Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

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, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RFC: The Anti-Defamation League

In an earlier thread, editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Part 1: Israel/Palestine

What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey (ADL:I/P)

• Option 3. The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization. This can and does compromise its ability to accurately report facts regarding people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. Its CEO publicly comparing the pro-Palestine protestors wearing keffiyeh with Nazis wearing swastika armbands as well as mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP topic and thus highly unreliable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. Contrary to BilledMammal's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-esque reply, the previous two commenters have concretely pointed out multiple examples of their unreliability. Here and here are two articles detailing many more instances of the ADL's specious and less-than-credible reporting, as well as its history of intimidating, harassing, and bullying its critics and critics of Israel. The ADL has a history of celebrating ethnic cleansing and lauding and defending right-wing anti-Semites, all of which belie their apparent stated intentions of being an organization working to Protect Democracy and Ensure a Just and Inclusive Society For All, and provide clear evidence they are a pro-Israel advocacy organization masquerading as a human rights group. I could go on. It just isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination on anything but the most quotidian of claims. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Reading those articles, they don't appear to be discussing matters of factual falsehood, but of differences of opinion, as well as actions taking by ADL that the authors disagree with. If I am wrong and have misunderstood those articles then please correct me and provide quotes.

  In fact, those articles even say that in terms of "use by others", ADL is still considered reliable by top quality reliable sources! For example, The Nation article says The problem is that The New York Times, PBS, and other mainstream outlets that reach millions are constantly and uncritically promoting the ADL and amplifying the group’s questionable charges.

  If we declare that ADL is unreliable here we will be taking a fringe position that most mainstream sources would disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure you mean option 4? Option 4 is deprecate, which has never been done for only one topic area of a source before, because it means removing the source from any article it appears in for any reason. Loki (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  "questionable charges" is an accusation of unreliability. Zero^talk 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this !vote is in the wrong section as the ADL claims that the Nation and Jewish Currents articles critiques are about antisemitism and not about Israel/Palestine. The two critiques (both opinion pieces) largely refer to questions of interpretation or to historical co-operation with and the US state and not any questions of fact. I can't see either critique actually saying that a single factual claim made by ADL was inaccurate. And, as BilledMammal notes, the critiques acknowledge that many RSs do judge them as reliable, so deprecating would be a perverse response to the critiques. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, The Nation dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks ...why does the media still treat it as a credible source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Nation (or, rather, the Nation's contributor) is attacking a strawman here. The ADL press release caveats the data as "preliminary", explains that "incidents" are not the same as "attacks" and, as a press release, would count as a WP:PRIMARY source that should only be used with caution anyway. The NBC reporting of the press release shows how it is transparent and thus can be easily be used carefully: The ADL said antisemitic incidents increased 360% in the three months after Oct. 7 compared to the same period in 2022. However, the group also said that the data since Oct. 7 includes 1,317 rallies that were marked by “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” The group said such rallies held before Oct. 7 were “not necessarily included” in its earlier data. Ditto CNN: However, since October 7, the ADL added a category to count rallies that they say have included “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” It’s unclear whether rallies were tracked last year. This new category has helped to account for the increase in antisemitic incidents over the last three months, with the ADL tracking 1,317 such incidents. Without those numbers, the US has seen a 176% increase in antisemitic incidents of harassment, vandalism and physical attacks compared to the same three-month period last year. In short, the Nation article (a) doesn't help us know if it is reliable as a source on Israel/Palestine, and (b) does not establish general unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• The CNN story includes this note: Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War. CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the press release in the Jan 10 version of the article, but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic. In anything, this suggests that ADL is an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3Option 4 Sources that we classify as WP:RS have documented not only bias (which is not proscribed as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES), but blanket inaccuracies with respect to its content on the issue of Palestine/Palestinians and the Israel/Palestine conflict. For example:

• The Intercept reported [1] that the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine "provided material support to Hamas" despite there being no evidence for that assertion and the claim being widely discredited after it was made.
• The Boston Review writes that "the ADL has a long history of wielding its moral authority to attack Arabs, blacks, and queers". [2]
• The ADL often takes opinion positions on questions adjacent to these before making wild, 180 degree turns on those same questions. For instance, it opposed the Sufi Islamic Center in New York on the grounds that it was "not right" [3] but then declared that they, themselves, were not right for having opposed it in the first place. [4] It is difficult to build encyclopedic content on a source with this type of editorial schizophrenia.
• Most importantly, the ADL's own staff, as per The Guardian, have criticized the accuracy and veracity of the ADL's claims on this topic. [5] Can we call a source RS if the source itself questions whether it's reliable?

For these reasons, I believe it should only be used, with respect to Israel/Palestine, as a source for its own editorial opinions and never for anything else, and particularly to reference WP:BLPs.After further consideration of Brusquedandelion's comment, I'm changing my !vote to Option 4, understanding that deprecating for a single topic area presents significant editing difficulty and may be unprecedented. Chetsford (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One by one:

1. This appears to be a situation where we don't know the truth; some reliable sources say one thing, and others say the opposite. That isn't basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
2. That appears to be the author disagreeing with the positions and actions taken by ADL, not declaring that they are pushing false statements. Again, this isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
3. Organizations are allowed to reconsider past positions and statements. Indeed, the fact that they have reconsidered in this case would suggest they are a better source now than they were ten years ago - and certainly isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.
4. Those staff don't appear to be saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods, but instead that they disagree with the ADL on the definition of antisemitism. As the exact definition is a matter of debate, I don't consider disagreements in that area as a basis to declare a source generally unreliable.

This just continues the issue of equating sources disagreeing with the positions that ADL takes as being evidence that the ADL is pushing falsehoods. If there is evidence of ADL pushing falsehoods then please present them, but absent such evidence I see no basis to downgrade the status of this source. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've responded to your critique in the discussion section. Chetsford (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine "provided material support to Hamas", I just reviewed both the Intercept article and the ADL document it is referring to. The Intercept only says the ADL suggested that SJP had provided material support, while the [https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-and-brandeis-center-letter-presidents-colleges-and-universities ADL document only asks that universities investigate whether local SJP chapters had provided "material support".

There is no basis in that article to downgrade ADL - possibly basis to consider it biased, but nothing further than that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to avail yourself of the discussion section. Chetsford (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 (and my objection to option 4 is only that I am opposed to deprecation on principle). After AIPAC, the ADL is the primary propagandist for Israel in the United States. All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts. Zero^talk 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts Bias is not a basis to consider a source generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Remove the word "unbiased", it is not the point of the sentence. The point is "not based on .. the facts". The bias is why they are unreliable. Zero^talk 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Option 2. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above and unconvinced by specific examples of allegedly unreliable reporting. As of note, none of "generally reliable" sources is 100% reliable. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that there does appear to be "a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict" and anti-Palestinian sentiment (although they presumably mostly tap pre-existing reservoirs), a problem, I guess, is not that it may seem unfair to targets, it's that it may be inaccurate and defamatory. Does this matter given that it is a POV? I'm not sure. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it is unfair, but that it is inaccurate, including with respect to the reporting of antisemitism, as detailed in The Nation's analysis. The very inability to maintain its bearing/credibility in a time of crisis is precisely what is deteriorating it as a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nation is a partisan source in itself. The Nation's subjective opinions on definitions of antisemitism are not a justified ground to disqualify another reliable source. Vegan416 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Partisan in the the sense of progressive within US politics; not partisan on the IP conflict. So that's irrelevant. Otherwise, the Nation is an actual newspaper with an actual editorial board, which places it lightyears ahead of the ADL in terms of reliability. No comparison. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We all know that these days being progressive within US politics (as opposed to being liberal or conservative) also almost always means pro-Palestinians views. Furthermore the Natation article doesn't actually bring any example of pro-Palestinian groups that do not oppose the existence of Israel and were marked as antisemitic by the ADL. The only group mentioned there by name is SJP, and representatives of this organization have declared many times their opposition to the existence of Israel. See for example here:

https://nycsjp.wordpress.com/points-of-unity/:

"We identify the establishment of the state of israel as an ongoing project of settler-colonialism that will be stopped only through Palestinian national liberation."

https://theaggie.org/2018/07/06/students-for-justice-in-palestine-kill-and-expect-love/:

"it is an ideological fantasy to really believe that progress is possible so long as the state of Israel exists [..] The goal of Palestinian resistance is not to establish ‘love’ with those who are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people; it is to completely dismantle those forces at play."

It should also be noted that the SJP “points of unity” state that "It is committed to ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands", and some SJP members and chapters explicitly refer to the Israeli occupation as having started in 1948, when Israel was founded. In July 2018, Tulane’s SJP chapter wrote that “Israel’s occupation [of Palestinians land] began seventy years ago”. In May of 2018, SJP at DePaul University distributed fliers claiming that Israel has engaged in “70 years of occupation.” Vegan416 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be battling a few strawmen. The Nation was raised solely in the context of its analysis on the mislabeling of antisemitism incidents. Your opinions on progressive US politics are by-the-by, and no, you can't assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

1. I can definitely assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting as well. This is the result of all this progressive "intersectionality" idea.
2. This is "mislabeling" of antisemitism incidents only according to The Nation progressive intersectionality opinion. It is not so according to the mainstream view. The subtitle of the article in The Nation laments "So why does the media still treat it [the ADL] as a credible source?". Well guess what? It is precisely because the mainstream media doesn't agree that the ADL is mislabeling these groups. Mainstream media mostly agrees that groups like the SJP who explicitly call for the end of Israel, are indeed antisemite. Your view, and The Nation's view, that they are not antisemite, are the fringe here.

Vegan416 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to label RS analysis opinion because you don't like it. No idea what you mean by 'intersectionality' here, but it sounds like gobbledygook. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323

Intersectionality is a central concept in progressive thinking nowadays. I am surprised you didn't hear of it. I suggest you read the wikipedia article on it. As for you calling it "gobbledygook", I dont mind it personally, not being a progressive myself, but it might offend some of the progressive editors here.. Vegan416 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding additional source here in case it gets buried, but The Nation is not the only source with this critique

Tablet: Correcting the ADL’s False Anti-Semitism Statistic

Tablet is described as a conservative Jewish publication Bluetik (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So it appears that they've actually laundered the same bogus methodological gerrymandering of the data repeatedly and unashamedly over the long-term. Not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, other news organizations have raised similar concerns

Tablet: Correcting the ADL’s False Anti-Semitism Statistic Bluetik (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that the same one we already had above, or am I mixing them up? FortunateSons (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so - The Nation and Tablet seem to have independently critiqued the same ADL claim, but I only saw the link to The Nation’s article Bluetik (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, it was a different Tablet Link and I mixed them up, mea culpa FortunateSons (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Potentially dumb question, but this whole discussion is covered by Wikipedia:ARBECR, right? Or is it only partial? FortunateSons (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the whole thing is. Loki (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I would kindly ask @Bluetik to strike their comments and refrain from making new ones. Having said that, thank you for your contributions :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be about the ADL antisemitism stats, is it not? Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As at the ADL main article, it is partial Arbpia. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So do you also think that it requires EC? The article includes it, but it’s a partial point, and this section is I/P. Just so I don’t have someone strike their comments where they aren’t obligated to… FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If the material they are referring to is not AI/IPO related, I think its OK. Idk why the antisemitism stats are being raised in this section, though. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but I would still discourage participation here, seeing how intertwined the discussions are. FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong, only this section is. The other two RFCs aren't by themselves, though arguments based on their reliability on I/P still would be, I think. Loki (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, anything AI/IP, broadly construed, non EC editors cannot comment or !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons I’m happy to strike my comments per request but it looks like it may actually be relevant per the above Bluetik (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but this section is pretty clearly EC-only IMO. But let’s wait for a second opinion just in case. FortunateSons (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk about law of unintended consequences, here's the new welcome message:

Welcome to Wikipedia! Until you have made at least 500 edits and have been here at least 30 days, you may not refer to any of the following topics anywhere on this website: the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland (WP:APLECP), Palestine-Israel (WP:PIA), or the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:RUSUKR). Happy editing!

Levivich (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t seen this one yet. Is there a shortcut for it? FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I made that up, that was a joke :-) The real one is {{welcome-arbpia}}. Levivich (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I know the real one, but I liked your fake one too. Sorry for missing your joke. :)

Regarding this case, you agree with my EC-only assessment (and therefore removal), right? FortunateSons (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, the comments by Bluetik don't really mention I/P and the article linked to only mentions Israel once in passing and doesn't mention Palestine. This subsection is about I/P, but if those same comments were made in a different subsection of this same RFC, I don't think they'd be covered by WP:PIA. It's pedantic, but as the rules are written, Bluetik should not comment in this subsection because it's about I/P. However, removing their comments seems like an extreme measure (especially since they've already been replied to), moving them to a different subsection might be confusing, and striking them seems unnecessary. I don't think there's much that needs to be done besides informing Bluetik of WP:ARBECR in WP:PIA, which has already been done. Levivich (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, if none one is opposed, I’m happy to treat past comments as an improper IAR-Analogy in this case, particularly considering how high-quality they were for a new-ish editor. FortunateSons (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is IP related, it is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism.

Both of these points are false, as numerous reliable sources have pointed out, but are exactly the narrative the ADL advocates for, and thus your vote is thoroughly unsurprising. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I changed it to "option 2". Yes, this possibly is a biased source, but I do not see any evidence of outright misiniformation. Speaking on the definitions they use (e.g. what they consider antisemitism), I think they are reasonable and up to them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. As documented in depth and breadth by multiple users in the discussion above and in multiple comments of this RfC, the ADL does not have the credibility necessary for us to consider their content reliable sources. There is untenable distortion by the ADL of the circumstances of the geopolitical situation in the region as well as of the behavior and activities of organizations that pertain to it such that we cannot rely on the ADL to report facts accurately. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. See more detailed comment in the second survey about antisemitism.Vegan416 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for all the reasons stated above. Would be happy with Option 4 if we could get consensus.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 because as discussed earlier, it is partisan pro-Israel advocacy group which has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation, both RS per WP. Attribution is required for any claim; and for controversial claims, probably best not to be used at all. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 The ADL has consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic. It should not be used as a source as it is thoroughly unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the arguments made above and in the prior discussion, the ADL is considered reliable (but biased) and worthy of citation by many RS in regards to the topic area (interpreted broadly), including but not limited to the New York Times [1],[2], the BBC [1], [2], Washington Post [Clarifying that not all negative use of 'Zionist' is antisemitism, FAZ, and many others. They and their opinion are considered reliable by many, but particularly controversial claims should be attributed, applying the same policy applying to other civil rights groups as well as biased news sources. Common sense should be used. Extension based on arguments by me and others (14.04.24): there seems to be a few suboptimal arguments used by some which are wholly or partially unrelated to reliability, including but not limited to the use of the IHRA definition and other definition of antisemitism, internal and external debates related to issues that on Wikipedia are considered to be bias and not unreliability, and other issues of (non-fringe) bias; none of those actually meet the definition of unreliability. Excluding those and similar points that are closer to Idontlikeit than a general policy based argument seems prudent. That being said, a few points that could go beyond the likely frivolous were brought up, specifically

1. the change in methodology on the reporting of antisemitism: this is true, however, it was not shown that a significant amount of the claims made by the ADL are covered by no non-fringe definition of antisemitism. The likely change in methodology was poorly reported by media, an issue that was appropriately addressed. As the statement we would cite would be something along the lines of “ADL says Y”, a short clarification should be included where appropriate (via footnote or text), but no issue of long-term unreliability is apparent. The relevant discussion can be found below.
2. the inclusion of actions at protest, even if no specific person was attacked: that’s definitely a choice that can be disputed, but including (allegedly) hateful (or more accurately, assessed to be hateful) slogans when listing hateful actions even when those don’t target a specific individual is not per se inappropriate.
3. bias: bias, particularly insofar as also reflected by much of MSM, is in no way a factor for unreliability. The broad use (discussed below) is a further sign that usebyothers is undoubtedly met, despite the minor clarification required for the point above.
4. old errors: are just that, old. Most of them are historic and align with either historical narratives or media reporting at the time, but that’s not a contemporary issue and also a case where other policies (like the ones about using best available sourcing) would already prevent use even if the current status in maintained. (The question regarding the accuracy and reliability of those specific claims about errors seemed to be unclear last I checked that discussion anyway, but that’s also not of relevance.

To summarise, a more policy-based discussion would have been significantly more productive, as many of the disagreements are wholly or partially unrelated to the reliability of the source and its use for facts. On that note, some of the votes seem to have had issue differentiating between the categories, an issue regarding which I do not envy the closer who will have to sort through them. FortunateSons (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• None of these sources are using the ADL as a source for facts on Israel/Palestine. Some of them are using it as a reliable source for facts about antisemitism in the US, which is the topic of the survey below. Two of them attribute to the ADL the opinion that the "river to sea" slogan is antisemitic, but they do not say this is a fact in their own voices. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  They use them as a source for facts/their credited opinions in regards to conduct related to I/P, mostly by Americans/people from western countries. According to my interpretation of many of the comments made, the exclusion of statement like 'ADL says “statement X about Israel is antisemitism”/“group Y is antisemitic”/“this is over the line of criticism of Israel and into antisemitism”' would be included by this as well. If it’s not, I’m having a hard time finding statements made about I/P that are of relevance, let alone warrant this discussion, they don’t generally comment on geopolitical details. FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 based on the ADL's long-standing inaccuracy, advocacy and now increasingly unhinged misinformation on IP-related matters. The source's problems have intensified significantly under Greenblatt, but it cannot be chalked up to just this. That there have been no calls for leadership changes despite both external critique and the raising of internal grievances (over its intolerable extreme blurring of its civil rights and political advocacy) points to a general breakdown in the checks and balances within the organisation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Unreliable normally means publishing information which is factually incorrect. I don't see a lot of evidence of this. What I do see is opinion being published as fact. When the ADL characterises something as anti-semitic, that is often more an opinion than a fact. Lots of advocacy organisations do this, and for all of them, we as editors need to strengthen our skills at identifying such opinions, and decline to bless them in wikivoice. Therefore I don't think we can say this source is unreliable, but we should warn editors to wear extra insulation when handling it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, as per Zero because I am opposed to the application of option 4 in almost every case, except egregious hate sites and the like.
  The ADL has consistently called for laws and measures that consider as possible examples of connivance with terrorism significant movements which protest in solidarity with an occupied people, i.e. Palestinians. It does this because its agenda tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state. In its practice, advocacy for Palestinian human rights should be subject to criminalization. (Alice Speri, How the ADL's Anti-Palestinian Advoacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror laws, The Intercept 21 February 2024)
  For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing. (Jonathan Guyer, Tom Perkins, Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics The Guardian 5 January 2024).
  (Justin) Sadowsky (of the Council on American–Islamic Relations), who is Jewish, characterizes some of ADL’s actions as part of a pattern of deliberate intimidation to make it “very difficult for Palestinians to talk in a forthright way about what’s going on”, (Wilfred Chan ‘The Palestine exception’: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US The Guardian 1 November 2023). And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Spitting on Christian priests in Jerusalem is commonplace and the ADL has protested the practice regularly, but, if that is noteworthy for them, the same cannot be said for protesting extreme human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, which are endemic and yet, it appears, not noteworthy.
  Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism. See https://www.adl.org/about/adl-and-israel/anti-israel-and-anti-zionist-campaigns. And this is a mainstream view. Vegan416 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So you take the ADL at its word.Noted.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove otherwise? Vegan416 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to. I gave some sources challenging the ADL's claims, and you merely cited the ADL "protesting too much" without troubling yourself to examine those sources' claims and documentation. I am not going to participate in another poinjtless thread. I'll just note that

While criticism of Israeli policies and actions is part of that discourse, certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism – the movement for Jewish self-determination and statehood

Well, all ideologies - and Zionism is an ideological construction based on ethnic exclusiveness - are closed systems of thought that are by self-definition and practice, hostile to the sort of thinking fundamental to an open and democratic society, a principle theorized by Henri Bergson (Jewish-French). An anti-Zionist could equally define, on solid grounds, Zionism as 'the movement for the denial of Palestinian self-determination' as the tacit but, in historical practice, acknowledged corollary of that definition of Zionism, since Zionism asserted its claim when Palestine was 95% Arab, noting that half of the world's Jewish population is thriving elsewhere regardless, and does not appear to think that an ethnic state is its default homeland.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani

As you well know, when Zionism was formed 130 years ago there was actually no Palestinian national identity to speak of. Regardless of that Zionism doesn't necessarily contradicts the self-determination of the Palestinian nation. For this there is the idea of a two state solution. As for those hard right-wing Zionists who are opposed to the two states idea in principle, and deny that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, I have absolutely no objection to calling them "anti-Palestinian". So why do you object to using the word "anti-Jewish" or "antisemite" to describe the anti-Zionists who are opposed to the two state idea in principle, and deny that the Jews have a right to self-determination? Why the double standards? Vegan416 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't make thoughtless comments like that. If there was no Palestinian identity in 1900, there was also no Zionist identity, since less than 1% adhered around that time. It's like saying the white colonisation of Australia, declaring the land terra nullius, was fine, even though several hundred cultures were erased, and the entire population of Tasmania exterminated, because the aboriginals had no identity unlike the invaders who were 'European'.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is veering pretty close to WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal opinion regarding the historicity of the Palestinian national identity is noted. It is also entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Since this is WP:NOFORUM I'll send you a private comment on this Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism.

