakes I'd accept a correction, and even think that issuing such corrections tends to be evidence of the reliability of a newsorg unless they're making egregious numbers of mistakes. However, in this case, there's no other explanation for the doctored photo other than intentional doctoring. That's not a mistake, that's lying to their readers. An apology doesn't suffice to correct for that. Loki (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed Andrevan@ 05:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but we must realize it wasn't Fox News' website that displayed the inaccurate graph; it was Channel 32 in Chicago. And it was just a local newscast, not vetted by The photo collage, on the other hand, was published online by and duly corrected with apologies. YoPienso (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The doctored photo that Loki is talking about here, part of this collage, appeared on and there is an editor's note for it: Editor’s Note: A home page photo collage which originally accompanied this story included multiple scenes from Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and of wreckage following recent riots. The collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced. In addition, a recent slideshow depicting scenes from Seattle mistakenly included a picture from St. Paul, Minnesota. Fox News regrets these errors."[8] The Seattle Times article says: "Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations. As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront. Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times. In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed." So that's the website doctoring photos, and I agree the editor's note doesn't really adequately address the fact that the photos were misleading and digitally altered. Andrevan@ 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Events in the UK have led me to evaluate all arms of the Murdoch Press as prone to dodgy journalism and misleading their viewers. It's not clear to me why we think Fox News is any better.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, but would you mind clarifying which option you're supporting? Thanks! Andrevan@ 00:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm here to comment, not to select from a menu, but if you're unlucky enough to get one of the closers who counts words in bold, then I suppose mine is best read as "downgrade". I'm British with fairly mainstream views for a Brit, so to me, even CNN looks like a far right wing news channel. I would say that Fox News is of questionable reliability on any subject with even a tenuous connection to the politics of any country, any kind of climate science, anything related to gender, anything related to abortion, business news, economics, tax, foreign affairs and journalistic ethics.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I thought it was supporting a "downgrade" but I just wanted to make sure in case the closer needs a little extra help. I agree it should be a discussion and not a vote or a menu selection, just want to throw a bone to closers since this will undoubtedly be a difficult one. Andrevan@ 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upgrade Fox and downgrade CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES - they're all pretty much equal in reliability - it's the bias that is different. Better yet, downgrade them all if you're going to downgrade one. If we are truly aiming for NPOV, then we should more closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Of course, citing RS is just a guideline - CONTEXT MATTERS - and so do our 3 core content policies. Political articles aren't medical articles because if they were, none of the news sources would be acceptable under a MEDRS type guideline. WP should not be mirroring either right or left wing media; rather, our articles should be NEUTRAL, and they're not. We've been criticized heavily for the latter. Let's take a quick look at the unreliability of the other news sources we have to choose from in comparison: CNN, MSNBC, the NYTimes (see the op piece by Hamid Dabashi in Al Jazeera, and others that are just as bad). Our readers expect encyclopedic information from a NPOV, not from a left or right leaning news journalist's POV, and that's what political pundits in general are bringing to the table. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Adding a few more sources:Reply[reply]
  1. Forbes headline: CNN, MSNBC Drop In ‘Trust’ Ratings As Fox News Channel Rises.
  2. Jacobin: Where Biden’s been not much different from Trump — as on immigration, where he’s continued some of the policies that got Trump labeled a fascist and introduced some outrageous ones of his own — the press has simply played down or ignored it, when they weren’t actively laying the groundwork for Trumpian policy at the border.
  3. Reason headline: The New York Times Belatedly Admits the Emails on Hunter Biden's Abandoned Laptop Are Real and Newsworthy – a year and a half after the New York Post broke the story, the Times says it has "authenticated" the messages it previously deemed suspect.
  4. Fox NewsNew York Times scolded for handling of Hunter Biden laptop story Wasn't it the New York Post that covered it properly?