This is a distinction without a difference for those, such as the ADL, who feel every criticism of Israel is an assault on its existence.

But more importantly, there is nothing inherently antisemitic about wanting to abolish a state. Mandela wished to abolish the Boer state in South Africa, but not because of anti-Boer prejudice. Reagan wished to abolish the Soviet Union—did he hate Russians? Numerous politicians in Washington no doubt wish to dismantle China—are they Sinophobes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It really isn’t identical, for example (afaik), the ADL generally doesn’t mark criticism of specific politicians as antisemitic. You can argue about where the line between antizionism and antisemitism and it is legitimate to support versions like the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism over the IHRA. However, even that version would likely show a non-insignificant increase in antisemitism.

On the rest of the discussion, we are going off-topic, we are not here to argue the IHRA as a whole, only if it’s fringe enough to have impact on reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Going through those sources I'm seeing allegations that ADL is biased, but not that it is unreliable - that it is producing misinformation. If I am incorrect, can you quote from those articles where they allege that the ADL has promoted falsehoods? BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL is well aware that the methods it uses have been criticized as flawed, yet it refuses to change them to conform with standard statistical sampling methods. That means that it concocts misinformation.

Back in the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, the ADL immediately came forth with alarmist figures, whose methodology a serious analyst with competence in statistics and hate crimes duly questioned /pulled apart. See Mari Cohen, Closer Look at the ‘Uptick’ in Antisemitism Jewish Currents 27 May 2021.

So aware of, but not responsive to, the technical criticism of its methods, now it has issued its latest analysis

The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, which noted the “American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now unprecedented in modern history.” . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets.

the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature “anti-Zionist chants and slogans,” events that appear to account for around 1,317 of the total count. Arno Rosenfeld, ADL counts 3,000 antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, two-thirds tied to Israel: The group changed its criteria from prior tallies to include more anti-Zionist events and rhetoric. The Forward 10 January 2024.

The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, . . . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets like CNN, NBC, and Axios, which simply took the organization’s word for the gigantic increase without actually checking the data behind the claim. Not all media outlets fumbled the ball, however. . . The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani, ADL Officially Admits It Counts Pro-Palestine Activism as Antisemitic The New Republic 10 January 2024.

That new statistic with its deplorable attempt to press a panic button to get everyone in the American-Jewish community feeling as though they were under mortal siege is rubbish, and exposed as such. Worse, as noted, the ADL's ballsed up statistics were taken and repeated by major mainstream outlets without doing any checking. That's why it is unreliable, certainly under the present direction. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a disagreement about the definition of antisemitism; the narrower definition preferred by you and some sources, and the wider definition preferred by the ADL and other sources, as well as several nations and supranational entities.

For example, your Jewish Currents source gives "Zionism is racism. Abolish Israel" as an example of a statement that the ADL considers antisemitic, but the author of the article considers to be "more accurately described as anti-Zionist". In this case, ADL's position aligns with the Working definition of antisemitism, specifically "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

You can disagree with this position, but is is not a fringe position and there is no basis to consider ADL unreliable because of it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Working definition of antisemitism is the result of political attempts to define the topic, and then pressure to have its provisions enacted in law. As framed, it certainly got a toe-hold among politicians, but has veryt very little credibility as a definition in the scholarship. I was taking a person to the Exhibition Buildings Museum some months ago, and came across a pro-ceasefire demonstration. I stopped for a chat, and a donation, and the atmosphere was pleasant. The day afterwards, a young women wrote to the Age and said that as a Jewish person, she felt quite 'uncomfortable' even though she too endorsed a ceasefire. Uncomfortable because it was sidedly 'pro-Palestinian' (i.e. the major victim). Many reports of campus 'harassment' examined turn out to be interviews with Jews who feel 'uncomfortable' (of course there are the usual idiots who shout injurious remarks) in these contexts. Much of this enters the register as 'antisemitic' by organizations like the ADL who fail to carefully assess reports. When I see the word 'uncomfortable', I think that kind of discomfort, if that was all, would be embraced by 2 million Gazans as infinitely preferable to what they must endure, now and for the rest of their prospective lives.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7" – there are a few ways to describe this, but "consistent statistical methodology" and "reliable source" are not among them. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The full quote from Forward is that the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature "anti-Zionist chants and slogans", but that conflicts with other sources such as the Jewish Currents one that told us in 2021 that their definition of antisemitic incidents had long considered "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" to be antisemitic.

It also conflicts with publications from ADL, such as this 2022 article, which said Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes; is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel; exploits Jewish trauma by invoking the Holocaust in order to position Jews as akin to Nazis; or renders Jews less worthy of nationhood and self-determination than other peoples.

Further, even if we assume that Jewish Currents and the ADL website is wrong and Forward is right, organizations are allowed to update the definitions they use, and there is no basis to consider them unreliable because they do so. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A broadening of a definition (assuming it is apparent and communicated, which it is here), is not per se problematic, and definitely isn’t if it’s merely used to include IHRA. Based on my reading, it seems like the changes started to include some broadening, per the Forward source: Aryeh Tuchman, director of ADL’s Center on Extremism, which oversees the periodic tallies,said in an interview two years ago that his team generally only included incidents that had a clear victim — as opposed to general expressions of hostility toward Jews — and that there was a high bar for including criticism of Israel. Inclusion is only an issue if it is inaccurate, an assuming they are generally following IHRA (and accepting the common-sense fact that people can be discriminatory against their own ethnic, religious or other group), neither of which seems to be disproven by the article(s), who are instead critical of such choices, I see no indication that it is anything beyond biased.

I have a specific concern regarding the republic article, as it appears that the Forward article is summarised in a misleading way: the forward article seems to describe inclusion of some “anti-Zionist“ incidents, while the republic implies all. Is that just me? FortunateSons (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you missing that after broadening its definition, the ADL then claimed there was a massive rise in antisemitic incidents, right after it significantly broadened its definition of "antisemitic incidents"? Loki (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Some others have said that the majority of the changes pre-date the conflict, and many of the new changes are covered by IHRA. As long as they publicly admit the change (which they did), I don’t see the problem. FortunateSons (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Publicly admitted a dishonesty does not make it less dishonest, it just makes it easier to prove that there was dishonesty. It is perverse to use an effect admission of guilt as evidence of innocence, so to speak. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Publicly communicating a changing methodology is exactly the way you change methodology appropriately. It’s possible that they failed at that (which still would be a conduct and not a reliability issue, comparable to the nepotism hire topic on the nytimes discussion) FortunateSons (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What is dishonest about publicly changing methodology? Is it dishonesty to start failing students who score below 70% and then saying more students have failed, after telling students scores below 70% would not pass? XeCyranium (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

In this case, ADL's position aligns with the Working definition of antisemitism,

Yes, because, as the article itself points out:

Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of the Israeli government. As such, pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the definition.

The definition has nothing even remotely resembling or approaching scholarly consensus. It is a definition promoted by Zionist organizations; of course they agree with each other, what does that prove? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s partially true, but not relevant: there is no other definition with scholarly consensus either, if they used Jerusalem or 3D, we would have the exact same problem. I personally prefer some other for reasons of practicality, but IHRA is the one most adopted by governments, NGOs (and companies). FortunateSons (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not just blatantly dodgy statistical malfeasance and misrepresention (and even arguably disinformation); it's dangerous fear-mongering. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 As of late, the ADL has actively been not only producing more and more highly biased material in this subject area, but also misinformation as noted by others above and in the previous discussion. Silverseren^C 14:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 the simple fact is that ADL is an aggressively pro-Israel organization which considers even questioning the legitimacy of Israel (a very young state founded under circumstances that are extremely dubious to day the least) makes it inherently biased. I’m not trying to wade into the “let’s use Wikipedia as a proxy to argue about Israel/Palestine” fight but the rough equivalent would be an Afrikaner advocacy group saying questioning the legitimacy of European colonization in South Africa is racist. Dronebogus (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus Even if your claims about Israel were right they are not relevant at all to the question of reliability of the ADL. But since you raised this, I must correct you. Your claims are false. Israel is not a very young state. In fact Israel is older than 136 (that is 70%) of the UN member states. And there is nothing dubious in the circumstances of its birth compared to the birth of other states. Vegan416 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I mean Israel had not been continuously inhabited by Jews for thousands of years, unlike say China which has always been inhabited by Chinese people. And “nothing dubious” about ethnic cleansing? I’m not saying it’s worse than other states founded on that premise, but if you think there’s nothing wrong with the Nakba I’m seriously questioning your minimum standard of “dubious”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 - having read much of the extensive discussion and evidence presented above it is clear the ADL cannot be considered a reliable source. The ADL has been publishing and producing blatant misinformation and disinformation regarding the current conflict, exaggerating increases in anti-semitism in the United States by sneaky and cynical misrepresentation of statistics and openly equating literally any criticism of the Israeli government, politicians and military with anti-semitism. By falsely equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-semitism, ADL is effectively attempting to replicate a chilling effect. This also serves to trivialise genuine anti-semitism, just as the ADL did to defend a virulent racist who they considered sympathetic to their cause. I don't need to re-state the countless examples of flagrant dishonesty from the ADL shown above, but it is fairly clear that we cannot in good faith trust this source. Perhaps the most damming evidence against the ADL is this article from The Guardian earlier this year in which multiple respected staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation, and declaring these falsehoods are "intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism." If even their own staff no longer consider them honest, how can anyone? AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian article is about an internal disagreement over the definition of antisemitism; ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the working definition of antisemitism which, while controversial, is also widely accepted, while some employees strongly disagree. At no point does that article say that staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation - the closest the article comes is a quote where an employee expresses concerns about a "false equivalency" between antisemitism and anti-zionism, but this is just part of the dispute over the definition of antisemitism. If I've missed something, then please provide quotes from the article showing it - but from what I can see your claims about that article don't match it, and the article itself doesn't supporting removing ADL's "generally reliable" status, let alone downgrading it to deprecated. BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with your characterisation of what the Guardian article is about. The relevant section "Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. "There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism," a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. "The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen," a longtime extremism researcher said. "[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient." AusLondonder (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian article is also interesting in reporting on the ADL CEO praising Elon Musk just after Musk had endorsed a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory on Twitter/X, which prompted resignations from the ADL in protest. So ignoring genuine disgusting anti-semitism but going after Jews for Peace as an anti-semitic hate group because they want an end to the war in Gaza. Hugely trustworthy source... AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the working definition of antisemitism which, while controversial, is also widely accepted

  You keep offering up this definition as if it proves anything other than that the ADL agrees with other Zionists. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  It proves that it isn’t fringe, which is the relevant factor here. We can’t and shouldn’t esclude sources because they are zionists. FortunateSons (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Citespam:
  • Ronit Lentin, David Landy, Conor McCarthy 2020: a "pro-Israel US group ... A Jewish organization whose declared mission includes fighting antisemitism, combating hate, and standing up for Israel" [6]
  • Ben White, Journal of Palestine Studies 2020: "Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel’s critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism" and gives ADL as an example of such an organization (noting ADL in 2009 opposed Desmond Tutu winning a Nobel because he was critical of Israel) [7]
  • Lara Friedman, The University of the Pacific Law Review 2023: "pro-Israel organization" [8]
  • ADL's lobbying spending increased ~4x in recent years [9]
  • Equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism: [10]
  • More citespam of reports of criticism of ADL as too pro-Israel and/or willing to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism: The Guardian 2024; The Intercept 2024; The Nation 2024 and 2022; Jewish Currents 2023, 2022, and 2021; Forward 2020; In These Times 2020; Boston Review 2019; JTA 2018; MEMO 2014 (describing ADL as "one of the most active Zionist organisations in the US") and 2010 ("Anti-Defamation League beclowns itself, again")
  • I do not see evidence that it has a reputation for reliability, e.g. for fact checking and accuracy; what I see is that it has a reputation for being a pro-Israel advocacy org and lobbying group; the lobbying in particular is a red flag: no lobbying group is an RS, in my opinion, categorically

As such, it is not an RS for this topic, generally unreliable. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Actually there is at least one other advocacy and lobbying group in the RS list here : The Southern Poverty Law Center. Vegan416 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a US civil rights group working against racism in the US, for the US; it's an advocacy group, not a lobby group, because advocating for civil rights isn't lobbying on behalf of a third party. The ADL very explicitly lobbies on behalf of Israeli (foreign) interests. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Actually The Southern Poverty Law Center has a lobby arm as well - The SPLC ACTION FUND. They admit it themselves. See here for example - https://www.splcactionfund.org/news/2023/03/01/splc-action-fund-pursues-systemic-change-congress. And the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf has absolutely zero relevance to the question of its reliability. This in clearly a WP:NOTFORM. Drop that line of argument. Vegan416 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Of course being a lobby group has a bearing on reliability. A lobby group is paid to influence: it's perhaps the clearest conflict of interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that being a lobby group doesn't matter. I said it doesn't matter who you are lobbying for. And the The Southern Poverty Law Center is also a lobby group as I have shown. Get into the link I posted. They freely admit it. Vegan416 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to "the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf" – regardless of the advocacy/lobbying question, there is a clear gap between a group working on behalf of US citizens and residents and the foreign influence of a group working in the interest of another country/its dependents. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Drop that line. This may be of importance as an argument inside some internal American political argument, but it has absolutely no bearing on the question of reliability in wikipedia. Vegan416 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an RFC about reliability on the IP conflict and we are talking about a literal lobby group that is open about its (paid) role to influence public opinion about the topic. That's a conflict of interest; the opposite of independent. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes. But I'm not talking specifically about the IP necessarily. I'm talking about reliability in the relevant fields for the SPLC. The SPLC is a lobby group in whatever fields they lobby (which might BTW contain also IP incidentally, but that requires further research), and therefore according to your logic should be declared unreliable in those fields.
2. I don't understand tour comment about the payments to ADL. Who do you think is paying the ADL and how is this relevant here?

Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

SPLC's reputation is not great either: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Levivich (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich I definitely agree with that. So will you support reducing its reliability if and when such an RfC will be submitted? Vegan416 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are signs that it is a fairly parallel case to the ADL as a group that once did some good work, but which has now clearly lost its way. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Kudos for the consistency. I have limited time to spend on wikipedia, and submitting an RfC on the The Southern Poverty Law Center is not in the top list of my projects. But maybe it will happen one day... Vegan416 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's my view of it, too, that ADL and SPLC are parallel cases. They're demonstrations that power always corrupts. They are victims of their own success: having gained the stature of authoritative neutral arbiters, it's clearly been too tempting for some to avoid using that stature for political gain, and once they sacrifice their neutrality, their reputation soon follows. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the ADL ever presented itself as "neutral". Neutral between whom? It was definitely never neutral between antisemites and Jews or between Israel and those who wish to delete it.

I also don't know if I agree with the way you present the analogy between the ADL and the SPLC, but I don't know enough about the SPLC. Maybe you can bring the 3 worst things done by the ADL and the 3 worst things done by the SPLC (according to your view) and we can compare them? Vegan416 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

SPLC is currently green on the RSP list, so building an argument for its unreliability should really happen in a different thread. If we compare ADL to SPLC and they come out the same or ADL comes out better, by current consensus that would make ADL green; if SPLC comes out better that wouldn't help judge if ADL should be green, yellow or red. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 The sources clearly demonstrate a severe bias in matters AI/IP, inclusive of weaponizing charges of antisemitism for political purposes in this area. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - lobby organization with zero expertise in the topic, the ADL has expertise in some topics but this is not one of them. Id add the following source to those showing its unreliability on the topic: Finkelstein, Norman G. (2008-06-02). Beyond Chutzpah. University of California Press. p. xiii. ISBN 978-0-520-24989-9. Among other propagandistic claims in the ADL "resource for journalists" one might mention these: the "Arab forces were significantly larger" than Israel's during the 1948 war (p. 2); "by May 1967, Israel believed an Arab attack was imminent" (p. 6); it was "understood by the drafters of the [U.N. 242] resolution" that "Israel may withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip consistent with its security needs, but not from all the territories" (p. 9); "Israel has shown the greatest possible restraint and makes a determined effort to limit Palestinian casualties" (p. 27); "Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism" (p. 27); "Settlements . . . do not violate international law" (p. 31); and "Neither international law nor international statute calls for a Palestinian 'right of return' to Israel" (p. 32). These assertions have been wholly refuted both by Ben-Ami and by the mainstream scholarship cited in this volume. It is not a scholarly organization, it has no expertise on the topics of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Zionism, anti-Zionism, history of the Middle East. It is purely, in this realm, a pressure organization that uses misinformation and disinformation to push a false narrative. nableezy - 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oo, err ... those last two in particular are pretty dodgy: objectively false statements about international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism has never been true either. Literally never. nableezy - 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  You cannot use a controversial source like NF to disqualify other sources. Other RS dispute his factual claims here. For example regarding NF claim that this sentence from ADL "In May 1967, events in the region led Israel to expect that an Arab attack was imminent" is false see here (second page): "In 1967 Israel preempted what many of the state’s decisionmakers believed was an imminent Arab attack". I can go on with regard to all the other claims NF makes here, but then someone would probably say that is WP:NOFORUM, so I'll stop here. Vegan416 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  To reduce Beyond Chutzpah to Finkelstein and whatever personal reputation he may have is to lose sight of the context of publication. This is not some WP:SPS blog post that Finkelstein made; it's a monograph published with a university press, and publishers have systems and processes of review. Had Finkelstein submitted as a manuscript an unsupportable screed without grounding in the scholarly conversation, the University of California Press wouldn't have published it. That they did publish it indicates we should not dismiss out of hand the book and what it reports. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't change the fact that other RS dispute his claim, and support the ADL claim on this point. Disputes between RS about facts (and needless to say opinions) are extremely common. Why should we trust in this case NF more than the RAND corporation? Vegan416 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a serious question? A university press versus a think tank? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats just silly. A work of scholarship published by the University of California Press is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is our highest tier of reliability. You calling it "controversial" is cute but not important. nableezy - 20:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Finkelstein (a controversial source, as we can see from the thread up the talk page) is disputing a 2006 ADL publication called "Israel & The Middle East: The Facts", which can be found on scrbd but not on the ADL website, but I don't have access to scrbd or the Finkelstein book, so hard to judge this. Some of the issues NF contends are issues of interpretation (e.g. the balance of forces in 1948 or what Israel believed in May 1967) whereas there are some factual claims (e.g. that most casualties were not civilians) that indeed appear to be false, but I'd need to see the wording of the original before being certain. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Whether we consider the ADL reliable for verifying facts re the I/P conflict (or not), they have a reputation of being at the forefront of fighting antisemitism… and THAT is enough for us to say that their attributed opinions are absolutely DUE and should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t think that’s true at all, when those opinions are treated as noteworthy by third party sources then sure, but including their opinions sourced to their own publications? Hard pass. nableezy - 19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• There is a splendid model of exemplary methodology, the very impressive paper by L. Daniel Staetsky, Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel Institute for Jewish Policy Research September 2017, which came out at the tailend of a year of furious claims about the Labour Party and Corbyn's antisemitism problem (which led, with newspaper hysteria, 87% of the Jewish community according to one poll, stating that they would be afraid /consider moving to Israel, if Labour won - which the ADL's recent panicking of American Jews mirrors). Editors should familiarize themselves with Staetsky's sober analysis (it sets a scholarly benchmark for these things), and compare the way the ADL handles the issues. The latter looks shabby by comparison. No one would dissent I presume from the the ADL remains an important indeed indispensable resource for hate crimes generally, but their record on the I/P issue is, unfortunately, one of polemical defensiveness re Israel, and almost total silence about human rights abuses, which NGOs of global standing routinely cover, in book length studies every other year. That silence, and the way it otherwise blurs important distinctions to make out the Palestinian cause is strongly contaminated by antisemitism, undermines its credibility there. Put it this way, it has, certainly recently, discredited itself. Antisemitism is widely studied, clinically, by many distinct agencies and numerous scholarly works. It is not as if, were the ADL to shut down, our knowledge of antisemitism would suddenly dry up. It is, after all, such an obviously outrageous phenomenon that it scarcely escapes even the dullest observer.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 when it comes to the I/P conflict. Obviously it is a highly WP:BIASED source on that and could never be used on the topic without attribution, but that alone wouldn't make it unreliable. The real problem is that recent coverage has made it clear that their biases tainted their factual reporting to the point where it has harmed their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; see eg. [20][21][22] - they can still be cited via a third party, but we should avoid citing them directly on this. While it is true that they aren't generally described as publishing deliberate lies (which is why I'm for "generally unreliable" rather than deprecation), that alone isn't sufficient to make something a WP:RS. I don't think they should be cited as a primary source for opinion on this topic, either (outside of situations where it itself is the topic of discussion.) Most sources today treat them as an advocacy organization when it comes to Israel, and I do not feel that advocacy orgs, think-tanks, or other lobbying organizations that lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy should be used even for opinions; there is simply nothing notable or meaningful about a "hired gun" churning out the perspective it is being paid to churn out. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per the highly compelling arguments of Simonm223 and Dronebogus. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 with regards to Israel/Palestine. There are perhaps situations where its comments have some relevance due to its direct involvement, but hard to think of them.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I don't consider pro-Israel bias alone to make ADL unreliable, but the above mentioned examples of false claims do. Cortador (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. I find this particular question bizarre. ADL has absolutely no expertise on Israel-Palestine itself, and I cannot imagine why anybody would cite it in that topic area. Almost none of the comments above actually relate to ADL's claims about I/P but rather to its claims about antisemitism, the topic of the survey below. Although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to cite ADL on I/P, none only one of the comments above gives an example of ADL making false claims about the topic, and therefore "generally unreliable" would seem excessive. In summary: no reason to doubt reliability for facts about I/P but no reason to cite it on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [update: I missed one example, given by Nableezy, of a 2006 "fact sheet" about Israel/Palestine including false facts about the conflict. I think this pushes me towards option 3, although I can't see the fact sheet online. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Update 2: After reviewing our actual use of the source in this topic area, I am leaning back to option 2. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)]

  Believe I posted false claims about the conflict unrelated to antisemitism. nableezy - 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not false. At most controversial. Vegan416 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel is false. The claim that settlements are not illegal is false. But kudos for modifying your earlier comment here. nableezy - 12:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  where and when did the ADL make such claims? Vegan416 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  It’s in the citation I offered above. nableezy - 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The citation you offered is from a book that claim to quote on a ADL document from 2005 (called "Israel and the Middle East: A Resource for Journalists"). But this ADL document is no longer available as far as I could check. Maybe you can find it? Apparently it was some booklet or PDF file or webpage that nobody bothered to archive. So you see, there are serious multiple problems with your argument that this evidence can serve to prove that the ADL is not reliable on factual claims:

  1. It is about claims of the ADL that were allegedly made 19 years ago. How is it relevant today?? If you had to go 19 years ago to find factual errors of the ADL, then it seems to me that they are pretty reliable on the factual side.

  2. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked in their context, and that matters a lot. For example the claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel, might be correct in some context such as if talking about some particular war or operation, where indeed this was the case. And the quote about the settlements says "Settlements . . . do not violate international law". There is an ellipsis in the middle, and we have no idea what text was omitted. Maybe it said that there are some International Law scholars that claim that the settlements don't violate international law. If that's the case then the claim is actually correct, even if nowadays these scholars are in a small minority. But we don't know what the context was in both cases, because we don't have the primary source.

  3. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked and verified against the primary source, which appears to have been lost. This point is particularly relevant because NF the author of this book is (beyond dispute) extremely biased against Israel, and also was found to make at least some egregious errors in his work, as had been pointed in the discussion about him above. While these allegations may not be enough to disqualify him as a reliable source in wikipedia, they definitely undermine using him as a source to disqualify other sources, when his claims cannot be verified by other sources. Vegan416 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's actually a rather good demonstration that the ADL has been unreliable for the last two decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  This will only be true if you can you show factual errors of the ADL regarding IP from the last say 5 years, rather than from 19 years ago (Assuming those things from 19 years ago are indeed incorrect. See points 2 & 3) Vegan416 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Uh huh, since NF's books appear to rather more reliable than the ADL on the face of it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I missed this example nableezy. That does appear to be a case of some false claims of fact, though I can't actually see what the 2006 publication was as it doesn't seem to be online at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’m sure I can find others, but there’s an eclipse out here so I’m spending the day outside and then in the car driving home for god knows how many hours. Will go back for more sources later. nableezy - 18:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've been looking through our use of ADL as a source. I found very few instances of it's use about I/P. I found two in the first couple of pages of hits. In our article Jerusalem we currently cite this "factsheet" (now no longer on the ADL website) for a claim about Jerusalem's significance to Jews. This is a bad use of ADL, as the "factsheet" is basically a list of talking points for pro-Israel advocates. Options 2, 3 or 4 would enable us avoid this sort of use. In the article Tel Aviv, we use this list of major terrorist attacks in Israel as the source for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. This is a good example of a straightforward fact and the ADL reporting it reliably. Option 2 would enable us to continue using it unproblematically in this way, while option 3 would preclude this.

  So I think option 2 is the better choice than option 3. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally Reliable. A reliable source is not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, according to WP:BIASED. Many NGOs, which are considered reliable, illustrate this point. ADL is an opinionated source that is openly pro-Israeli, for example, they openly say that "ADL works to support a secure Jewish and democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security with its neighbors" and "ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism engages in distortions or delegitimizes Israel, crosses into antisemitism when it demonizes or negates Zionism, and uses anti-Jewish assertions and tropes". To be considered a reliable source, an organization is required to have good reputation for fact checking. When using *any* source, it's crucial to distinguish between opinion pieces and research, and to properly attribute opinions. Regarding ADL, their reputation for fact-checking in research papers has been excellent for over a century; thus, relying on them for facts presents no issue. Editors should exercise normal consideration of controversial topics and consider using attribution where necessary. For example, claiming something is or is not a "hate symbol" is more a matter of opinion than fact, serving as an example of something that should be attributed if disputed - but this is normal for every reliable source - that's why we use the word "generally". Marokwitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  So this part: "ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism [...] when it [...] negates Zionism is the real problem – because this is a mission to curtail free speech. You can't really be civil rights group AND be such an openly politically biased entity that you actively go after individuals and groups for simply opposing your chosen political ideology. That's more than a little unhinged – more so even than the rest of its mission as a US (not Israeli) NGO that isn't registered as a foreign agent (FARA). And editors have pointed out numerous issues with the ADL's presentation of facts; there's a lot of not listening here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Iskandar323, like you I disagree with how the ADL understands anti-Zionism but can you show me the policy that says a source has to be committed to unlimited free speech before we consider it reliable? The question isn't whether it's really a civil rights group or not; it's whether it's reliable for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Let's put it this way: I can't imagine another source presented as an RS with a stated mission to oppose those that reject its political position. All media has bias, but stating it is your mission to actively oppose certain politics is the hallmark of a determinedly agenda-driven lobby group, not a truth-oriented organisation. Most RS media with have a mission statement about a commitment to truth and the like. Most RS rights groups will have a mission statement about a commitment to their rights specialty regardless of politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  southern poverty law center Vegan416 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323 @Bobfrombrockley Actually I'm not impressed at all by "a mission statement about a commitment to truth". This doesn't matter at all. Pravda also claimed to be committed to truth, so much that its name literally means "truth" in Russian. Yet we know that every second word in that paper was false.

  The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the only way to asses reliability of a source is by looking at its actual record of factual reporting. This can be done in 2 ways:

  1. We do a systematic review and asses the rate of the sources factual errors. No source has 0 errors, but if the rate of errors is significantly higher than acceptable for RS then the source is unreliable. No such systematic review was presented against the ADL in this case. On the day of the eclipse @Nableezy have promised such evidence, but so far he didn't supply it.

  2. Since doing a systematic review requires a lot of work sometimes we can find a shortcut by WP:USEBYOTHERS. If indisputably highly reliable sources use the source under investigation we can assume that they had already systematically checked it "for us". I and others have presented sufficient examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS in the sections Reliable sources using ADL and Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR below. Vegan416 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please both stop pinging me and stop bludgeoning this discussion. Everybody knows what you think now, you can give it a rest and let the community decide. Sorry, but I have things in the real world that are more important to me than this discussion, I’ll get to it when I get to it. nableezy - 12:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - as an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). The evidence presented by nableezy, Levivich and Aquillion show that the ADL is publishing questionable content, including on Palestine, and that other sources are simply not treating them as scholarly. starship.paint (RUN) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. I've never used it for anything related to the IP conflict as there are much better sources covering it. However no actual falsehoods have been presented, so no reason to downgrade it. The u:Brusquedandelion's examples are about people who disagree with their definition of antisemitism. Alaexis_¿question? 13:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, here I'm !voting on using ADL for facts and opinions about the IP conflict itself. There are varieties of antisemitism that involve Israel (such as applying double standards to it), this belongs to the next section. Alaexis_¿question? 21:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 the evidence presented so far by Levivich and others speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 despite the efforts to paint it as "questionable" above, I don't find anything compelling to list it as anything but a reliable source. Based on my own quick review of coverage, it appears that most media treat the ADF's reports as credible. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 Reliable sources don't appear to question their reliability, and the evidence presented contesting their reliability isn't convincing. Obviously they're not a neutral party on the matter, but sources don't have to be - and they're generally regarded as authoritative. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have already linked to several reliable sources doing exactly that: question their reliability. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 It is frequently pointed out in discussions of Al Jazeera that sources that are biased are not necessarily unreliable. Applying that standard uniformly, as we must, the ADL is a reliable source on I/P. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you comparing apples to irrelevant oranges? No one is comparing the ADL, a lobby group, to Al Jazeera, a news source with bylines, masthead, editorial boarf and ethics policy. They're incomparable, and the standard to prove that the ADL is reliable, despite having no editorial controls, is far higher. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes they are not comparable. AJ has bylines, masthead, editorial board and ethics policy, Qatari government ownership and content that reflects it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Iskandar that this is a terrible argument. Al Jazeera is a news organization with an editorial board and editorial standards. Their bias doesn't affect their reliability for facts.

  The ADL is an advocacy group, and it's increasingly clear that it's an advocacy group for Israel. They do not have an editorial board or editorial standards. They've even collaborated directly with the Israeli government in the past, according to The Nation. This does, pretty obviously, make them unreliable for facts and not just reliable-but-biased like Al Jazeera. Loki (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  While the ADL doesn't have editorial board (as it's not a newspaper) it has other processes installed for quality control, such as peer review. See here https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-antisemitism-research Vegan416 (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we take that centre's promo pitch at face value, it only represents its own output, which is only a fraction of the ADL's output, and so logically can't be reflective of the ADL overall. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you take Al Jazeera's promo pitch about independent editorial board and independent editorial control at face value, then why not take the ADL's one as well? And this center is the part of ADL that is responsible for their publications on antisemitism. So it is very relevant to the second vote below about the ADL's reliability on anti-Semitism. I suppose this comment should have gone under that section, but I just responded to Loki's claims about lack of "editorial board" without paying attention to what section it was in. Sorry about that. Vegan416 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's just a division within ADL, and unless content is specifically labelled as coming from the center, you don't know if it is or not. So again, this doesn't even reflect on the ADL is general, and no, two paragraphs do not establish that it is has standards. On the contrary, yes, I do appreciate the comprehensiveness of AJ's 340-page pdf on its editorial standards – do let us your know what you think is out of order. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  And that "Gone With the Wind" length ethical standards document needs to be compared with the reality of coverage that has been widely condemned as advancing Qatari foreign policy and functioning as Hamas apologia, especially in its Arabic language coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason. Conspiratorial views about Qatar couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Not really much new to add; the ADL has generally lumped criticism of the Israeli government and/or its policies in with legitimate antisemitism, which at least to me indicates they aren't particularly reliable on the I/P conflict. The Kip 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per My very best wishes and Marokwitz. They have a long history of fact checking and reliability, and are treated as credible by other reliable sources. GretLomborg (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 clearly a zionist advocacy group that doesn't represent Jews or humanity due to the utter irrelevance the group holds outside of the USA. Being called antisemitic due to holding anti-zionist or anti colonialist views is sophistry and subterfuge of the highest caliber, and as such this group cannot be taken seriously in matters relating to Palestine or Israel. JJNito197 (talk)
• Option 3 The ADL has shown itself to be far too pro-Israel in their ongoing war against Hamas and have used their platform to attack people who have protested against Israel's actions. They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites such as when they said that Jewish Voice for Peace was "[using] its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility." Additionally, they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny. Since October 7th, they've increasingly squandered their credibility as an authority on racism and hate in support of an increasingly unpopular foreign conflict that the international community has grown to condemn, even among governments that have supported Israel such as the United States.PaulRKil (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 An NGO which seems to smear every critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. Huldra (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Generally reliable on gauging what do Zionists in the United States think of the conflict, but far too biased for neutral overviews. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per K.e.coffman and Zero. Biased sources can still be usable (although in this case, the bias is significant enough that it would at least be an option 2 situation, if they were this biased and still factual), but sources that let their bias get in the fact of being factual, and indeed (looking at this from a USEBYOTHERS perspective) require other sources which had initially used their facts to subsequently correct their own articles because those facts were not factual, well, that's option 3 or 4 territory. -sche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 There are a lot of articles around that analyzed in depth how worked that website and what was their stance. The Nation 's[23] The Intercept [24] The Boston Review [25] The Guardian [26] explained very well with clear highly problematic cases what was wrong. Consequently in the end TADL is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Deblinis (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Who are those and who are their friends? nableezy - 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 (with serious Option 2 consideration as currently outlined in current Perennial Sources listing) With understanding for shifts in the tone and agenda of the organization in recent years, I think it's a troubling notion to attempt to depreciate an organization that has generally been considered reliable for more than a century (and is still considered reliable by most identified RS). This does not appear to be a mainstream matter, but a partisan one. Most of the sources provided that are attacking the ADL's credibility are politically leaning or partisan (as are, with respect, 90% of the editors who have shown up on this page). There are obvious considerations to be made given the ADL's natural and obvious slant (as currently outlined in its perennial listing), but until a majority of sources who consistently rely on ADL reporting declare it to be unfit or unreliable (which, in spite of The Nation's protestations, they have not), I see no need to alter the rating of this organization beyond current considerations already outlined. Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  And are the editors supporting ADL’s credibility, you included, not partisan? Get off it. nableezy - 19:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Of course. Almost everybody on this discussion, from all sides, is partisan. That's what Mistamystery said: "90% of the editors who have shown up on this page". That's why we have to stick to facts, and not opinions. To show that ADL is unreliable you have to show a significant number of factual errors in their reporting. So far nobody managed to do that. Vegan416 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I, and others, have already done that. That you dislike that doesn’t change that it has been established. Anyway, I don’t find engaging with you to be particularly fruitful or enjoyable so I’ll stop now. Toodles. nableezy - 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  N, That's not nice. I didn't say being partisan it was a bad thing. I'm glad people have strong opinions, but in terms of disqualifying a source that has been reliably used by other perennial RS, I'm going to need those editorial boards to chime in and prefer to rely upon that far more than a number of editors who routinely team engage in disqualification quests. Mistamystery (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  You’re going to need some evidence for you aspersion about team engage in disqualification quests, and you’re going to need something besides a partisan recounting of who is partisan to disqualify the overwhelming majority of views here that find this source to be dog shit for this topic. nableezy - 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. Largely per Levivich and Nableezy above. I won't add more citespam or walls of text, but there is ample evidence above that we should not be parroting the ADL in wikivoice with regard to I/P. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - generally reliable. ADL is a generally reliable source in its areas of expertise, including antisemitism, extremism, democracy technology and society. ADL has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy in most mainstream sources as demonstrated in many of the comments in this discussion, and it has three professional research centers with different expertise areas. While ADL focuses heavily on antisemitism, it deals with extremism on a global scale, not focusing solely on Israel and Jews, but also on white supremacy, racism and worldwide terrorism. https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-on-extremism. HaOfa (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Not going to duplicate or rehash the enormous walls of text I've written and replied to in the antisemitism section, one can simply scroll down for that. The TL;DR is that the ADL is a hyperpartisan source on this issue and their credibility has been severely damaged under their current leadership, to the point where even many high-profile members of the ADL have resigned in protest. The ADL's issues on I/P in particular aren't new, but they've gotten much worse. They are not a reliable, academic, or objective source when the Israel-Palestine conflict is involved. I'm open to option 2 for content that is completely unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or related subjects such as zionism. But the ADL should absolutely not be used as a source of information on those subjects, certainly not without attribution.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. After reading a lot of the above discussion, I would like to briefly comment. I took another look at the reliability consensus legend, keeping in mind that we are considering the source as it relates to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-For Generally reliable, "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." (bolding mine). On I/P conflict topics, I do not think we could fairly characterize the ADL as having a "reputation of fact-checking, accuracy and error-correction". As others have pointed out, in this area the ADL tends to make statements with advocacy in mind more-so than precision. A good example of this is shown in the The Intercept article which Levivich linked. Following the link to the ADL's original statement, the ADL wrote "we certainly cannot sit idly by as a student organization provides vocal and potentially material support to Hamas" (emphasis mine), referring to Students for Justice in Palestine. As noted in the article, the ACLU disputed that suggestion in an open letter here. The Intercept wrote "There is no evidence SJP has ever provided material support to Hamas". From an outsider's perspective, the ADL's words seem more like an attempt to smear the SJP than faithful reporting by an expert. It was at best an unsupported claim. This kind of behavior seems unbefitting of a source we could turn to as "reliable" on the Israel/Palestine conflict matter.

-For Generally unreliable, "Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content." I think in this subject area (I/P conflict) it hits the mark of "questionable in most cases" as a source, particularly about the people and organizations it views as anti-Israel. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 on I/P or critiques of Zionism, Option 2 otherwise. Per Nabeezy and Levivich. Jebiguess (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Of course this is not an acceptable source for Israel-Palestine conflict. While ADL is itself not Zionist, they properly document the Zionist views, as such it can be still used for providing the Zionist point whenever it is needed because in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  The ADL is not Zionist? Are you sure about that? Dronebogus (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 generally no expertise, whatever narrow expertise it might have is to take one side. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Jewish Currents describes editorial bias from higher-ups to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, to focus on anti-Zionism, especially after October 7. The Intercept has also reported that ceasefire protests have been incorrectly marked as antisemitic. It doesn't appear that the ADL should have a positive reliability rating when it's strong support of Israel overrules fact-checking. SWinxy (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 as it pertains to I/P, per various editors who put it far better than I could myself above, including Nableezy and Levivich. I could only see used as a source for its own point of view, or perhaps general Zionist outlooks on the conflict. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. ADL is an explicitly biased pro-Israel advocacy group and its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. I'd support deprecating this source if some editor can demonstrate that this group promotes zionist or republican/neo-con conspiracy theories. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 preferred, will be ok with Option 4. ADL by definition is a campaign organisation, and thus cannot be sourced for objective facts. If the information sought falls close to their campaign themes, their bias becomes extreme. Conseqeuntly, ADL should not be used as a source for any information related to Israel other than what's allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, an advocacy source whose purpose often leads them to bias their reporting of the facts to such a degree that they are not useful as a source for an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Having read the sources presented above (especially by user Levivich), unambiguously Option 3 and Option 4 would not be out of the question. No way an organization with such bias in this topic area could be presented as an RS for an encyclopedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, per Nishidani. Snokalok (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, very clearly a strongly pro-Israel biased organization, shouldn't be used as a source.--Staberinde (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Levivich and Nableezy clearly unrealiable—blindlynx 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Seems unreliable and should be attributed, especially after their turn towards New antisemitism instead of actual antisemitism User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Part 2: antisemitism

What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League regarding antisemitism?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey (ADL:antisemitism)

• Option 2 or 3. The ADL usually is reliable on antisemitism and antisemitic hate groups not involving the Israel/Palestine conflict. But it's very much not reliable on antisemitism when that antisemitism touches on the Israel/Palestine conflict in some way. This happens often enough that it hurts the ADL's reputation for fact-checking regarding this issue generally. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. The intentional conflation of antisemitism with antizionism is a huge problem to make it a reliable source on these topics. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option 2 for pre-2016 andOption 3for 2016 and later I have no personal take on the matter, however, based on a cursory search, RS have repeatedly questioned the veracity of its statements regarding the topic, though these criticisms have been clustered over the last ten years. For example (not exhaustive):
  

• Jewish Currents has repeatedly and acutely examined and criticized ADL's standards and methods for evaluating and determining Antisemitism (e.g. [27]).
• Liel Leibovitz has criticized the ADL's statements on Antisemitism as being politically motivated (e.g. [28]).
• Isi Leibler has written the ADL has "lost the plot" and used its research into Antisemitism as a "partisan political issue", rather than an objective method of evaluation ([29]).
• As documented by Moment [30], the ADL has previously "cleared" allegedly Antisemitic persons before subsequently denouncing them as Antisemitic only after their evaluation itself has been criticized. This gives question to the reliability of their research or whether their statements are even based on an objective criteria at all.