  5. WSJ editorial boardHunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print – The press that ignored the story in 2020 admits that it’s real. Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Trust ratings have nothing to do with accuracy, fact-checking or editorial controls. Also, not covering a story does not equal inaccuracy. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Atsme: MSNBC and CNN prob should get their own RfCs. MSNBC is obviously a left-leaning outlet, what they report on clearly is favored on by Democrats and garnishes a lot of eyeballs. CNN, on the other hand, aims at turning every single program into a screaming match (or at least aimed, I am not sure how much this stands today). The amount of opinion these American cable news channels pump out compared to the amount of actual news they deliver is abhorrent. Cable news in the US is basically the tabloids of the UK. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CNN and MSNBC both have digital news divisions that are generally regarded as reliable with high standards for editorial oversight and fact-checking. The NYT is maybe not what it once was, but the Grey Lady is the paper of record for many. I have an open mind that standards may have fallen at these outlets, but we need evidence, not just baseless aspersions and false equivalences. Several editors have commented that MSNBC is just as bad - if so, where's the evidence? Andrevan@ 04:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrevan: @Atsme: Totally agree Andrevan with your point. NYT is still Pulitzer Prize-winning (see List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times, 2022 Pulitzer Prizes). Is it biased? Yes, it's quite left-centre. But I strongly disagree with that it should be considered on-par with Fox News- all the criticisms are on its op-eds, are there RS seriously criticising it? Compare that to Fox, which is rightly biased and drives its agenda often (you'll see I voted between status quo and downgrade, and I don't favour outright deprecation). For CNN and MSNBC news, they're biased, but not enough for me personally to doubt whether it's an RS. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's honestly very little use in picking apart these bad arguments. Only 4 users have called for an "upgrade", the usual suspects, it is never going to happen. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you mean "or" downgrading CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES? That would be in line with what I've seen you say before along the lines of "all mainstream media is equally reliable and equally biased", etc. but putting Fox above the others in terms of reliability seems pretty shark-jumpy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hey, Rhodo, it really doesn't matter. If we'd simply follow our PAGs as I stated above – CONTEXT MATTERS as does RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If it's opinion, we use intext attribution. Editors don't have to like the opinion, but we should not censor it. Our job is to present ALL significant views, and not allow our own biases to make those determinations for our readers. Everybody knows opinions are not facts, so they can't be factually wrong - they're opinions. Hannity screwed up with the Seth Rich theory, but he's not the only talking head with egg on his face. The talking heads on the left (and there are more of them) have equally as much egg on their faces (including repos of Pulitzers, Cuomo, etc). The partisan left spread the unverified rumors that were in the Steele dossier along with conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion that didn't pan out. We need to give our readers more credit for being able to distinguish biased opinion from actual facts. When talking heads discuss theories on their respective shows, that is not the same thing as falsely reporting the news. Fox makes retractions the same as the other RS do. I've already provided the sources that support my position. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo All US news sources have their issues. We already use this one with caution and there are no convincing arguments for change (be it upgrade, or downgrade). Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said! YoPienso (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable, but let articles be considered on a case-by-case basis. Since 2020, the credibility of Fox News has taken multiple hits when reporting politics and science. The most important issues have been the covid crisis, 2020 U.S. presidential elections results hesitancy and denialism, and climate crisis denialism. Other news organizations have not taken similar hits. Research published in Cambridge University's Canadian Journal of Political Science states that "right-leaning broadcast and cable media (for example, Fox News, Breitbart) regularly discussed misinformation about COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic." Fox News has published false articles that have not been corrected to date. For example, there is an article alleging that Anthony Fauci dismissed a Mayo Clinic study on delta efficacy between vaccines. In reality, Fauci never dismissed the results. Fox News also has a history of sloppy journalism. In 2021, for example, multiple conservative news sites, including Fox News, rushed to declare that Kamala Harris was handing out copies of a book to migrant children. In reality, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any more than one book photographed by Reuters. Fox News also casts doubt on evidence-based science on the climate crisis by citing fringe environmental journalists the likes of Michael Shellenberger. This doesn't mean that Fox News doesn't produce good reporting from time to time. That's why I think its articles can be accepted on a case-by-case basis. But with the heavy bias plaguing the news organization, coupled with a beleagured reputation following the Seth Rich settlement and the settlement with Smartmatic, and ongoing litigation with Dominion, it's questionable to use Fox News when there are other solid sites. So, overall, use something other than Fox News, but if you have to, make sure the individual articles comply with Wikipedia's rules. FlantasyFlan (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The trouble with downgrading a source it that some editors will interpret a "generally unreliable, but consider on case-to-case basis" tag as license to keep ALL info from that source out of WP articles. I've seen "use with care" leveraged as a shield against using at all. Please see "status quo" support from Nhawk and Pavlor and myself. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And here we have it: Just two hours after I warned that deprecation would enable biased editors to completely shut out Fox News, User:Only in death pushed exactly that idea, seeing it as a triumph over "right-wing editors." Their comment is directly below, published at 08:12, 1 August 2022, and alleges Fox is "a regular source of misinformation," which has not been demonstrated. For what I consider a more reasonable approach, see User:Alanscottwalker's comment, published 14:53, 1 August 2022.) YoPienso (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fox News is a regular source of misinformation and should be downgraded. There are other sources for editors to use that don't push false facts and conspiracy theories. Andrevan@ 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly, you open it up for exceptions, EVERY story will be the "exception". I'm tired of arguing in AfD over why xyz source is bad; if we can at least point them to a list of good sources, that's one less hassle. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deprecate or Downgrade. Anything that takes a regular source of misinformation away from right-wing editors who want to fill (what is supposed to be) a factual resource with junk should be supported. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade Seems to be source of disinformation generally to drive a political point that is at the extreme end of the political spectrum. Its not balanced or neutral news with a particular political bent, it is by design extreme and that makes the sources NPOV. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade or status quo as 2nd choice. This disinfo during covid was pretty much the nail in the coffin, they've gone almost fully into the QAnon camp. ValarianB (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maintain Status Quo per Mhawk10, Yopienso, and Atsme. The current "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" accurately affects the current situation. GretLomborg (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo. The world - at least the United States - is become more and more split into "liberal" and "conservative" bubbles. We shouldn't be encouraging that. We should not be "on team Red" or "on team Blue". We should be the sum of the world's knowledge. And that includes the knowledge that we disagree with. Fox News is one of the most prominent conservative news sources. If we rule that we can't, in almost all cases, use it for politics, then there would be far too many stories that we simply can not tell one side of, and many that we can not tell at all. Deprecating it would be actively harmful to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That reads a bit like " mom and apple pie." I think that the difficult question is whether Fox News frequently misrepresents fiction as fact. If so -- given that a substantial minority of our editors might not always understand the difference -- does it harm the encyclopedia or the editing process to discuss each instance of such misrepresentation in countless talk threads on hundreds of pages when there are better alternative news sources readily available. How does this issue fit in your analysis? SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We shouldn't write assuming our readers are idiots, or we would need to delete all our articles about subatomic particles, ancient Etruscan, and Godel's incompleteness theorem, for fear that readers would not understand them. Modern US politics is polarized, and if we present only the liberal side we are actively misrepresenting it, just as if we tried to say that muons and gluons fit together like tinker toys. There aren't better alternative news sources readily available to present the US right wing view, they've all been banned already. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your reply. I don't think that the comparison is apt. In fact, it feels like rather a straw man. We are discussing reports of fact. There's lots of coverage of right wing views because they are widespread in the mainstream. But Fox often presents fiction as fact. This RfC is about how to deal with that.. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo, as with most television or cable media in the United States, it needs careful handling and does little, or is of no use, in many areas, but the present system, and proper application of recentism, and NPOV, is more than adequate to deal with it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't about the TV version of Fox, though. Curbon7 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it is. It's website is an extension of that just like most U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now. Even so, much of the website is things like [25], in which Wikipedia would look idiotic or worse deprecating such cite, no matter how many politicians happen to be written-up in that cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a point of information, Fox News Digital, like other news websites that have an associated cable news channel, does publish original content and has its own staff, and this RFC is about the website, and not the talk shows, though there is occasional overlap or content that gets posted on one from the other. There is long-form and sometimes even investigative journalism that happens at outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other major news media that started out as broadcast TV channels. There is not a major difference, in terms of the ways and means of executing, publishing, and posting news, in 2022 between the online operation of a CNN and a major newspaper like the NYT, WSJ, etc, or a more specialized online outlet like HuffPost or Vox etc., in terms of what they are doing with their web presence. They have journalists, fact checkers, researchers, editorial boards, editors, and all the usual trappings of journalism. My concern with Fox is that the lines have blurred and the standards have fallen. Andrevan@ 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nothing I have said is about the talk shows. The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked, the restraint is a combination of ethics and reporter and corporate avoidance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not a myth, both CNN and Fox News, just like the AP or the NYT, had/have fact checkers, ombudsmen, editorial staff, production staff, research departments, etc. CNN has groups called Facts First, The K File[26], and fact-checking researchers like Daniel Dale. Fox News did have this as well, though according to various sources, "The outlet’s so-called “Brain Room,” which the late Fox News founder Roger Ailes established as the 24-year-old channel’s fact-checking and research unit, has been especially hard-hit, losing around one-fourth of its 30-person staff along with two supervisors—a virtual frontal lobotomy, according to sources familiar with the cutbacks."[27] Andrevan@ 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If not a myth, it is a musunderstanding of the realities. Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review) of a single news article. (See, [28] [29] In today's news, the news reporter is the one who verifies (checks) their own article, answers editor's questions, and sometimes if the editor thinks it necessary passes it to legal for a review. There have been rigourous actual pre-publication checkers (seperate from the reporter) at magazines in which publication deadlines are more relaxed but not with daily news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not accurate from my knowledge. Researchers and fact-checkers do review content from the major outlets like CNN, AP, NYT, prior to publication. There are editorial teams that have several different functions. Everything is getting reviewed and workshopped and signed-off-on and approved at multiple levels, from chyrons to captions to article headlines and text. The production staff at an operation like a major TV news org will have a show level which might have a slightly longer turnaround for an investigative piece (like a 60 Minutes), and general day-to-day units like politics, or business, etc., and they are constantly communicating through chat, email, phone, conference calls, in-person meetings, I skimmed the two links you gave in your response, and I didn't see any support for the claim that TV news or daily news in general aren't fact-checked. Could you quote something specific? Andrevan@ 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    E-mails flying and workshopping is not pre-publication fact-checking this piece of news. With all that supposed flying going on, the news is already breaking. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You still haven't cited a source or a quote for this claim that work isn't checked for accuracy prior to publication. I believe it is. Here's a source from the LA Times[30] “I don’t think you’ll find an investigative reporter who hasn’t had his bosses say a story is going to get a further review because the subject is high-profile,” said one veteran network producer who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. "senior producer of investigations at ABC News, also believed the rigorous review process stories go through has been a constant". Here's NPR: "This is why we systematically and rigorously review our facts before we make our reporting public."[31] NYT: "deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing[32] AP: [33] "fact-checking is deeply integrated into our whole global operation and we rely on the expertise of our journalists on a wide variety of topics to inform our fact-checking work. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see two bylines, or contributor lines, on a fact check. In addition, any staffer may choose to do a fact check in text or visuals with reporting help and guidance from the Fact Check team." Andrevan@ 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You still are confused or attempting to be deliberately confusing. With respect to LAT, investigative reporting is not day to day news. For the NYT, that's not a separate fact checker, that is the reporter or photographer and their editor (I said several comments up, that is how it works). For the AP, they are not talking about pre-publication review, they are talking about their fact checking unit which checks others outside the AP, eg [34] [35], [36]. I have given you sources that divide pre-publication fact checking/review/verification (basically, on the by-lined reporter(s)) from external fact checking (done by a team and not internal). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are not AGF if you think I am being deliberately confusing, I believe we are at odds on a factual disagremeent. You stated, "U.S. sites of other television/cable operations, which generally are meant to lack depth, to work for immediacy, and model is eyes-on-now" "The news operation like all TV/cable operations is an extension of TV/cable. And it's a wiki-myth that such news is generally fact-checked," " Those things are not pre-publication fact checking (sometimes called, verification or pre-publication review)" I see no evidence provided to support these assertions. My evidence shows that in fact, fact checking, on a team, does occur. Investigative reporting is also included in your original blanket statement about U.S. sites of TV/cable operations. There is a lot of complex long-form journalism that is posted on such sites and aired on such TV channels, and I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. I also believe there is evidence that they are reviewed and checked for accuracy, let's not have a semantic dispute as to whether that can be called "fact-checking" versus the comparison to the "fact-checking industry" that you posted. I agree they are not the same thing, but work is still fact-checked and reviewed by others besides the main writer/reporter, including (maybe not all on every story) specialized fact-checkers, board, a research department, or a legal department. Andrevan@ 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Come on, "such news" is in reference to that TV and their websites daily news. "Not on every story", you say. So, you agree it is not happening, we just disagree on the degree, it is not happening. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that some simple stories probably get a basic spot check before they are approved. However I do think anything that is likely to be contentious, gets a pretty thorough review, and not simply on an honor system by the reporter(s). I also believe that there is a great deal of good journalism with thorough fact-checking as well that appears on these sites. You are the one making blanket generalizations about all daily news sites that are affiliated with all TV news orgs. It varies considerably. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, these are all reliable outlets and can be trusted to do some accuracy verification for contentious claims. You still haven't quoted any source saying otherwise. Andrevan@ 19:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous, your beliefs are your beliefs. They are not a matter for sources, and now you are limiting your beliefs to "contentious claims", you have provided no sources that most TV daily news site stories deal in your nebulous, "contentious claims". Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry that we are at an impasse, at this point I think we had best, as they say, leave it there. I believe it is just Journalism 101. I can't find an exact source that says the stuff I just believed at you, but I'll look for it. Those are my beliefs based on my experience and facts. You also haven't provided a source for the exact stuff you believe. I believe the general sources I showed gave evidence that you were overgeneralizing in your statement that US network news doesn't do pre-publication verification, especially for, as the LA Times put, "high-profile" stories. (Which I am interpreting to be contentious, but not always). I don't believe my position is so nebulous nor is yours. If one of us can find more conclusive evidence perhaps we will know, until then, I leave it there. Andrevan@ 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, leaving it there would require you not to keep commenting under my !vote, but for some reason you keep commenting not only here but all over this RfC. I will note in final, if you are true to "leave it there", someone below, has looked at Fox science stories and generally sees nothing partcularly contentious, I practically began with a cite to a Fox story, which included covering polticians, and I see nothing contentious. Of course, the LAT, is not a cable TV website, but "high profile" would mean that most stories, even at the LAT, are not high profile. There is a ton more content on news websites other than "high profile" or "contentious".Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upgrade per Chris Troutman. Status Quo at worst. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upgrade or Status Quo per BlueBoar, Atsme, and others above. There is concern about any news outlet today, especially in North America. Fox News is no worse than any of the others. It makes no sense in downgrading the most watched news channel and web news service in America because they bring up stories the other news companies don't want to talk about. GenQuest "scribble" 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade for politics and science only. Yes, Fox can be reliable at times. A stopped clock also tells the time reliably twice a day, so what? I have observed a reduction in objectivity recently, particularly with Fox's decision to withold coverage of the recent big news about the January 6 hearings. The bias isn't a problem; many sources considered reliable are also clearly biased (Mother Jones and Wall Street Journal for example). The problem is that Fox isn't just accidentally getting facts wrong, they are deliberately doing it, with greater frequency. If anything from Fox needs to be corroborated with an alternate reliable source before we can use it, then Fox isn't useful. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is well said @Anachronist. If what they are reporting on is true, yet they are reporting with the same level of sensationalism as Daily Mail or The Sun (in this case to appeal to a conservative audience), in no ways should it be considered "reliable" and thus Fox News should be deprecated. Also important to note that a lot of propaganda news sources like RT mix in articles that report on facts with their propaganda. No fake news, propaganda, or misleading news source only reports fiction. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, Fox News deliberately gets it wrong again and again, far too much to be a coincidence. Andrevan@ 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status Quo Far too much of the evidence presented below is flimsy at best and has extreme over-reliance on PolitFact being accurate. Fox News plays fast and loose with headlines, so does every other mainsteam media. Fox News cherry-picks quotes from Fauci briefings, so does every other mainstram media. Until the community develops actual standards and metrics to evaluate ALL MSM (or better yet, bans any news article being used in the first year of publication), Fox News is marginally worse than some of its contemporaries but not significant enough to create a blanket rule, rather than allowing source by source evaluation as occurs now. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade (3) for politics and science (although not for opinion, and no need to completely deprecate). There has been so much deliberate misrepresentation by Fox, to the point of creating an alternative counterfactual universe, that it is becoming embarrassing that we even have to debate it. It's not like they are the only source we can use and it would be a loss to stop having them. There are plenty of reliable sources for politics and science, including sources that are not part of the left-right media controversy. (And, unlike deprecation, this option would not, in fact, prohibit ever citing them.) I also want to say that the issue is not the other news outlets; that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reliability of this source should stand or fall on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, the amount of WP:OTHERSTUFF is quite high. There's plenty of other fish in the sea. We should judge it on its merits and make any reasonable comparisons, but there's no shortage of time and energy to start other RFCs if we have other evidence. Andrevan@ 04:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo Fox News spins like a merry-go-round. Worthless for analysis and interpretation, but it is a verifiable source for simple statements. Sennalen (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade I would not object to deprecation but I think (especially without a specified time period) it may be more of a hassle than it's worth. I don't quite understand how anyone is voting for "status quo", i.e. for there to be no consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that the people who think the status quo is appropriate find it to affirmatively be marginally reliable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo I do not think enough has changed since the last RfC. In fact, I think it has become apparent that Fox is one of the actually marginally reliable right-wing sources these days, especially when compared to the absolute garbage like Breitbart, One America News, and so on. I think this RfC is POV creep and am not fond of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given that it's been several years since the last RFC, and several other users also attempted to open an RFC recently, and that the RFC has already attracted a good diversity of perspectives, it was certainly needed, and a lot has happened since the last one. Maybe not enough in your estimation, but let's AGF on the motives of the many editors who have voiced support for the downgrade option. It is not POV pushing, but a sober read of the present failed fact checks of Fox News. I would not say the same for the National Review. Andrevan@ 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that Fox News is much more reliable than something like Breitbart, but that doesn't mean that it is anything close to reliable. In fact, it's been found to deliberately fabricate information in at least some instances, which is IMO the definition of a source that should be deprecated. Loki (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)