Based on these, and other, sources I would say that pre-2016 content sourced to the ADL is fine for non-extraordinary claims and 2016 and later content it is generally unreliable and should not be used except with attribution and not with respect to WP:BLPs. After reading The Nation article linked by K.e.coffman, I'm tipped to Option 3 without respect to time period. Chetsford (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for anti-Semitism not relating to Israel and Option 4 for anti-Semitism in the context of Israel. It has been shown that the ADL conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and has in fact modified the way it defines anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionist rhetoric, especially in the last few years. It should be noted that "in the context of Israel" should be very broadly construed here, given the ADL's history of defending anti-Semitic remarks when made by people and organizations with a pro-Israel stance ([31] [32] [33] [34]) even when those statements themselves do not directly seem to relate to Israel, when viewed alone. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  The ADL doesn't consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic or anti-Zionist (Anti-Zionism is distinct from criticism of the policies or actions of the government of Israel, or critiques of specific policies of the pre-state Zionist movement, in that it attacks the foundational legitimacy of Jewish self-determination and statehood.) [35] Alaexis_¿question? 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  The last source we should be using to define anti-Zionism is the ADL, which per this and the previous discussion routinely spouts nonsense on the topic. This above passage is actually damning in that it shows how the ADL creates its own strawman definitions as a means to manipulate the discourse. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, The Nation dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks ...why does the media still treat it as a credible source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world (from the river to the sea, you know), is not considered to be antisemitic by the Nation's James Bamford, but it's a matter of opinion and plenty of people disagree. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Precisely. As I had demonstrated in the source I brought in my vote here - most people agree that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world is antisemitic. Vegan416 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

'the only Jewish state in the world'. The Vatican is the only Catholic state in the world. That is a confessional state, however, not an ethnic state. To call for a state to drop its ethnic qualification for citizenship and extend recognition to that 50% of the population of Greater Israel which is non-Jewish is not tantamount for calling for the 'destruction' of that state. Were it so, it would be 'antisemitic' to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and assert its relevance to the structural dilemma instinct in Israel's own self-definition as an ethnic state. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont understand the Vatican analogy. Do you deny that the Jews are an ethnic group? Vegan416 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, if a post puzzles one, it is better to think its content over for more than 3 minutes, particularly if the said post distils a very large topical literature and presumes familiarity with it. I decline your invitation to make a thread of the idea of 'the only Jewish state in the world' (Italy, Ireland, Germany,etc.etc. are the only Italian, Irish, German states in the world).Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't invite you to anything. You commented on my comment without any invitation. Which is absolutely ok by me BTW. But I noted that you evaded my question about whether you deny the the Jews are an ethnic group. Vegan416 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably because it is not germane to this discussion, run along now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact Germany has a right of return law for ethnic Germans, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Fortunately Germany is not in an immediate danger of destruction unlike Israel. Alaexis_¿question? 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Germans didn’t steal Germany from another ethnic group. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's also possible that intentionally conflating criticism of Israeli actions with "calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world" is precisely the sort of stunt that makes ADL unreliable; thanks for the demonstration of how it works. Zero^talk 07:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Stop with the parlour tricks. The Nation neither mentions "calls for destruction" nor the "from the river to the sea" slogan. Not only can you not dismiss RS analysis with your own opinion/imaginings, but you also can not misrepresent a source for rhetorical purposes in a contentious topic area. Don't continue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The only pro Palestinian group that The Nation article mentions as being recently classified as antisemitic by the ADL in SJP. And I have shown, based on reliable sources, that the the SJP does indeed call for the abolition of Israel. you can find a collection of citations here User talk:Vegan416#Referenced to SJP calling for the ending of Israel Vegan416 (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Alaexis, this comment is absolutely shameful and I implore you to strike it. I was going to write a longer reply addressing specific statements you and Vegan made, but I felt that doing so would cause the discussion to stray far from anything related to the topic of this discussion. I will instead just say that I +1 what Zero0000 said.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3, with possibility for attributed opinion in some cases. As a huge organization (revenue over $100 million) whose very existence is tied to antisemitism, it is strongly to their own advantage to talk up the incidence of antisemitism. This conflict of interest makes it necessary to consider their pronouncements on the subject critically, just as we wouldn't take the pronouncements of an oil company on fossil fuels at face value. Zero^talk 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Seems like a classic #2 per what I wrote here. The subject of antisemitism includes a broad range of ADL's work. As this is separate from the I/P question, we're presumably primarily talking about its work on antisemitism that isn't connected to the I/P conflict. So, for example, this report on exposure to extremism on YouTube from a few years ago. It's a great resource that's been widely cited in academic work/the press. Would it be considered unreliable because it includes antisemitism among its forms of extremism? Is there any reason to doubt that part? It wasn't even written by ADL staff, but by Brendan Nyhan and his colleagues, one of the most respected scholars on extremism on the internet. Still, it's decidedly an ADL publication, hosted on their website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Option 2. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Personal opinions on a source and beliefs that it has an important place in societal debate in a specific context are both unrelated to reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 2. While I'm somewhat more at ease with the ADL's coverage of antisemitism unrelated to Israel–Palestine matters, its misidentification of antisemitism as pertains to organizations and people involved with politics connected to Israel–Palestine is serious enough that it's difficult to still consider the ADL credible on the topic more generally. I quoted from Oxford University Press' Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction a couple times in the above thread to warrant my sense that in particular, the ADL's conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is well out of step from the field. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have amended my contribution to strengthen my preference for Option 3. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. In particular, its view that antizionism is sometimes a type of antisemitism is quite mainstream. For example, in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a Working Definition of Antisemitism, one which subsequently was officially recognized by various legislatures and governments, foremost among them, the United States and France, which endorsed the equation of certain manifestations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

And here are several references to RS which include support the claim that antizionism is antisemitism:

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=BHtrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/29/comment Vegan416 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3Chetsford and Hydrangeans have explained it well.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 also as discussed before, ADL's conflation of antisemitism and antizionism has received widespread criticism, including increasing internal dissent from its own staff. Their figures on antisemitism has been put into question by RS like the Guardian and the Nation. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 generally reliable except when Israel is involved. Entirely unreliable where Israel is involved. Simonm223 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the split above, shouldn’t it be a 1 (or 1 or 2) here, as Israel is treated separately and you consider them GREL with exception to that? FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I voted the same way, and no. 2 is green or yellow with a note. 3 is red with an exception. 1 would be green without qualifications. Loki (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then I would apply the same to you: assuming a clearly divergent result, we would probably split it in two, the same way [[ Wikipedia

  Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] does HuffPost, where clearly different outcomes would be allowed, assuming the words used by @Simonm223 are meant the same way as they are generally used on Wikipedia.

  FortunateSons (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  No. Please don't reinterpret my !votes to be more permissive than I said. It is tedious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies. Would you be willing to clarify which additional considerations you would consider applicable that go beyond the obvious non-inclusion of Israel into your vote? FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  "except when Israel is involved" is an additional consideration. Loki (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the tendency of the ADL to conflate antisemitism with anti-zionism cannot be cleanly separated. Through this they have cast their judgment on the topic of anti-Semitism, in general, in doubt. In fact I will update my !vote due to additional review of the arguments above. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - usable with attribution for antisemitism not relating to Israel; and Option 4 (or option 3 if depreciation is impractical) for antisemitism in the context of Israel Option 3: The ADL has had a long-standing role, especially within the US, in identifying and critiquing patterns of antisemitism within society. Such assessments are rarely without controversy, and, as a particularly pointed advocacy group, the ADL should still be attributed when used as a standalone source (option 2). Where these assessments overlap with the IP conflict, for all the reasons outlined in the proceeding section, the ADL is not to be trusted and should not be used. It has a habit of both giving a free pass to antisemitic tendencies when the individuals involved align with it politically on IP, while also miscategorizing individuals and movements that fail to align with it politically on IP as antisemitic when they are not (including through the problematic conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism). This is pretty unforgivable, and its pronouncements on antisemitism within the context of the conflict (broadly construed, as mentioned by others) should be disregarded as deprecated/unreliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  You can't really both deprecate and not deprecate a source because we have an edit filter that warns when you add links to deprecated sources. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah! Well that would fall under the 'impractical' clause then. Didn't realise the filter kicked in like that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Modifying vote to option 3 as the ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious, mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of antisemitism, but has instead given into the shameless politicisation of the very subject that it was originally esteemed for being reliable on. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 But only if the subject matter doesn't involve Israel in any fashion. I would even say restricting them to just their commentary on known right-wing groups would be best. Silverseren^C 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 pro-zionist lobbying organization that conflates anti-zionism (opposition to a nation with a well-documented history of human rights abuses) with antisemitism (hatred of the Jewish people). Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 ADL itself has now acknowledged that they count pro-Palestinian protests in the US as "antisemitic incidents" - this is an astoundingly dishonest misrepresentation of statistics. Even if a protest features no hostility or hatred towards Jewish people, if it features criticism of the Israeli government, Israeli politicians or the Israeli military, it is an "anti-semitic incident". The ADL is simply, by their own admission, making up these reports. This is nothing other than pure, politically-motivated disinformation. They should never be considered a reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 as regards AS in general, Option 3 for AS in relation to Israel or the AI/IP area. Changing definitions to suit political objectives is classic Weaponization of antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - because it is a pro-Israeli lobbying group that equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism, it is not reliable for the topic of antisemitism. See sources in my vote on the I/P question. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. The specific problem raised by the sources is when Israel, Palestinians, and Zionism come up; it shouldn't be used in that context. But there's not much sourcing questioning its reliability in other contexts and it does have enough WP:USEBYOTHERS to be otherwise reliable, so when discussing antisemitism unrelated to the I/P conflict it remains fine. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for anything that does not involve Israel, Option 3 or 4 otherwise. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for matters unrelated to Israel, option 3 for matters connected to Israel. The ADL is a useful source for attributed opinion on antisemitism unconnected to Israel/Palestine, however it makes inaccurate statements with regards to pro-Palestinian "antisemitism" even taking into account an extreme zionist view of what antisemitism might constitute. Simply speaking, we should not be including their claims in this regard without a very good reason.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 with attribution, as it's widely used by reliable sources. The criticism of ADL (see the links provided by u:Chetsford and u:K.e.coffman) is primarily about their definition of antisemitism [36]. We should not assume that James Bamford's definition of antisemitism is right and the ADL one is wrong. I haven't seen any examples of falsehoods that they published. Alaexis_¿question? 07:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  First, “all definitions of antisemitism are equally (in)valid” is patently not true. ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism. There are Jewish people who oppose zionism and always have been, and I don’t think they’re self-hating Jews either. Secondly, plenty of examples of ADL publishing skewed/distorted information have been provided. So either you didn’t read the discussion very thoroughly or are deliberately ignoring those examples. Dronebogus (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus Your claim that "ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism" is patently not true. In fact the ADL explicitly says here and here that not every criticism of Israel and Zionism is antisemitism. It only considers antizionism as antisemitic when it delegitimizes the existence of Israel as the Jewish manifestation of self-determination (as it goes against the principle of self determination uniquely for Jews only) or if it used well known antisemitic tropes. And in those cases the ADL position definitely matches the Working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which definitely carries more weight than the personal definition of antisemitism used by a certain James Bamford from The Nation, or even the personal opinions of entire editorial board of The Nation. Vegan416 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  From the article: “The IHRA definition has been heavily criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies.” Just because something is popular and politically correct doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other opinions. By that logic the opinion “homosexuality is evil” carries more weight than the scientific consensus that homosexuality is healthy and normal, because millions, possibly billions, of people agree with that statement and enshrine it in law. And no I’m not listening to anything the ADL says about itself because that’s the definition of a primary source, the last thing you’d go to in a controversial situation like this. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. The fact that the IHRA definition has been criticized by some people does not change the fact that it is the dominant definition that was accepted by several democratic legislatures (including USA and France), by most mainstream media (this is after all what this The Nation's article laments about - why the mainstream media follows the ADL opinions on this. so the Nation itself admits that its view is not mainstream) and by many (probably most) academics in the field. At the very least you have to admit that it definitely doesn't carry less weight than the opinion of the writers in The Nation.
  2. The fact that the ADL sources are primary sources does not negate what I said. To say that "ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism", when the ADL says exactly the opposite, is a lie. Even if you don't believe they mean what they say, the fact remains that this is what they said.

  Vegan416 (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  On the “says” issue, I was speaking metaphorically. You’re missing the meat of what I was saying by arguing semantics. Really you’re just avoiding the whole point of this discussion— the ADL’s respectability is widely questioned —by delegitimizing any negative sources and making vague-wave appeals to authorities that are either unreliable and biased themselves (governments and the IHRA) or ephemeral (“most academics”) Dronebogus (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus Although I'm vegan I do not avoid the "meat of the discussion" :-) But what it is? To me it seems that the "meat of the discussion" is that you think that the ADL should be disqualified because they think that antizionism is antisemitism (in certain conditions). Am I wrong? Vegan416 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not just because of that, but because many sources linked from here show their coverage of antisemitism and I/P are unreliable and biased. Dronebogus (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just because something is popular and politically correct doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other opinions. If you're admitting that the IHRA definition is the one accepted by the majority of sources then it's one we should prioritize. You haven't really provided sources here to show that the scholarly consensus on the IHRA definition differs from the majority consensus beyond vague mentions of "academics, including legal scholars". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is noteworthy that the US did not prioritize the IHRA definition above others and so far, neither has the UN. There is a lot of resistance from many quarters to IHRA. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 regarding anti-Semitism in general, and Option 4 regarding anti-Semitism in the context as per Brusquedandelion due to the ADL conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. Nobody seems to provide evidence for ADL being inaccurate in its factual claims relating to antisemitic incidents, so I remain of the view I expressed in the first thread about this: I believe ADL is a reliable source for facts in the topic area where it has expertise, e.g. in reporting on right-wing hate groups or conspiracy theories. The problem is about its judgement in using contentious labels such as "extremist", which are labels WP generally ought to avoid anyway. It is also the case that it is hasty in labelling Israel criticism as antisemitic and fails to distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. For this reason, we should not say "X is antisemitic", citing only ADL. However, as it is heavily cited and notable, it would often be noteworthy for us to say "ADL describe X as antisemitic", balanced with noteworthy opposing views where applicable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I have many, many, many grievances with the quality of the ADL’s coverage in my specific topic area (crime, especially high profile far-right motivated crime). However, deprecation is stupid, and generally unreliable is too much, so option 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  As you've voted "additional considerations apply", could you be more specific about your issues? Which additional considerations do you think should apply? Loki (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  The ADL is widely used onwiki to a degree that is disproportionate in articles on hate groups/crimes etc, which is worse because there are almost always better sources around. Their problems in this field go beyond bad research on hate symbols. Also as said before they conflate pro-Palestine activity with things like neo-Nazism in their classification of antisemitism - which is misleading.

  I think they should be okay to be used when it's considered appropriate to add that the ADL considers them a hate group but there should be additional considerations regarding including their fact-based work. My opinion generally is they aren't "generally unreliable" at all but that they are far from "generally reliable". Awkward middle ground where I think they're usable in some circumstances. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally Reliable. A reliable source is NOT required to be neutral according to WP:BIASED - and obviously, this org is opinionated, however, ADL, and particularly its scholarly research arm, ADL Center for Antisemitism Research (CAR) is a respectable organization with a peer-review process and upholding academic best practices. Marokwitz (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). When this source conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism, evidence by Levivich (previous discussion), Aquillion (previous discussion) and Brusquedandelion, it should not be considered a reliable source on antisemitism. starship.paint (RUN) 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Chetsford, Levivich and others who have demonstrated that it's an unreliable source on antisemitism. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per others above and the fact that their definition of anti-semitism is widely accepted by both reliable sources and aligns with other relevant organizations/authorities. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 unless we develop a special method for covering the prior definition of antisemitism (roughly, against Jews) versus the one currently held by some institutions (roughly, against Jews or Israel) with clarity. Certainly, we do not try to conflate then 1820 definition of the term "gay" with its 2020 usage, and would offer clarifying text wherever there might be confusion. To suggest that it is a mere clarification is wrong. Even before the existence of the state of Israel, large portions of religious Jewery resisted the effort because the religious conditions for that nation to arise had not yet been met. We should no more hold that what one set of Jews feel is important to Judaism is right and another wrong than we should hold that one set of Christians are the true Christians. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nat, what does this have to do with this specific source’s reliability? The implication of what you’re saying is that any source that uses any definition of antisemitism is generally unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  If I say "I describe someone as Canadian if they are from Canada or if they have red hair", then I am not a reliable source on identifying Canadians, for there are certainly Canadians with red hair, but that doesn't make it appropriate identification. The same goes for "I describe someone as antisemitic if they are against Jews or are against the state of Israel." ADL may be a reliable source for identifying ADL-branded Antisemitism-2.0 (for whatever good that does us), but they are not a reliable source on actual antisemitism as the term has been traditionally used. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Highly reliable on this specific subject matter, and per BilledMammal, the evidence to contest their notability in this area simply doesn't exist - while many, many sources treat them as authoritative, to the contrary. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The ADL has a long track record for tracking antisemitism and, bias notwithstanding, its factual record is excellent as observed above. Criticism has tended to be partisan and politically motivated. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 with regard to Israel, Option 1 otherwise per my above vote. Like I said, I can't exactly trust them on I/P-related matters, but I've seen no indication of unreliability regarding antisemitism originating from other areas. The Kip 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per My very best wishes and Vegan416. No evidence that it is making false claims, and it's widely used by other reliable sources. GretLomborg (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 on antisemitism not in I-P context: OK to use with attribution. ADL is not reliable to use or antisemitism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their statement that "There is no argument anymore that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, that is as plain as day" is quite concerning. Thus I'd say Option 3 on antisemitism in the I-P context Even so, ADL remain a reliable source for their opinions on antisemitism in the I-P conflict, wherever such opinions are WP:DUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for any ADL views on the I/P conflict and on campus antisemitism. Hillel which has an intimate capillary knowledge of and familiarity with Jewish students on over 800 campuses has just failed the ADL's report giving it an F-grade.(Andrew Lapin, ADL’s new ‘report card’ for campus antisemitism gets an F from Hillel and some Jewish students The Forward 12 April 2024. Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  When you read the Forward article beyond the title you see that those Hillel people don't disagree with ADL regarding the rise in campus antisemitism. They just wish to emphasize that Jewish life continue to thrive on the campuses despite the rise in antisemitism, and they think ADL should have factored this into the "grade" it gave different campuses. So this isn't really relevant to the reliability ADL assessment of the rise in antisemitism per se. Vegan416 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 it seems to smear every critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. Huldra (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 ADL correctly points out some genuine cases of antisemitism, like whatever Kanye was talking about last year, but generally speaking it just uses it as a word to silence Palestinians. I'm leaning towards deprecate, but it could occasionally be used when all other sources fail. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2 for antisemitism that has no connection to I/P (option 3 for anything connected to I/P), per Loki and Rhododendrites (and particularly echoing Rhododendrites's point that the setup of this RFC, where I/P is a separate section, suggests this section is indeed only about antisemitism unrelated to I/P). As others discussed in the preceding section, they're not reliable on I/P issues, and because they often regard disagreement with Israeli policies as antisemitic, I'm not sure setting a different "number" for their coverage of antisemitism vs I/P is workable, because they present (unreliable) I/P reporting as reporting on antisemitism: probably it's best to say option 3, which is—after all—only "generally" unreliable, and let case-by-case discussions evaluate instances where they're actually reporting on antisemitism. (I use "reporting" loosely here, understanding that they're not a news organization filing news reports, but an advocacy group.) -sche (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 they are broadly cited by almost any organisation, and are often considered the baseline for any claims about or regarding antisemitism, considered equivalent to a newspaper of record when it comes to tracking and reporting antisemitism and related conduct. No significant issue regarding their factual reporting has been shown, and all opinions should (as always) be attributed. On the topic of antisemitism, they are rightly considered one of the prototypical case of a civil rights group which can be cited for facts, and neither their reporting nor any conduct seems to have disqualified them from „generally reliable.“ FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  On a more general notes, there seem to be a few de-facto duplicate votes that ignore the (in my opinion, prudent) distinction between the subject areas, which is unfortunate. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  In the spirit of thinking the best of all editors, including any who posted such duplicate votes, to use your words, I would suppose that they consider the ADL's coverage of the topics sufficiently interrelated that similar reasons and similar assessments of reliability apply to all three. While I also think it was prudent to make separate surveys for each topic area, I can see how an editor might arrive at thinking they are interrelated to such an extent. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can understand how they have reached such as assessment, and you’re right about AGF, thank you. That being said, I would consider such a vote to not be best practice even with a degree of good will far beyond AGF. As you have given me an opportunity to clarify, I would add the following: this sentiment applies to a significantly lower degree to all whose arguments in vote 1 were unrelated to I/P or Jewish self-determination (construed broadly), but to the inherent nature of the organisation. This category, by my reading of the votes and arguments, seems to be the smaller group, but I could be wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Vegan416, Alaexis, and others. They are highly reliable, broadly cited, and have an excellent factual record on this subject area. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4, particularly when related to Israel or Zionism. Maybe an exception can be made to categorize it as option 2 when wholly unrelated to Israel or Zionism. The ADL's partisan stance on the war and its conflating of opposition to Israel with antisemitism, something that's caused quite a stir within the ADL with a number of high-profile resignations in protest of the direction their leader is taking the organization. They're not simply an objective academic watchdog organization, they are an activist organization and that includes explicitly pro-Israel activism. As others have mentioned, the organization now counts all protests supportive of Palestine as "antisemitic incidents."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  The last sentence is simply false. Here they explain what their criteria are. Only protests with certain slogans like “by all means necessary” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” were considered antisemitic. *You* may not consider them antisemitic but a lot of Jewish people do and so using such criteria is not an example of the lack of reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  All pro-Palestinian protests feature "from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free." Levivich (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, the logic here appears to be: "the ADL is right because a lot of Jewish people agree with it" – a rather peculiar bar for reliability that, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Only Palestinian protests where anti-Zionist slogans are used" is all Palestinian protests. Again, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is at the heart of why the ADL is disreputable on this issue. "A lot of Jewish people" is not a source. A lot of Jewish people I know think the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is itself extremely antisemitic as this carries with it the implication that Jewish people who oppose Israel are not "good Jews" or that they are "self-hating", an accusation they're frequently on the receiving end of. I share their view. But my anecdotal reference to unspecified members of a group who feel a certain way is no more an indicator of reliability or lack thereof than yours.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  The use of the IHRA definition with all of it’s examples, is disputed but clearly not fringe (as it is adopted by governments and many organisations). Assuming that what you criticise does not go beyond IHRA, it can definitely be valid criticism, but it’s also clearly not impactful when it comes to reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  I believe that it has been pointed out before that the already controversial IHRA appendix does not expressly make the conflation. It is merely sufficiently broad and ambiguous that it can be one interpretation. The ADL goes well beyond the IHRA appendix into full, open and unashamed conflation. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  This 2 examples of antisemitism appear explicitly in the appendix to IHRA:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it [i.e. Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

  Vegan416 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  So the first is incredibly ambiguous. What does it even mean? How can a state be racist? People, laws, ideologies and institutions can be racist, but a state is an inanimate abstract construct. People might label a state as racist rhetorically, but actually they mean one of these other things. And what has that got to do with self-determination? The labels above have little to nothing to do with self-determination except as a very convoluted corollary. As for the double standard malarkey, that has simply grown great wings of irony in the most recent conflict where the only apparent double standard is that Israel is held to almost no international legal standard by the international community. Are Western nations then antisemitic by inference by treating Israel with a preferential double standard? You can see why people call the definition unworkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  The IHRA is not fringe, but it is very much controversial. If an organization was relying on the IHRA to categorize antisemitic incidents, we would have to attribute it any time they did that. However, the ADL's definition of antisemitism, as already mentioned, goes beyond simply saying that certain kinds of especially harsh criticism of Israel are antisemitic, and into saying that essentially all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Loki (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  That can be the case, but the issues disputed here are most likely covered even just by the IHRA. We should attribute statements where appropriate anyway, but the IHRA definition is (likely) the most common one, and there is no reason to attribute it more than any of the other ones. FortunateSons (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, in general (as in: with exceptions), the ADL makes a destination between criticism of specific government actions/ policies and the more extreme versions of antizionism in the literal sense (advocating for or justifying violence against Israelis, denying the right of Israel to exist, denying Jewish people the right to self-determination). While you can argue where the line between those is, as has happened with the second slogan and the relevant legal debate in Germany, saying that there isn’t a lot of the latter at many of the rallies would have to be substantiated rather well. FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat myself, the IHRA is very much controversial. A definition of antisemitism based on it makes that organization's pronouncements regarding antisemitism similarly controversial.

  If a major paper said that the economy was going to crash based solely on the predictions of monetarism, it doesn't matter that monetarism is not fringe within economics for that pronouncement to be not reliable as a source for whether the economy is going to crash. Loki (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s would be true in you example, but a more accurate metaphor would be an economics paper based only on a liberal capitalist framework. While there is definitely criticism of liberal capitalism, it’s also the prevailing interpretation by (western) governments and organisations, similarly to IHRA. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  We also must recognize that ADL uses terms like "zionism", "denying Israel the right to exist", and "denying Jewish people the right to self-determination" in a fringe way. Everyone would agree that it would be antisemitic to call for the forcible expulsion of the Israeli people to bring about the destruction of Israel. But the ADL goes a step further by arguing that it would be "denying Israel the right to exist" or "denying the Jewish people the right of self-determination" to give the Palestinian people in the occupied territories the right to vote. The ADL argues that it denies Israel the right to exist, and is therefore by its definitions antisemitic, to support the establishment of a single democratic nation where all its inhabitants have equal rights and the ability to express themselves through democratic processes. That is stretching the limits of terms like "the right to exist" to argue that it is antisemitic to not prefer that Israel take the form of an ethnostate. That is not a workable definition. That's arguing that advocating for change is advocating for the destruction of Israel. Such a definition is not inherently implied by terms like "the right to exist." The IHRA definition has much more flexibility and can be interpreted in more than one way. While both definitions mention the right of self determination and the right for Israel to exist, only the ADL goes the extra mile by defining those terms to mean a very narrow interpretation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, wow. By the arguments the ADL makes on that page former president of Israel from the Likud party Reuven Rivlin would be antisemitic. That's wild. Loki (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am afraid you completely misunderstand Rivlin's views. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rivlin-proposes-israeli-palestinian-confederation/ Vegan416 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's a relatively recent change and he's been on record multiple times before as supporting a single bi-national state, as is documented extensively in his article. Loki (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  But you kind of missed that in his opinion this state will have only one army - the IDF. The Palestinians won't have an army. Vegan416 (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanilla Wizard, could you cite where they say that such views are antisemitic, and not just wrong? They seem to describe them as unpractical or incompatible with the founding purpose of Israel, but that is pretty close to general consensus. They are also very critical of those advocating for greater Israel with no voting right for Palestinians, so it seems to be a biased but generally accurate and non-fringe view.

  While I don’t fully subscribe to the arguments myself, arguing that a one-state solution could be incompatible with IHRA (unless agreed to voluntarily by Jewish people) is at least not implausible:

  1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

  It is rather hard to avoid both when arguing for a one-state solution without majority support from Israelis.

  Now, in the cited article, the ADL does not do that (but it’s possible they do elsewhere, where I would personally consider it wrong but non-fringe.) Instead, they make other moral and practical arguments, which are rather commonly made - there is a reason why a one-state solution is a somewhat niche view among both sides. FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  For starters, in the article I linked to the ADL argues that proponents of a single-state solution are often nefarious actors dishonestly using advocacy for a democratic multinational state as a cover for their supposed real goal of destroying Israel.

  From the ADL:

  "While couching their arguments in terms of egalitarianism and justice, proponents of a bi-national state are predominantly harsh critics of Israel, and use this proposal as a vehicle to further their advocacy against an independent Jewish state."

  "the notion that Palestinians and Jews, who can’t even negotiate a two-state solution, could coexist in one happy state is so ludicrous that only the naive or the malicious would fall for it."

  This page does not use the term antisemitic directly, but based on the ADL's definitions of antisemitism and zionism, its description of advocates for a democratic binational state as "malicious" actors who oppose "an independent Jewish state" and "couch their arguments in egalitarianism and justice" to further their goal of a world without Israel very clearly shows that the ADL considers such advocates to be antisemites. If an antisemite is someone who does not want Israel to exist in its current form as a state consisting of, by, and for one ethnoreligious group, then someone who wants everyone in its claimed borders to have equal rights would be an antisemite. The fact that this ADL article goes at great lengths to describe proponents of such a solution as anti-Israel bad faith actors only furthers that this is their position. So yes, the ADL absolutely does do that.

  I can see how one could interpret this as meeting the "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor", but I also think that's far from the only way to interpret it. I'd like to quote an excerpt from Michael Tarazi's 2004 New York Times op-ed to test against the definitions we're discussing.

  Example argument:

  "it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders" [...] [the binational solution] neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing.

  I believe that under the IHRA definition, you could say that Tarazi's argument is simply egalitarian and far from antisemitic. This example argument does not call for the destruction of Israel, rather it argues that Israel is already de facto the one state, and therefore those who live under that state should all enjoy the same rights. By my reading of the IHRA definition, that's totally okay. But the ADL would strongly disagree.

  Now just to be clear, I'm not discussing the actual merits of any solution, that'd be way beyond the topic of the discussion. The point I'm making here is that the IHRA definition and the ADL definition are not one and the same. Under the IHRA definition, one could reasonably interpret it as allowing for a democratic Israel-Palestine to exist, while the ADL's definitions obviously define proponents of such a solution as antisemites. These are incompatible definitions. The IHRA definition is already contentious and should be attributed when used, the ADL's shouldn't be used period.

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate you taking the time, but you can’t synth your way into assuming that they would have taken the position if they haven’t. The ADL publishes significant amounts of material, if it is rarely or never said to be always antisemitic, that is likely not coincidental.

  The rest are common criticisms of the one-state-solution (OSS), where you can definitely argue their validity, but which are clearly non-fringe. My reading is that they clarify this so far specifically because not all advocates of a OSS are antisemitic, but neither of our readings is provable or of relevance.

  Regarding your quote, I would say both readings could be plausible (read: non-fringe). Having said that, the solution would end Israel as we know it and definitely destroy parts of it’s founding purpose, so it is clearly a highly controversial statement, even if I see no proof of it being pre se antisemitic. FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and giving thoughtful responses in a civil tone, even if we disagree. I can understand how my argument there would come off as too SYNTHY after rereading it, though I still don't agree that it is for the purpose of this discussion. In the quotes I provided, the ADL still characterizes proponents of the OSS as bad faith actors cloaking their secret real goal of a world with no Jewish state - that alone tells me that the ADL's stance on the OSS goes much too far to be comparable to the IHRA definition, so I don't think it's that SYNTHy for the purpose of this discussion to conclude that in the quotes provided, the ADL already all but called proponents of the OSS antisemites, especially when the things they accuse OSS advocates of being (malicious actors who really just oppose the existence of a Jewish state) are exactly what the ADL itself defines as being antisemitic.

Now, if the question at hand were "should we write in Wikivoice in a mainspace article that the ADL calls OSS proponents antisemites?", the answer would be no, of course not, that would in fact be synthesis. But that is, of course, not the discussion we're having. We are simply looking at the ADL way of defining antisemitism versus the IHRA way of defining antisemitism, specifically as it relates to positions on Israel and Zionism. The whole "is the one state solution considered antisemitic?" side tangent started with the question of "how do terms like 'the destruction of Israel' / 'Israel's right to exist' / 'Right of self-determination of the Jewish people' get defined?" as it's one thing for two definitions to include those terms in definitions of antisemitism, but it's another thing for them to have the same definitions for those terms. The IHRA uses such language in its defining examples of antisemitism, but those terms are themselves in need of defining and the IHRA just leaves it open to interpretation. The ADL's statements on the OSS articulate what the ADL would consider to be an example of denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and according to them, Israelis and Arabs having equal rights in the same borders would be such an example. I think that alone demonstrates the broader point that the ADL definition and the IHRA definition are not one and the same.

I think you'll agree that by now we've sufficiently beat this horse and I have nothing new to say that isn't just the same points rephrased, so I don't intend to add any further comments beyond this one. I only decided to write this reply because I think you made some interesting points that I wanted to respond to. If nothing else, I hope what I said made sense and wasn't just a bunch of incoherent ramblings. Thanks again for being one of the more level-headed editors I've disagreed with in this otherwise heated discussion. Have a good one,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, I also greatly appreciate us having a polite and productive discussion despite our disagreement. :)

I agree that the ADL characterises some opponents of the OSS as bad faith actors (IMO accurately), and I think we can both agree that it’s quite clear that they don’t say (and don’t indisputably mean) all are antisemitic. That isn’t undoubtedly (but is plausibly) in line with the IHRA definition, but even if it weren’t, that style of opposition to the OSS is (no matter what we think of it) clearly non-fringe, at least as far as relevant Jewish and Israeli circles go (and the relevant scientific communities, making it at worst a question of bias). I think we could both write full-length articles on this topic, but as we agree on most verifiable things and disagree on things which are a matter of interpretation, I agree we should leave the poor horse alone, it has been through enough. (In the literal sense, I don’t think either of us is being disruptive)

Regarding it being a (hypothetical) fringe view if they called all proponents of the OSS antisemitic, I would probably say it’s “non-fringe but stupid”, but if being stupid in my personal opinion was a criteria for a reduction of reliability, we would run out of sources quite quickly.

Having said that, I wanted to again express my gratitude for the thought-out and civil discourse, and cordially invite you to continue this tangent on either of our talk pages should you at some point be interested in having this discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 (with 2 consideration). I refer to my first comment in the top section as my general commentary on all items. It seems that there has been some debate as to the ADL's take on matters relating to anti-zionism and anti-semitism. However, that is obviously a matter of serious debate, as well as a plain matter of opinion, and should reasonably fall under the additional considerations already applied in the ADL's perennial sources listings. Echoing my previous sentiment, the only links to RS with issues with The ADL I see in this discussion are The Guardian and The New Republic, which each have opinion considerations in their listings, and dedicated editorial slants toward Israel-Palestine matters. I would need to see a strong consensus from RS publications citing ADL publications and data before giving priority to the majority of sources cited here. Mistamystery (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. The nature of the subject is such that the ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict. having said that, the ADL is a prominent US advocacy group, whose attributed opinions have considerable weight and will often be included as such, but as a source to be rendered in WPVOICE, they should not generally be used. I find the question somwhat bizarre for several reasons. There is always a subjective element to whether any words or any action are anti-semetic (racist, mysogynistic etc) since making the assessment has to do both with assessing impact and motive and ADL exists primarily to highlight anti-semetism and increasingly as an advocate for Israel and its actions, so what neutrality should we even expect from them? They don't exist primarily to report, so their words and deeds have to be seen in that context. Is any advocacy group ultimately a RS for anything other than the positions they advocate for? Pincrete (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per K.E Coffman and whatever it was or has been, it is at present an actor working for a side in war (see also the Guardian article). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 The ADL has fallen in with the Israeli propaganda line that claims that opponents of its war on Gaza, in which they've committed massive war crimes, are antisemitic (Netanyahu recently called U.S. student protestors an "antisemitic mob"). This is an ugly slur against the vast majority of protestors, who are motivated by a belief in human rights and are not antisemites. At this point I don't think ADL is reliable for other allegations of antisemitism in the U.S., even when they're not directly related to the Israeli-Gaza war, because the war gives the ADL a reason to want to greatly exaggerate the current extent of antisemitism in the country. NightHeron (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  @NightHeron

  Do you have a source where ADL describes the opponents of Israeli war in Gaza (or any Israeli government policy) as anti-semitic?

  "The ADL has fallen in with the Israeli propaganda line that claims that opponents of its war on Gaza, in which they've committed massive war crimes, are antisemitic"

  If you can bring proof that ADL equates criticism of Israeli government with anti-semitism, that would discredit this organization in public. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  See [37]: On January 9, for example, a few weeks after a large pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York City, [ADL CEO Johnathan] Greenblatt released a report listing over 3,000 antisemitic incidents committed in the three months since the war in Gaza began. “U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel,” warned the ADL press release. “The American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now unprecedented in modern history,” said Greenblatt. “It’s shocking.” As expected, the ADL report drew media coverage around the country.... But much of the report was hype. Rather than attacks against Jews due to their religious or ethnic identity, many of the cited “incidents” were actions directed against Israel to protest the conduct of its war in Gaza—incidents the ADL would later admit made up nearly half of the total. “Overall, a large share of the incidents appear to be expressions of hostility toward Israel, rather than the traditional forms of antisemitism that the organization [ADL] had focused on in previous years,” noted Arno Rosenfeld in The Forward. Many of the incidents were simply protests by civil rights organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine. NightHeron (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  They are very clear that they consider all anti-Zionism and some "harsh criticism of Israel" to be anti-semitic. Loki (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure you are reading this correctly? Because to me, they are rather clear that some is and some isn’t. FortunateSons (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  They definitely aren't saying that all criticism of Israel period is antisemitic (because that would be absolutely absurd and get them rightly laughed at) but they do think that all opposition to Zionism is antisemitic. Direct quote: certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism. Loki (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  And that sounds pretty close to a best-practice-definition of IHRA (or 3D, if we are at that point), so clearly non-fringe. There is a difference between disagreement and vilification. FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, IHRA "definition" is one paragraph that no-one would disagree with, the trouble starts with all the so-called "examples" (3D is another version of the examples). Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The examples are generally considered part of the definition in the informal uses (and often in the formal use), and clearly necessary based on the long and fruitless discussions about in regards to what is within or outside the scope above and below.

  You are free to disagree with them (and 3D), or to prefer another definition, but IHRA is socially mainstream, despite some criticism it received. FortunateSons (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The WP article gives the definition in the first para of the lead, it is one para. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but that is often not the relevant part when it comes to application FortunateSons (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Bring quotations from ADL where it explicitly equates anti-zionism or criticism of Israeli government (or any of its policies) with anti-semitism. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  In order to deprecate a source because it routinely acts as a propaganda arm of a certain government (as was recently done for RyTMarti), we don't need to have an explicit quote from that source admitting that their aim is to discredit opponents or adversaries of that government. NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer to see what policy basis there is to disqualify a source because it publishes biased but not inaccurate content (I note that taking a mainstream but controversial position on the definition of antisemitism doesn't make a source inaccurate). As far as I know, there is none, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources tells us that bias isn't a reason to disqualify them.

  Also, what is RyTMarti? BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  From an academic position, the ADL's position is fringe, not mainstream - much as religious adherents, despite their numbers, do not define the mainstream; scholars do. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  we're going around in circles now, but there are plenty of examples of scholars, including very respected ones, treating the ADL as reliable, including those given in the Discussion sub-section below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Shadowwarrior8: This has been covered before, in several discussions. Greenblatt even told staffers that if they didn't agree with the conflation, the ADL wasn't the place for them. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Let’s make this very clear: anti-Zionism is antisemitism." That's a quote from the head of the ADL, speaking as the head of the ADL, posted on the ADL's own site and released as a press release. I reckon that counts as equating anti-zionism with antisemitism. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  How things change. That hat tips Hillel, but Hillel has since gone rather sour on the ADL in kind, ironically for this very “massive oversimplification” of antisemitism on campuses. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 highly preferred, will accept Option 2. ADL by definition is a campaign organisation, and thus cannot be sourced for objective facts. If the information sought falls close to their campaign themes, their bias becomes extreme. Conseqeuntly, in my view ADL should not be used as a source for any information related to antisemtism other than what's allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  so your position is that no campaign organisation should be treated as a reliable source on the topics on which it campaigns? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per the above responses from users Iskandar323, NightHeron and NatGertler. ADL is an extremely partisan ethno-religious organization which advances the notion that anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism. In its article on "Anti-zionism", ADL explicitly describes anti-zionism as a form of anti-semitism:

"Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states."

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt adamantly claimed in March 6 2024:

"Let’s make this very clear: anti-Zionism is antisemitism."

(source: https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-ceo-jonathan-greenblatt-delivers-2024-state-hate-never-now)

ADL censors its own staff-members who oppose the conflation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism:

"In response to the dissent, Greenblatt said that if staffers disagreed with his position that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, “then maybe this isn’t the place for you.”"

(Source: "Top Executive Leaves ADL Over CEO’s Praise of Elon Musk", "Jewish Currents" magazine, 3 January 2024)

ADL's main agenda is to target pro-Palestinian activists, in tacit collaboration with the anti-semites of America, in favour of Israel:

"According to the first former ADL staffer, Greenblatt is “waging war on pro-Palestinian activists, and if a rabid antisemite like Elon Musk is willing to try to ban [their slogans], Jonathan is willing to tolerate that.”"

(Source: "Top Executive Leaves ADL Over CEO’s Praise of Elon Musk", "Jewish Currents" magazine, 3 January 2024)

ADL's main targets are human rights organizations and civilian activists. It falsely inflates the number of anti-semitic incidents in USA, by labelling the activities of these groups as "anti-semitic", while ignoring the crimes of far-right extremists. (Source: "The Anti-Defamation League: Israel’s Attack Dog in the US", "The Nation" magazine, 31 January 2024)

According to Greenblatt, it is even "anti-semitic" to say "Free Palestine":

"“Saying ‘free Palestine’ to a Jewish person out of context is antisemitism, plain and simple,” responded Greenblatt."

(source: "ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt says it’s antisemitic when people tweet ‘Free Palestine’ at him", "Mondoweiss", 27 June 2023)

Articles of ADL are full of praise for Benjamin Netanyahu, who is also a shameless holocaust revisionist. On the other hand, ADL published a smear piece against Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein in 2005, accusing him of fomenting "anti-semitism" due to his criticism of Zionism.

It is clear that ADL is a discredited hyper-partisan zionist lobby group that smears and abuses individuals, activists and academics across the world who criticize Israeli government and its policies. American magazine "Jewish Currents" published an article 2022, which vehemently denounced ADL for "spreading misleading information about contemporary antisemitism." (source: "The Unbearable Ignorance of the ADL", "Jewish Currents" magazine, 8 December 2022)

So, in my opinion, ADL is not a reliable source and it should not be cited in wikipedia at all on any issue related to anti-semitism. If other editors can demonstrate that this website advances conspiracy theories in the flavour of organizations like "Infowars", "Breitbart News", etc. I'd support the deprecation of this site in its entirety. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to defend Greenblatt generally, but he didn't say "Free Palestine" was antisemitic, he said that saying it to a Jewish person out of context was antisemitic.

In context, it certainly wasn't out-of-context, since he was talking about people tweeting it at him specifically, and he's the head of a major Zionist organization. But it's not an absurd claim in the abstract, since it's seemingly conflating random Jewish people with the Israeli state. Loki (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not the case that the ADL articles are "full of praise" for Netanyahu. It seems that there is no mention of him on their site since 2018 and the most recent piece resembling praise is from 2016.[38] But all of this demonstrates that the ADL is biased and has an overly expansive definition of antisemitism, not that it misuses facts such that it "should not be cited in wikipedia at all on any issue related to anti-semitism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources which are considered "Generally Unreliable" by wikipedia, can possibly be cited by editors in limited situations with attribution. My view is that ADL is not a credible source and I recommend editors to not cite this low quality source on issues related to anti-semitism. It isn't just biased, but it's also overtly propagandistic. ADL engages in public libel against individuals and academics through it's false allegations. Let's not forget that ADL is a core component of the cluster of organizations that form the Israeli lobby in the United States.

Readers can be informed of anti-semitism and it's history through several other sources. ADL's Americanized narratives are unhelpful and full of misinformation. For example, I dont think ADL cares about giving an accurate documentation of pre-WW2 Euro-American anti-semitism. They are focused just on blindly defending zionism, and misinforming their pro-Israeli audience with revisionist history. There are several civil society groups that document anti-semitism in an academic manner. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is the best argument I’ve read in this discussion. People who are voting 1 in this RfC are missing the point that it’s not the fact that the ADL is popular or considered reputable by so-and-so, it’s the fact that it’s not an academic or impartial source. Dronebogus (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4, an advocacy source that has long since ceased bothering to maintain even the barest patina of objectivity; conflating separate concepts, lying, and misdirection have become their norm. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 after having read the above, and particularly swayed by users Chetsford, Hydrangeans, and Levivich, the ADL has sadly lost their way on being an encyclopedic RS for this topic area. Ultimately, at a commonsense level, when I see how extreme they have become on the Palestinian issue (above), it is not surprising. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, an advocacy organization should have a fairly spotless and uncontroversial record to qualify as a source on its own. As has been demonstrated above, ADL doesn't really qualify. Also, I don't really see special qualifications in style "unreliable when related to Israel" usable. Whether their standards of reporting antisemitism are reputable is very much a "yes or no" question, "sometimes" simply means "no".--Staberinde (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 morphing defnitions to serve an aganeda is clarly unrealiable—blindlynx 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Seems reliable for antisemitism definitions if its not about Israel/Palestine. Anything Israel-Palestine adjacent, ADL has problematic issues User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Part 3: hate symbol database

What is the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League's database of hate symbols?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey (ADL:hate symbols)

• Option 2. The ADL's database of hate symbols is generally reliable but only for the narrow use case of identifying if a symbol is used by hate groups. Other background information on symbols in the database is not reliable because the ADL does not correct the background information in its entries even when clear factual errors are pointed out to it. Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/Option 2. Reliable for whether something is a hate symbol, additional considerations apply for the historical background of the hate symbol - generally, we should prefer sources focused on the historical background. BilledMammal (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 in the way described by Loki. RS source the database for basic facts (e.g. [39], [40], [41], etc.), therefore, we must accept the database as a reliable source for basic facts. Chetsford (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 in the sense that when we say e.g. Amnesty International is generally reliable, we're not necessarily saying it's reliable for some biomedical claim it makes in the course of its advocacy. Likewise the ADL is an authority on extremism, hate speech, etc. This list is not an ideal source for, say, the ancient history of a symbol before it was adopted by some extremist group, but can be used for the fact that it's been adopted by that extremist group (and how that group uses it). I.e. reliable for its area of expertise, which is the primary value of the hate symbols projects. In other words, what I said here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable. As per Rhododendrites. Vegan416 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 at the end of the day ADL is a primary source with many controversies, any hate symbols data should be at least verified by secondary RS reporting on the matter. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's a primary source for a claim such as "The ADL considers x a hate symbol". It's a secondary (or tertiary if using other secondary sources) source for any claims we might make about the symbol itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 3 A year ago I would have said Option 1 here but the poor standards of judgment the ADL has shown regarding Israeli violence in Palestine has weakened its reputation across the board. Attribution and avoidance of wiki-voice is required. Even for this. Simonm223 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Revising my !vote based on further discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 within the area of specialty, Option 2 otherwise: the identification is generally without major issues and used by others, but the criticism regarding background errors and comparable issues was not adequately addressed, as per Rhododendrites. FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: The ADL has some clear inaccuracy on the fine detail of hate symbols – not least on their origins and symbology – but appears to be relied on as a source for the basic identification of symbols that have been used/misused by hate groups. For information on the symbols themselves, it should not be a source of first choice, with it seemingly conducting flawed primary research then presented in a database without any details on authorship or the referenced sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Modifying vote based on subsequent discussion. There appears to be far more weighing in against usage for this purpose than for it – to the extent that one does indeed have to ask the question of why use it as at all? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Because of the issues with some of their commentary on certain symbols being inaccurate, as noted in the previous discussion. The more specific in detail and history they get, the more likely they are to introduce errors. So usage of their hate symbol database should be careful and, preferably, backed up by an additional separate source. Silverseren^C 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 the database can be used to identify something as a hate symbol. It should not be used for information on the symbol’s history or deeper meaning. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Attribution seems best, since asserting that something is a hate symbol is different to stipulating the use of it by some persons or a group.Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Given the discussion above, it is clear ADL does not have a reputation for honesty and integrity. The organisation's CEO has effectively identified Jewish Voice for Peace as an antisemitic hate group. I simply can't see how they can be trusted. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Tbh I don't really care about this one, I find this issue to be rather silly. I mean, a symbol is a symbol, and it's trivially easy to identify or source when a hate group uses a particular symbol. It's WP:BLUESKY obvious that, for example, the crucifix is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol, e.g. when the KKK burns one on a Black person's front lawn. I don't need the ADL to tell me that. I don't need the ADL to tell me that the swastika is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol by, e.g., the Nazis and neo-Nazi groups. "Sometimes used as a hate speech symbol according to the ADL" is a stupid statement, IMO, because that's probably true for a huge amount of symbols, it doesn't really say anything. As has been pointed out, many numbers are used as hate speech symbols by hate groups. So what? More useful would be something like, "The KKK uses the crucifix" or "The crucifix has been appropriated as a symbol by some hate groups such as the KKK," but again, don't really need the ADL for that, as the sources about the hate group will make that point. The ADL's database is a convenient database for collecting and searching for symbols used in hate speech, but I'm not sure it's a very useful RS for Wikipedia for this, because there will be better RS available for notable hate groups. Because of ADL's unreliability with regard to Israel and antisemitism, and because it's a lobbying and advocacy group, I think "option 2" is the appropriate option for content outside of I/P or antisemitism, including what it has to say about symbols being used as hate speech (that don't involve Israel or antisemitism; for those, option 3 per my votes above). Levivich (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think this issue matters more than you think it does, because "notable hate group" is a much much broader category than "hate group everyone has heard of". The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols? The Order of Nine Angles is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols without clicking on that link? Loki (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  What I mean is I can identify their symbols without needing the ADL; I can use sources about Aryan Brotherhood or about Nine Angles in order to identify their WP:MAJORASPECT symbols. ADL's Hate on Display database isn't a WP:BESTSOURCE for this. I think it's a tertiary source that compiles secondary sources. The articles don't cite their sources, or even describe their sources. They don't list authors or a journalistic policy. It's neither scholarship nor journalism. It's not even as reliable as an encyclopedia like Britannica or, well, Wikipedia (which at least in theory cites sources). It's basically an unattributed group blog. Arguably WP:EXPERTSPS if it can be shown that, today, ADL is considered an expert on hate speech (that might be a case that could be made). On consideration, I could be persuaded that it's EXPERTSPS on hate speech and hate symbols (so option 1) if someone were to post some recent scholarship citing it as an expert on these topics. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Some usability as a database of basic facts, where it sees significant WP:USEBYOTHERS and is quoted authoritatively (and where relatively few high-quality sources have cast doubt on it), but as an advocacy org it should generally be attributed anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or option 4. As the individual who first brought this up, I'm surprised that some editors seem eager to look beyond the foundational errors and lack of attribution or editorial oversight from the ADL to give them some kind of honorary pass here: As someone with an actual background in this material, it's painfully obvious that the ADL has no idea what they're talking about, are absolutely not authorities on this matter (despite presenting themselves as such), and are not by any means a reliable source on this topic. They're not even trying. For example, the Wolfsangel as an "ancient runic symbol"? What? And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere may have used it somewhere at sometime, to where even "100%" is listed as a "hate symbol"? Alert your local grocery store. Meanwhile, the ADL does not have its finger on the pulse of the topic enough to even provide an entry for the now popular "Black Sun", an actual "hate symbol". It's hard to imagine any organization with the ADL's funding and a podium cobbling together a factually worse and more useless "hate symbol database". Again, and this is important to stress: who wrote this? Where and what are their sources? When, where, who? We get none of that. Does the author have any background whatsoever in identifying these topics and their history? The answer seems obvious to me. On Wikipedia, it's easy to instead use peer-reviewed sources from actual experts, where people actually have the slighest clue about what they're talking about and where we can—imagine this—identify authorship and sources. This is just F-grade garbage and simply unacceptable. We should absolutely not be 'just accepting' the ADL's word for these important topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree the information on symbology is murky at best, and should never be the first choice of source on such things anyway ... but the main purpose of the database appears to be to attribute the use of certain symbols to certain groups. For such cases, What's the problem with attributing such an association to the ADL? It's not clear that they're generally unreliable on the basic identification of hate group use cases. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the ADL is even reliable for this anymore. They can't get even the most fundamental facts straight and we have no idea who is making these entries, there's zero chronology, and basically just no editorial oversight. We have to do better than using F-tier sources like this. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bloodofox, while you are right that they misidentify the Wolfsangel as an ancient runic symbol, I don't think you've provided evidence for widespread error. It is absolutely the case that "100%" is used as a hate symbol in a some specific contexts; the ADL is very obviously not claiming that every time "100%" appears it is used in this way. While there are clearly better sources for the history of the Wolfsangel, ADL might actually be the best source on the far right's uses of numbers. Similarly, of course peer-reviewed scholarly content is better than sources without named authors, but not listing sources or naming authors is not always an index of unreliability; for a database produced by a museum or scholarly organisation or for a standard tertiary source used in

  educational contexts it's extremely common not to list sources or name authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So, again, and this is crucial, we need to know who wrote this. What are their credentials? And why should we just believe the ADL, given they provide zero sources and seem to have no editorial standards at all? We get no information here about authorship, not even a contributor list. It is typical to list authorship, even if with just general credits, in databases and handbooks, because when they're authoritative they involve experts. Otherwise why believe what they have to say, especially without any kind of references?

The ADL's database was most likely just put together by a contractor or two years ago: A non-expert, most likely a single or more than one contractor with no formal or even notable background in the topic and no tools beyond a few dated books and a Google search (like old versions of Wikipedia articles). That's the only way to explain the manifold errors throughout this poor showing of a database.

And yes, the errors are widespread and similarly unacceptable. I could go entry after entry, especially on historic topics. It'd be a sea of red ink. For example, each one of the rune entries has some ridiculous error that even an introductory runology handbook would resolve. A quick look reveals that the ADL's "life rune" entry provides butchered reconstructions of Elder Futhark names like "algis" (which should obviously be *algiz—with a -Z, the asterisk indicates a linguistic reconstruction) alongside the name "life rune". At no point do they alert the reader that the concept of the "life rune" (as opposed to the historic *algiz) is in fact not ancient but rather an early 20th century invented in völkisch circles, used officialy by Nazi Germany, and then later embraced in neo-Nazi circles. They instead imply this was "appropriated", as if it is just another item from the historic record. Wrong. There's a whole essay one could write about how bad the ADL's entry for even the most mainstream "hate" symbols, like the SS logo, is (for one, The SS logo did not come directly from Elder Futhark *sowilo but once again völkisch interpretations developing from von List's Armanen futhark, which is why they're typically called Sig 'victory' runes).

And again, while the ADL is asleep at the wheel on this topic, content to present bad 'research' on symbols from the late 90s, many other new symbols have popped up in common use, like the so-called Black Sun/Schwarze Sonne, which we now cover very well here on Wikipedia (no thanks to the ADL, whose poor coverage on the topic actually wasted a lot of our time there). While they've probably plundered some handbook on numbers (without attribution), they don't listen other important neo-Nazi symbols, like the so-called Irminsul of Wilhelm Teudt (but we do cover this). They also seem to be pretty averse to Christian nationalism symbols: there's a huge list they're missing.

Now if the ADL had an expert on staff, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion at all. Again, we have to do better than this. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The database, which is frequently updated but obviously by definition incomplete, says it is produced by ADL's Center on Extremism, which in turn describes itself as employing "a team of experts, analysts, and investigators" (i.e. it's a collective endeavour). Missing entries don't invalidate it; the database itself asks "Are we missing something?" and invites submissions.

The only error you point out re the "life rune" is the transliteration of z as s; ADL does not claim the "life" meaning is ancient (they use the term "so-called" and give the German original). Your interpretation of what they "imply" is beyond what is in the text. Nobody would use this database as a source on its ancient meanings; there's nothing inaccurate in how they report its contemporary usage by hate groups. Similarly, they don't claim the SS symbol comes "directly from Elder Futhark *sowilo"; they say "The SS symbol is derived from the "sowilo" or "sun" rune, a character in the pre-Roman runic alphabet associated with the "s" sound." Again, obviously we would prefer a scholarly source for the ancient history of its runic antecedents, but the ADL database is an excellent source for its contemporary usage by hate groups. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a "team of experts" they don't list (!) in a database riddled with basic errors. Sounds legit. No names, no authorship, no credentials. No dates, no chronology, no sources. "Experts" who clearly don't know the history of the symbols they're writing about. Again, you're arguing that we just take the ADL's word for whatever they say, and yet if they can't get the history of a symbol right, you expect that they're getting the rest right?

The slop the ADL is serving up as an entry on the 'life rune' (see how quickly I informed you of the term's actual history) is unacceptable and you are at this point making excuses for their F-grade fumbling with the historic record. You're saying that we should look the other way at the many errors in these entries related to the historic record and just believe what they say otherwise.

Should I go start listing more errors? At this point I'm doing the ADL's work for it. Any decent database on the "life rune" will explain where the phrase comes from and how it is was invented in early 20th century völkisch circles. Instead they just slap it next to bungled attempts at presenting reconstructions (from who knows where) as if it were just another historic name. It's not and that's important. The same goes with the SS logo. When discussing the SS logo, it is important to know that the SS logo differs in origin and use from the historic Elder Futhark S-rune and is instead directly from völkisch author Guido von List's 'revealed' Armanen runes as published in the early 20th century. This is supposed to be an authoritative database from experts but instead it reads like a half-baked contractor job.

You don't have to make excuses for the ADL. They could get this right at any time by bringing in experts. Just find a source written by actual experts and use that instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It feels like you expect a database of contemporary Hate symbols to be a scholarly compendium of their historical origins. You haven’t presented any evidence that the database is inaccurate for what it’s used for: describing how contemporary hate groups use these symbols. I’ll stop commenting on this thread now as any close has more than enough material to make their own judgement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious that a.) neither you nor I know who wrote these terrible entries and b.) that they're riddled with errors that any specialist (or anyone who has attended an introductory course on these topics) would immediately detect. If you choose to believe what's in those comedically bad database entries, ancient or modern, that's on you, but they're definitely not suited for English Wikipedia or any other project where reliability and authorship matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere may have used it somewhere at sometime, to where even "100%" is listed as a "hate symbol? Alert your local grocery store." Given that the ADL explicitly says most uses of this symbol are not, in fact, white supremacist in nature this is a pretty disingenuous objection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And we should believe the ADL that "100%" is a notable "hate symbol" why? Did an expert write this entry? If so, who is that expert? Was it a contractor with Google? When did this become a symbol of notability? Is it still? When was this entry even written? We get absolutely no authorship information and 'just trust the ADL' (or their contractor/s!) simply isn't enough, especially given fundamental errors throughout entries that an authorative body like the ADL should know very well. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with great obviousness. Certainly there will always be pushback by groups and persons associated with particular symbols, but that isn't relevant here. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is even basic accuracy. The ADL's database is riddled with errors and lacks any kind of attribution beyond just "ADL". There's nothing reliable about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. Not only are there some major errors with the definitions of hate symbols, ADL appears to be unwilling to address the issue, which is more concerning. Cortador (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  What's the evidence that it's unwilling to address the issue? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 Generally reliable per Rhododendrites. Sources treat them as an authority on the subject of hate symbols. Toa Nidhiki05 12:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2. Its hate symbols database is widely used by reliable sources and is treated as an authority on that subject. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per above. Some slightly shoddy compilation from a web perspective, but again, outside of I/P I haven't seen any evidence pointing to the database being outright unreliable, especially for other forms of antisemitism. The Kip 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 They make mistakes (who does not?) but they seem generally (except for one or two minor issues) reliable, for attributed opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 There's some odd nuggets like having ACAB as a hate symbol (which I've never seen any far right extremist ever use) but it's fine for the most part. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. After giving the assessment for this topic area thought, this is where I land. This is at best not a WP:BESTSOURCE for the topic of hate groups and hate symbols to borrow Levivich's parsing in this subthread; if this were all, I might've favored Option 2. However, as bloodofox has talked about throughout this and the related thread, that's in the best cases. In other cases, the database is outright inaccurate, and such for extended periods of time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 (pref)/2 (alt) In general, their database is broadly agreed to be accurate and is widely used by reliable sources.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 (pref), option 2 (alt) mostly per Bloodofox. Every few years I am reminded that the ADL's hate symbol list exists and I am then reminded of how bizarre it can be at times. Anything citing only the ADL database should be tagged with Template:Better source needed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I fully agree with Bloodofox's arguments, especially the ones about how it's totally opaque who's writing the entries, what their credentials are, and what sources they use.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. This database appears to be a respected authority and cited by other reputable sources (as others have linked). There may be inaccuracies about the history of the symbols, but I think there is no problem using it (with attribution) to say something is listed as a hate symbol. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, per concerns expressed in the prior discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#The ADL does sloppy research on 'hate_symbols', and in the course of this RFC. Insufficient evidence of accuracy & fact checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• On a balance, 2 or 3, for the reasons already raised in this discussion by Loki and bloodofox, namely the not infrequent inclusion of, and the failure to correct, incorrect information. There are generally better sources we should be citing, anyway. -sche (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 (preferred; would also support option 2 as alternative). I thought I had already commented here, but it seems I did not. While it's certainly appropriate to mention something being the opinion of an advocacy organization, in general, most of the organizations that purport to make lists of "hate symbols" just kind of throw whatever crap in there. This is no exception. For example, if you look at the ADL's "hate symbols database", you will see entries for:
  • 1-11
  • 9%
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 18
  • 23
  • 28
  • 33/6
  • 38
  • ≠
  • Wearing boots with red or white laces
  • Drawing a "no" sign around the Antifa symbol
  • Bowl cuts

I'm sure that somewhere, at some point, some guy wrote the number 12, and what he meant by that was something racist. However, extrapolating from this to "the number 12 is a hate symbol" seems clearly dumb. There are a large number of silly things in this database, and as bloodofox has noted above, they seem to just kind of randomly put stuff in there whenever. I do not think a classification really means much when, of the two-digit numbers between 10 and 40, ten of them (i.e. 30%) are claimed to be hate symbols. Like Levivich said, you don't really need to cite the ADL database to say that "Hitler did nothing wrong" has Nazi overtones -- for stuff that's obvious, this is not needed, and for stuff that isn't obvious, it is a very bad idea to use some random listicle entry with no attribution or citations. jp×g🗯️ 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The "this whole thing is silly" argument is the one I understand least here. The whole reason these symbols come about is because people don't want to just call themselves "Some White Supremacist Gang" and instead rely on seemingly innocuous names/symbols that already exist in the world. So yes, haha, 14 is just a number -- so silly to call it a hate symbol. And yet, 14 words. Yes, bowl cuts are funny looking and have a meaning that came before their adoption by white supremacists, and yet Neo-Nazi groups have adopted it as a symbol/name after Dylan Roof and it became a meme among white supremacists on alt-tech sites (e.g. [42] [43]). Just listing out a bunch of symbols to make a "look at all this stuff they call a hate symbol" argument seems like it misses the point completely, which is to document when symbols have been cooped by a hate group. Sometimes those groups are smalltime prison gangs in Idaho who get a representative number as a tattoo and there's not much more to be said other than document it, and sometimes they're much larger entities or phenomena. The reliability question is not about "do you think this is a worthwhile project" but about whether we can trust that when the ADL says a number was used to represent some white supremacist prison gang, then it was probably used to represent some white supremacist prison gang. Nobody's saying we must rewrite the lead of 14 (number) to say "14 is a hate symbol". That's a WP:WEIGHT/NPOV argument, not an RS question. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So the 14 words page is instructive in that it notes that while there is some isolated usage of the number 14, more often than not it is combined with "88" in a hateful context. So it's not normally just about the number 14. The point that the list simply contains lots of trivial usage, such as about occasional use of bowl cuts by gangs, really just adds to the sense that this database is not really a good measure of anything. If it can't be used to determine very astutely and in what context a symbol is hateful, where is it useful, when can it be used, and when are its assertions due? I'd just use something better. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying. The bowl-cut entry doesn't have any citations, or mention any websites, or any people, or anything at all. Neither does the "Anti-Antifa Images" entry: it literally just shows an image that's a "no" symbol drawn around the Antifa flag logo, and says that this is a hate symbol because "White supremacist anti-left (or sinistrophobic) symbology especially targets far left and anarchist activists who have dedicated themselves to actively opposing and exposing white supremacists"[sic]. No citation, no byline, nothing, it's just silly.

Including minor usage by irrelevant groups seems to make it even less useful, since at that point you gain nothing at all from knowing it's listed in this database -- it doesn't indicate that something is used mainly as a hate symbol, and it doesn't even indicate that the thing's use as a hate symbol is notable. It really doesn't seem like this database is the product of somebody trying to produce a useful and relevant scholarly resource (again -- there are no citations or references or bylines) -- I think it is primarily a fundraising tool for a political advocacy organization.

To me, it's like if the Association of Arborists had a database of every bug that was an imminent threat capable of causing damage to your trees, and included hundreds of obscure species of lichen mites from tiny islands in the Canadian arctic, each saying "we don't really know much about this one, but it is a bug, and studies have shown that sometimes bugs harm trees". The only thing this proves is that the Association of Arborists wants you to schedule a visit from an arborist. jp×g🗯️ 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the database is rather unimpressive, but your original argument seemed to be “I think it’s dumb that these things are considered hate speech lol” in the vein of right-wing influencers. Dronebogus (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. jp×g🗯️ 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the case that there are "no sources". Sure, there are no sources presented, but it's not plucked out of the air. This is basically a tertiary source, a compendium of user-friendly info, not an academic research article. It's very common for tertiary sources not to include citations. It's produced by the ADL's Center on Extremism, whose staff are experts on extremism. For example, its senior researcher is Mark Pitcavage, who has multiple scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This sort of thing is the main reason why I phrased my !vote in this section as "reliable for whether a symbol is used by hate groups" and not "reliable for whether a symbol is a hate symbol". I don't think they're a reliable source for the second thing, and I don't even really think they're trying to be a source for that at all.

The presence of a symbol in the database should not be taken to mean that it is a hate symbol; even the concept of "hate symbol" is hard to define and ambiguously meaningful. The swastika is probably the most unambiguous hate symbol there is and yet if you look at Tokyo on Google Maps you'll find swastikas everywhere (it's the symbol for "Buddhist temple"). No symbol has meaning without context and so trying to say that any symbol is a "hate symbol" by citing any database is not a good idea. Loki (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - Per arguments by JPxG. ADL's latest entry to its "hate symbol" database is "100%". How is this a hate symbol?!! I do understand that hate symbols have a context, but do editors want to over-contextualise anything to the point where it gets inserted as a "hate symbol" in wikipedia? There are plenty of reliable sources to understand about hate symbols. An utterly un-academic and partisan front group like ADL is not needed in this topic. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, “lol so stupid amirite” is not an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"lol lol amirite amirite" is not an argument either. jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The entry for 100% concludes with the words "Additionally, caution must be used in evaluating instances of this symbol's use, as most uses of this symbol are not, in fact, white supremacist in nature." It would be insane to insist that all (or most) uses of 100% are using it as a hate symbol. But it's almost equally ridiculous to assume that this means it's never used as a hate symbol. If someone in a white supremacist prison gang has a 100% tattoo, this database (rather than a mathematics textbook) would be a good source to go to to understand why. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley Reports which are issued solely by ADL are not credible. Read user JPxG's arguments. (in particular JPxG's comment starting with "Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying.")

Also, ADL takes online submissions from random, anonymous people on the topic of hate symbols. It's clear that ADL isnt reliable at all in this topic. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking submissions is fine. There does not seem to be an indication that they publish them without review, which would be the only issue. FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The "review" of ADL staffers, assuming it occurs, is not credible. ADL cant impose its view on what constitutes hate symbols. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not? That’s what civil rights groups can do? FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

ADL acts privately and publishes what its staffers consider as hate symbols without peer-reviewed academic research. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what civil rights orgs tend to do, particularly those that monitor hate. The SPLC does the same with hate groups. FortunateSons (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC isn’t that great either, but for different reasons. In general I think we can and should avoid using advocacy groups like SPLC, ACLU, etc. as objective sources because they have an agenda they’ll advance without much regard to methodology. ADL just goes a step further because their methodology is sketchy as hell and their agenda is based around hardcore zionism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you say the same about Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, etc.? FortunateSons (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends. First, none of them are ADL (thankfully). Second Amnesty is green at RSP and for others I might take their reports more seriously than other things, etcetera. So not a real argument. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also currently lists the ADL as GREL, I'm not inherently opposed to downgrading all "Tier 1 advocacy/civil rights groups" (even if I think that a disparity between newspaper and orgs is arbitrary), but as long as we downgrade some groups (for being such), we should do so consistently and that includes AI and HRW as well. FortunateSons (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That ignores the differences in the reliability of the organizations, so no. nableezy - 13:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we can and should avoid using advocacy groups like SPLC, ACLU, etc. as objective sources because they have an agenda they’ll advance without much regard to methodology. applies to all 6 (and all other established civil and human rights orgs). My point is that the type or organisation is of little relevance for established, 'respected' and well-known orgs. I believe we should discount all arguments not based on reliability but on status, not that there can't be a difference between such orgs. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion shows that ADL is in a quite different place than more respectable orgs. Trying to compare oranges with apples is a no-no. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it means that the ADL is necessarily reliable, I'm just saying that it's status as a civil rights org shouldn't be a (relevant) factor. FortunateSons (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Human rights groups employ huge teams of lawyers, and human rights are written into international law. The cataloguing of human rights violations is far more empirical and far less subjective than political advocacy. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Human rights groups also generally advocate for more than what is mandated by IHL and rightly so, based on the state of IHL . In the same way, civil rights groups often argue for more than national law mandates, and also often have quite a few of lawyers on staff/retainer. I consider this to be a distinction without a difference for the purpose of establishing reliablity. FortunateSons (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Taking submissions from randos also appears to be how they get antisemitism statistics. They basically crowd source their info, and there are just so many ways that can go wrong. It sounds like I could basically call up the ADL tomorrow from different phone booths or write from different emails and they'd absorb whatever yarn I spun them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok let's put an end to this red herring raised by JP and Shadowwarrior. When JP wrote above extrapolating from this to "the number 12 is a hate symbol", he wasn't quoting the ADL or anyone else. When Shadow wrote How is this a hate symbol, that's a straw man argument. Nobody ever said the number 12 is a hate symbol, or that 100% is a hate symbol. The ADL is saying these numbers have been used as hate symbols. Which is true. And explained in the ADL article. As quoted by several editors in response above. There are other reasons the ADL is not reliable (detailed in other votes above), but not because they say numbers are hate symbols, because the ADL doesn't say that. Nobody would be stupid enough to claim a number is a hate symbol. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not the case. I would recommend, if you're unclear about what claims I am making, that you read the three-paragraph-long explanation of the claims, which I wrote directly above this, starting with "Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying" -- let me know if there are any issues. jp×g🗯️ 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of those arguments. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. A database is a database. Certainly, inclusion criteria may be biased, and this must always be considered (especially in case of a campaign organisation), but I'd be okay with careful sourcing of actual hate symbols, whenever required, to ADFL if worded cautiously or accompanied by a disclaimer. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per kashmiri, if we ever have occasion to document a symbol (obviously this alone is no basis for a dedicated article on any symbol, nor does this mean it will necessarily be due in contexts where the issue is not symbology), yes, we should say, with attribution, what others say about its use; it's often the case that symbols (for example gang symbols) are inscrutable to many in multiple ways, except those who watch such things (or have been in the meliue). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, per kasmiri and in the way described by Loki. RS source the database for basic facts so we can do that with attribution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 realistically there's no point citing it, if we can't find better sources for a given symbol it's wp:undue—blindlynx 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems most of the entries can be antisemitic dog-whistles in certain contexts, though context must matter. Could be used to identify a possible dog whistle, though it shouldn't be used to accuse randomly anyone of antisemitism without considering context or a pattern of behavior (I still recall pro-Israeli groups getting mad at Greta Thunberg because her favorite plushie was an octopus. If a known anti-semite/neo-Nazi was publishing cartoons with an octopus over the world or something like that, seems like that would be real antisemitism.) User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm merging the three discussion sections that would normally go here because these RFCs are all closely connected. Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• In response to BilledMammal's response to my !vote on Section 1: (1) I see no evidence of RS saying SJP is a front for Hamas; (2) that's not how I read the plain language of the article; (3) correct, but this is part of a pattern of wild divergences in position that renders them inconsistent and, therefore, unreliable; (4) that's not how I read the plain language of the article. Chetsford (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding (1) I don't see the ADL saying SJP is a front for Hamas either, just that they provided "material support". Regarding (2) and (4), to simplify this can you quote the sections that you interpret as the sources saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods? Regarding (3), I would need to see more of a pattern, rather than an isolated incident, and preferably in regards to matters of fact rather instead of opinion, before I can comment further on that. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• On deprecating a single topic area. This RfC deals with three distinct topic areas. Potentially deprecating the source for a single topic would present editorial difficulties, as Loki has observed. That said, because we have no policy or guideline that precludes this, I'm inclined to believe this remains a valid option and the method we would use to apply it would have to be sorted out after the fact if it landed on that, potentially through further discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm still concerned about this because the concrete meaning of a deprecation per WP:DEPS is:

  1. The source is generally unreliable.

  2. New users adding the source are reverted by bot.

  3. Any user attempting to add the source is warned not to.

  Part 1 can clearly be implemented for a single topic area but is no different from Option 3. Parts 2 and 3 do not seem to me to be reasonably possible to implement per topic area. So either it's deprecated for all topic areas, or it's just a pointed way of voting generally unreliable. Loki (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, particularly with the last point. FortunateSons (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not keen on moving to deprecation without going through generally unreliable first, if we want to consider that separately following this RFC, we could do that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  As per previous experience any RFC for deprecation will likely end up being reviewed, especially in this area. So if anyone is advocating for deprecation they need to be making a very strong argument.
  There seems to be a general misunderstanding that its the next step up from generally unreliable, but deprecation goes well beyond that. It's for sources that are not only generally unreliable but completely untrustworthy (for instance publishing lies, losing a court case about those lies, and then deliberately covering up the fact that the lies had ever been published, and then lying about doing so). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• A source can't logically be completely untrustworthy (as opposed to merely unreliable) on a single topic. Any determination that a source is completely untrustworthy on any given topic should presume to it being untrustworthy on all topics. Since the standard for deprecation is generally linked to a penchant for dishonesty versus mere incompetence, it would be incoherent to posit that we could sometimes trust a habitual liar. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It would be a somewhat confused situation, but my comment was just to try and stop the discussion going off course and to point out that deprecation isn't "generally unreliable++". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is kinda, in the sense of RFC options on a scale of 1 to 4, at any rate, worse than unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I should have said "isn't just 'generally unreliable++'". The 1-4 scale should maybe be changed so deprecation appears differently, 1-3 +D maybe. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If it’s a binary choice between deprecation of ADL as a whole and no depreciation whatsoever, I support depreciation of ADL. The quality of their information ranges from bad (hate symbols) to worse (antisemitism) to outright propaganda and disinformation (I/P). If ADL was (nominally) representing any other group besides Jews it would be considered a far-right disinformation campaign. Nothing is lost by saying “avoid this”, and nothing is gained from “broken clocks are right twice a day”. Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I would concur here. While the ADL website has been a convenient source for hate symbols and general information on hate groups it is not a critical one for this, nor, as has been pointed out, even one with particularly academic methodology for inclusion. With its movement toward being an open advocacy / lobby group for Israel it is increasingly inappropriate for other uses. If we have to deprecate the whole thing, let's deprecate the whole thing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven, Buidhe, Hemiauchenia, Eladkarmel, Chess, O3000, Ret., and ElLuzDelSur: Ping editors who participated in the above discussion on ADL but haven't participated here. Apologies if I missed anyone who participated there, or pinged anyone who has already participated here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: Fix ping. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I wanted to expand a bit on why I think that the arguments used by editors !voting for Option 3/4 are not good. Most of the arguments are based on the sources criticising their definition of antisemitism, such as this article in the Nation

“ “U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel,” warned the ADL press release... But much of the report was hype. Rather than attacks against Jews due to their religious or ethnic identity, many of the cited “incidents” were actions directed against Israel to protest the conduct of its war in Gaza—incidents... Many of the incidents were simply protests by civil rights organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine. ”

The author evidently doesn't consider "simple protests" by Students for Justice in Palestine to be antisemitic. However this is his opinion. As an example, From the river to the sea slogan that was likely chanted during those SJP protests is widely perceived to call for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state, and hence antisemitic. Of course, others do not consider it antisemitic, and it's fine, we should describe all viewpoints. The problem with the !votes based on these sources is that they talk about the "veracity" or "unreliability" of antisemitism claim as if there is one true definition of antisemitism. Alaexis_¿question? 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

“Likely” chanted? And you’re complaining about verifiably? Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So you think that they chanted "Two-state solution"? On a more serious note, here you can find them talking about the criteria Krain said the ADL counted any demonstration featuring pro-Palestinian chants such as “globalize the intifada, “by all means necessary,” “Zionism is terrorism,” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” Alaexis_¿question? 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So ... Calling for a global uprising against injustice; calling out what is arguably a duck as being a duck; and calling for freedom. Not sure I get the part where any of that is anything but political. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Referring to the Jewish nation's right of self-determination as "terrorism" is definitely antisemitism according to the working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and also according to common sense. Vegan416 (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: I guess it's good that no one said that then. Zionism is not the "right to self-determination"; it is a political ideology – you'll note the separate pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is the expression of the Jewish nation's right to self-determination. That is obvious. Vegan416 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a political expression. And it's freedom of speech to critique political expressions quite freely. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is not about of free speech at all. The ADL is not trying to have the US government throw people into jail for saying anti-Zionist things, by equating them with antisemitism. Since in the US even undisputed antisemitic speech is also protected by the First Amendment (as long as it's not a direct incitement for violence). It is a genuine debate about what is the definition of antisemitism. And whether you personally like it or not most people agree that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination and its expression, is antisemitism. Vegan416 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already addressed this muddled conflation of Zionism, a political ideology, and the conceptual right to self-determination. But that's not the topic. Pertinently, you are not in a position to define what "most people agree", let alone determine that the ADL somehow represents what most people agree, with regards to anti-Zionism: you haven't provided RS evidence for any of this. You are assuming that the ADL's position falls within the mainstream, but you haven't actually demonstrated that. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the validity of the statement "most people agree", but let's assume it's accurate for the sake of argument. In that case, wouldn't it be more precise to say that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination is about 74% antisemitic, 20% anti-Arab, etc. based on the demographics? Just putting this radical idea out there in the hopes that the ADL will pick it up and run with it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the Druze, who in Israel don't like to be called Arab either. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a complex and interesting question. For example, what happens if you apply the question to a smaller area? Instead of saying the entire Jewish state doesn't have the right to exist, someone says that a predominantly Jewish settlement that is half in Israel and half across the Green Line does not have the right to exist? Is that 100%, 50% or 0% antisemitic? Sentiment analysis is hard. Good luck to people trying compress language into categories. To their credit, at least the ADL seem to take the "it depends, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't" approach. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that this is one of the cases where the old 3D definition is actually superior to some of the more modern ones, despite the associated issues, making the answer to your question 0%. FortunateSons (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What has that to do with ADL screwing up on antisemitism? Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether IHRA (or other modern definitions) is a fringe definition to use. I believe this not be the case, but this is one of the cases where another is clearer FortunateSons (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL takes the already controversial IHRA and expands its already undue protection of Israel even further by specifically equating AZ = AS, that's fringe in my view. Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is broadly cited, reported and also used by multiple institutions and governments, I wouldn’t consider it fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What's "it"? IHRA? It's controversial, add AZ = AS and its fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is IHRA, sorry for being vague.

Every definition of Antisemitism is controversial, and IHRA appears to be one of the most broadly used ones.

AZ being partially AS, IHRA covering all or most of AS and combing both is not unusual if you are going to collect all antisemitism, particularly as some AZ (and related actions) are covered by IHRA. And even if it were unusual, it’s far from fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Who else does it besides the ADL? Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Use IHRA or describe some AZ as AS? The aggregation is one of the significant things where the ADL is premier and the reason they are broadly cited, particularly by media RS. FortunateSons (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/has-the-term-antisemitism-been-overused-or-overblown-beyond-usefulness/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems to show discourse, not really an indication of being fringe, unless I am missing a specific part? FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ury, but the fact he is pushing against a prevalent, possibly even dominant, view shows that the view he’s pushing against is not “fringe”. Some 43 countries have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Hundreds of regional and local governments have also adopted the resolution, including 33 states in the US. Unlike Miron and Ury, most mainstream American Jewish leaders — including President Joe Biden’s antisemitism czar, Deborah Lipstadt — support the IHRA definition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am replying to the correct comment- this thread is very hard to read in mobile at this point - but, yes, Wikipedia does lend undue space to Trump's nonsensical statements. That doesn't mean we should do the same for the ADL's nonsensical statements regarding post October 7 antisemitism. If Wikipedia needs to speak to these claims we should handle it like we do climate change denial. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism and Zionism: The Internal Operations of the IHRA Definition Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A biased and uncited article describing broad use is also not really an indication of it being fringe, merely controversial, which I (and most reasonable people) don’t dispute. FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would actually add to @FortunateSons words that this article actually proves the opposite of fringe. Even Neve who is very much against this definition is forced to admit that it gained huge acceptance. Even in the academia "In the UK alone, three-fourths of all universities have taken it on board". Thanks for proving my thesis for me :-) Vegan416 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier The view that AZ=AS (under certain conditions) is definitely not fringe. In the general public it enjoys a huge support. Definitely in the US where the ADL operates. This is evidenced by a landslide majority of 70% who voted for it in the house, against only 3% who voted against it. You may of course be dismissive of the hoi polloi, and say that only the opinions of scholars count. But the truth is that you cannot prove that for the academic world either. You gave no proof whatsoever that the view AZ=AS in considered fringe even in the scholarly world. The fact that some scholars object to AZ=AS doesn't make it fringe. To make it fringe you have to show that there is a consensus in the scholarly world that AZ is not AS, i.e. that the majority of scholars think that AZ is not AS. Nobody has shown that here. To sum up. If you want to declare it fringe and disqualify a source based on this then the onus of proof is on you, and so far you failed to do that. Vegan416 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said AZ = AS is fringe, I said IHRA + AZ = AS is fringe and I said that is my view. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how IHRA+AZ=AS is different from AZ=AS. And if you admit this is just your personal view then this is clearly not a good enough argument... Anyway I think we have taken too much space on this. If you want to continue this particular discussion come to my talk page. If not then bye for now. Vegan416 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That depends on what you consider the line between legitimate and protected political speech and illegal violation of hate speech laws, which varies depending on the country. Arguing that People of Color should not be allowed to vote due to their race/ethnicity is also a criticism of liberal and egalitarian political values and expression, and could also be banned depending on your location. FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Also nothing to do with subject at hand. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It does if some people are arguing that antizionism is generally or always not antisemitism. FortunateSons (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Might be, might not, ADL says it is, that's fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

As cited elsewhere, it generally doesn’t. It says that some is, a view that is not fringe. FortunateSons (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

They do IHRA + AZ=AS, that's like everything, fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A expansion of IHRA to account for relevant and debated is not fringe unless you show it is, particularly if in line with the social and political discourse. FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer considers the protests to be antisemitic, which is one of the reasons he's been giving his support to them. [44] PJ Podesta, writing for the Electronic Intifada say that Such calls to action do not include that we opine on Palestinians’ methods of resistance., [45] Students for Justice in Palestine says that Settlers are not “civilians” in the sense of international law, because they are military assets used to ensure continued control over stolen Palestinian land. to justify the killing of Jewish people in Israel's pre-1967 borders. [46] Its easy to read what the protestors are writing, and they are a disparate group of people united by a shared hatred of Jews. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because being opposed the dispossession, starvation and slaughter of your people can only be possible if you are racist against their oppressors. That quote doesn’t say one word about Jews, much less hating Jews, and this game in which one argues that conflating Jews and Israel is antisemitic and then conflates Israel with Jews so as to deflect any critical view on Israel or Israelis as against Jews is tiresome. But by all means, continue arguing by association fallacy, one of these days you might be able to convince somebody that your unsupported and libelous claims are actually grounded in anything besides worn out propaganda. nableezy - 15:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Even going along with the dubious assertion that the slogan in question was a specific call for the destruction of a state (as opposed to a call for freedom, as the chant actually goes), the religious characterisation of Israel cannot be directly inferred to be the motivation behind such a call. Indeed, when the state in question is a racist, apartheid and now genocidal one, there are rather a plethora of secular, moral reasons that one could imagine being invoked. The religious profession of a mass murderer is hardly relevant to the question of whether or not to condemn them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with ADL is that it has expanded advocacy into activism in the Israel/IP area, even to the extent of bashing Jewish orgs that are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Here is Greenblatt ramping up the rubbish 40 beheaded babies claim and then in an interview with MSNBC says first that the head of Hamas called for a "global day of Jihad" (he didn't) and then declared that “anti Zionism is genocide." (never mind just antisemitic). In fact the whole interview is worth a listen, if that's what the ADL is espousing, well...Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s not ADL. That’s a tweet from Greenblatt’s personal account. We don’t need every ephemeral personal comment by the CEO to be true for a source itself to be reliable. Material in their reports goes through an editorial process in the way this individual’s kneejerk response to an emotional situation doesn’t. Has the ADL itself published the 40 beheaded babies claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an issue in this RfC of different interpretations of Loki’s original question 2 of whether ADL is reliable “regarding antisemitism”. I took this to mean can we generally assume ADL’s factual claims are accurate in the topic area of antisemitism. Other editors (most of those arguing for option 3?) took it to mean should we call something antisemitic on the basis of ADL calling it antisemitic. I would agree with these editors that we shouldn’t, while still believing (on the basis of use by others and no presented examples of factual inaccuracy relating to antisemitism) that the ADL is a reliable source for facts in this topic area. Have I misread other editors’ interpretations? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism," and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are two sentences that should not appear in Wikipedia, and that's why I vote 3 and not 2. If that makes sense? I do not agree with you that there is a distinction between "calling something antisemitic" and "factual accuracy." If they do things like call BDS antisemitic, then they are unreliable, about anything. Too partisan to be trusted. Levivich (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich I think that there is in fact a strong case that the JVP had indeed engaged in antisemitism or at least bordering on it. This opinion is not just the ADL position, but also appears in these RS:

In a book published in Indiana University Press: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=rEJFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

In HaAretz: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-07-10/ty-article/has-jewish-voice-for-peace-crossed-the-line-into-anti-semitism/0000017f-e485-d38f-a57f-e6d7d4da0000

In The Forward: https://forward.com/opinion/391783/jvps-anti-semitic-obsession-with-jewish-power/

In NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opinion/college-israel-anti-semitism.html

Also try to look open mindedly at the evidence presented by the ADL here:

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/jewish-voice-peace-jvp-what-you-need-know

I agree that it might be farfetched to write in wikivoice "Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism" with a reference to ADL, but when it is attributed such as "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism," it looks fine. Or you can even make it like this for good measure: "According to the ADL's opinion, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism". But there is no basis and no need to declare it unreliable on the issue of antisemitism. Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a good use of this noticeboard to argue over whether JVP is antisemitic. It's really not the question at hand.

I would say that the question of whether we say "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism" and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are not questions of reliability, but questions of due weight. I mean Donald Trump told endless lies, but we wouldn't remove his comments from our articles for that reason. If multiple RSs are reporting what ADL says, that's going to be noteworthy in some articles.

Reliability questions are whether we can say "David Duke attended the rally" or "'From the river to the sea' was chanted at the rally" with a footnote to an ADL report. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If other RSes report what ADL says then we'd cite those other RSes. Same with anything else. But that doesn't mean we cite ADL directly.

I don't think we'd ever cite ADL for "so and so attended a rally" or "x was chanted at the rally" because ADL doesn't report on stuff like that. They're not journalism. We'd cite journalism for those kinds of facts. Levivich (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To use a concrete example: I don't think we should cite this ADL page [47] for "many anti-Israel activists flocked to rallies across the United States at which speakers and attendees openly celebrated the brutal attacks" or for what it says about JVP ("JVP’s most inflammatory ideas can help give rise to antisemitism") or anything else in that report. Because it's not reliable for I/P or antisemitism (because of its partisan bias), I don't think it's reliable for saying what anti-Israel activists did or said. Also note this is labeled "blog" and has no byline. I don't see any masthead on the ADL website or any journalism ethics policy. It has none of the indicators of reliability that journalism has (bylines, masthead, editorial board, ethics policy). I don't think we should cite that page for anything. Levivich (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not just JVP, it is also BDS "The ADL did not count resolutions calling for a boycott of Israel as antisemitic," the report said, "because they do not target individuals. However, these are antisemitic and contribute to the pressures faced by Jews on campus." (Tchah!). Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL is perfectly aware that the Palestinian slogan "From the river to the sea" corresponds exactly to a core article in the Likud party's foundational charter:-

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Since 1977 that has remained on its platform and Likud has been the dominant governing party over the last 45 or so years. So the ADL or whoever, in-citing the Palestinian version as 'antisemitic' is deliberately obscuring the fact that Likud, by that definition, would be 'antisemitic', in identical terms. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to describing those who support "greater Israel", like some of the Israeli right wing, as anti-Palestinians. But of course it would be wrong to call them antisemitic, as this term in unique to being against Jews. And you can check that in any English dictionary. Vegan416 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't chip in if you have failed to grasp the point (irony in a logical inference taking the form of an hypothetical).Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"From the river to the sea" is not, in fact, in the Likud platform, Nishidani. You can literally find all their platforms online - here's one from 1999, no mention of that wording. It was in the original platform, but that specific wording is not used now. Likud is fairly extreme enough, so there's no need to mislead about what their platform actually is. Toa Nidhiki05 13:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It may no longer be explicit in their platform but that is what successive Israeli governments actually aspire to, It’s time to Confront Israel’s Version of "From the River to the Sea" Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside a slanted opinion piece, "from the river to the sea" is clearly controversial because of its use by actual terrorist groups that seek a genuine ethnic cleansing of all Jews in the region. Most rationally-minded people recognize the issue with one side claiming all of the territory. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The 'slanted opinion' comes from one of the foremost scholars of the conflict, who unfortunately happens to be Palestinian. I have struck out the error, as you indicate, in asserting likud still has it on its platform. The point is, that Likud has no need for it to be on its platform, since it passed in 2018 the same principle in its Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

• Basic Principles
• 1. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
• 2. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
• 3. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

The slight legal equivocation here between State of Israel and the (Greater) Land of Israel was clarified by the present government in its programme, when it took power.I.e.

The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria. Carrie Keller-Lynn, Michael Bachner, Judicial reform, boosting Jewish identity: The new coalition’s policy guidelines The Times of Israel 28 December 2022

In plain man's language, the Jewish people are the only people in the world who have an exclusive right to all of the land between the Jordan and the sea. So waffling around the obvious is smoke in the eyes. It's useless trying to justify, by the jejune 'terrorist' use of it card, the distortions of the ADL or anyone else who fudge the obvious correlation between the positively championed policy of the government enshrined in a recent basic law, and the negatively spun slogan used by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. That is part of the Orwellian politics of language abuse and conceptual obfuscation instinct in the discursive gamesmanship of this area.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

None of this actually matters to the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that. You're not going to get any disagreement from me that claiming the entire region for your specific ethnic group is wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not quite accurate to say that the ADL regards it as antisemitic *because* it is "undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups". They regard it as antisemitic because they say it denies "the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland", here for example. I assume if it was not connected to terrorist groups they would arrive at the same conclusion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It would take a degree in hasbaraology to understand that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to strike that yourself. FortunateSons (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Read From the river to the sea, no need to reinvent the wheel here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"[...] the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that."

I'm sorry but this is nonesense. This whole debate is ridiculous as the bare phrase "from the river to the sea" is in no way antisemitic by itself. We should not need to be having this "debate".

Also, please everyone in this conversation stop with the excessive arguing and WP:Bludgeoning. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Words have meaning, and phrases have meaning. You're right, the random string of words "from the river to the sea" has no inherent meaning, nor does "Christ is king" or "it's ok to be white". However, words have meaning in context - "Christ is king" is used on Twitter to harass Jews and Muslims, "it's ok to be white" is coded language used by white supremacists, and "from the river to the sea" is used by terrorist groups as their end goal of a Jew-free levant. There may be contexts where using any of these sets of word are not racist, but the ADL - understandably - regards phrases heavily tied to racist groups as being, well, racist. And saying "well, Likud said it too in the 70s" doesn't change that, because Likud could (quite reasonably) be also seen as racist, and if radical Israeli groups started to use the phrase, too, they'd likely face stark condemnation. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is right-wing, pro-Israeli nonsense that "from the river to the sea" is somehow linked to "terror groups". Which groups exactly? And what on earth? Anyone with eyeballs and common sense is perfectly well aware that tens of thousand of peaceful protesters have routinely turned out over the past six months while using that phrase to call for a "free Palestine", which here, as all know, means freedom in an extremely classic sense: liberation from an oppresssive (here apartheid) regime. The vast majority of the usage is in such a peaceful context that it couldn't be further from terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani As a matter of fact the ADL had accused the Israeli police minister Ben-Gvir of racism.https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-adl-trade-barbs-over-jewish-racism-section-in-annual-antisemitism-report/ Vegan416 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of where you fall on the argument, a recent poll done in Gaza and the West Bank shows that 71% of Palestinians still support what Hamas did on October 7th. . October 7th was based on antisemitism. I take issue with the ADL for many reasons but rating this a 3-4 solely on the current events unfolding aurround Israel and Palestine is uninformed in my opinion. Up until 2017, the Hamas charter was full of antisemitism and made direct references to their negative views about the Jewish people. It was rewritten specifically to gain legitimacy to garner support around the world which is now helping them in their fight against Israel. In my opinion, I believe anyone that is chanting "From the River to the Sea" is supporting the 71% of Palestinians that support Hamas. BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you think a bunch of leftie college students support radical Islam, you’ve been drinking the ADL brand flavor aid. If you think Palestinians don’t have any reason to support Hamas and just hate Israel because they’re the bad guys, you’re still drinking the flavor aid. And if you think 71% is “all”, I can’t help you. Dronebogus (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Reliable sources using ADL

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. In fact ADL data is widely used by RS

1. The Wall Street Journal. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
2. The New York Times. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
3. The Guardian. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
4. Le Monde. The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology.
5. Philadelphia Inquirer. The numbers are attributed and there is some criticism of the approach by The Philly Palestine organisation.

So it's clear that RS do not treat ADL numbers as unreliable and if we deprecate ADL we'd be fail to follow our RS guidelines. Alaexis_¿question? 13:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think a bunch of sources, no matter how reliable, uncritically repeating a single report is a good measure of general reliability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Your personal opinion on this doesn't matter. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:USEBYOTHERS. It means precisely what @Alaexis said here, namely that the fact that undisputable reliable sources uncritically repeat claims by source X, confers some reliability on source X in and of itself. Vegan416 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It's uncritical in the sense of the news outlets neither praise nor bemoan the ADL as a source. It's not really news either. All the pieces are just churnalistic regurgitations of the findings of the ADL (almost certainly from a press release). The pieces just say: the ADL said 'this', without conveying any real sense of the outlets' trust in the ADL as a source whatsoever beyond acknowledging its basic existence as an organisation that draws up tallies of stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

All of these uses are attributed to the ADL, so while it's not zero evidence of reliability, it's also not strong evidence. Loki (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Loki Your argument here is strange. The whole WP:USEBYOTHERS policy with regard to usage by high reliability newspapers is talking about cases where claims are attributed to another source. How else would you know that high reliability newspaper is citing a specific source, if it doesn't attribute it??? Newspaper don't carry footnotes like scholarly articles. Vegan416 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ADL is a good source, with attribution, on statistics on antisemitic incidents. None of this has to do with ADL's pro-Israel advocacy though? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

response in your talk page. Vegan416 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding several new citations of ADL statements about antisemitism that were cited uncritically by reliable newspaper sites in the last few days since @Alaexis published his list on April 9:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/11/adl-antisemitism-report-card-gives-top-schools-failing-grades/73294604007/

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/adl-antisemitism-report-card/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harvard-dozen-schools-receive-grade-adls-campus-antisemitism-report-ca-rcna147346

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4587901-harvard-tufts-mit-failing-grades-adl-campus-antisemitism/ Vegan416 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR

These were found by simply putting "anti defamation league" in JSTOR search box and limiting the search to start in 2020. This yielded 164 results. To determine the relevancy of each result and its context I had to look inside the articles. This is a time-consuming process, so I did it so far for only a small number of results. I might continue with it in the following days, if required, and if time permits, but even this small collection proves that there are quite a few scholars who view the ADL as a reliable source even for scholarly work. This is relevant to the reliability question because of WP:USEBYOTHERS.

2024:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11? cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58195.10? cited about antisemitism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48756310? cited about extreme right and antisemitism

2023:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep53058.6? cited on hate crimes

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv34h08d2.7? cited about racism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27255595? cited about extremism in general

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48707918? cited about extreme right

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11442022.9? cited about extreme right

2022:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48669297? cited about racism in the middle east

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27292094? cited about antisemitism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2vm3bb6.13? cited about antisemitism in Europe

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185090? cited about extremism in general

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185088? cited about extremism in general

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185089? (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about extreme right

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27185099? mentioned as a source on on Anti-Government Extremism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48722479? (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about hate crimes

2021:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27040075? PNAS article cites ADL on global antisemitism

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979985? cited about extremism in general — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs)

No idea what these are, clicking on the links seems to bring up random texts eg the first one for 2024 brings up "Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory"? Second one brings up "Chapter 3: Patterns of AGE across Countries" so I didn't bother reading any more after that, you need proper citations if we are to take this seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The JSTOR interface contains a "cite" button. If you click on it, it supplies you with the proper citation of the source. For example for the first 3 sources you will get these:

Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Notes.” Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, pp. 31–40

Molas, Bàrbara, et al. “Patterns of AGE across Countries.” Anti-Government Threats and Their Transnational Connections, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2024, pp. 18–28.

Pantucci, Raffaello, and Kalicharan Veera Singam. “Extreme Right-Wing in the West.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, vol. 16, no. 1, 2024, pp. 106–11

I'm sure you can manage to do it on your own for the other references. Vegan416 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No thanks, these are obviously just passing references. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're passing or not. Vegan416 is trying to establish reputation for reliability based on use by others, not notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it does matter. The way in which a source is used matters, not just the fact that they're being cited. If a source is cited with attribution to illustrate its own opinion, or simply to establish that a high-profile advocacy org said X, that doesn't necessarily imply any reliability at all; and if a source is cited in passing for uncontroversial or less-important things, that isn't as significant as someone using it for the crux of their argument. The broader way a source is used is important because we're trying to answer the question of "is it treated like it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" But more generally I feel that WP:USEBYOTHERS, especially when it's just a passing citation like this, is a weaker indicator of reliability or unreliability than actual coverage; use by others can only roughly imply reliability, whereas sources that overtly describe something as unreliable are more clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Right. It's the same general principle as the trivial versus significant coverage concept in deletion discussions, i.e. about quality, not quantity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

But that's the whole idea of scholarly citations! Most scholarly articles do not rely on just one source but rather cite from many different sources which they regard to be reliable. Haven't you got any academic background? Vegan416 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I know how to display a cite properly if that helps. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not relevant. What do you think WP:USEBYOTHERS means? That we should only considers highly reliable source that rely singly on the source whose reliability we try to check??? This is a ridiculous interpretation. Scholarship (and high-quality journalism) do not work that way. Vegan416 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

More straw men. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Very little care in selection here. The Carnegie Endowment, for instance, is an advocacy group, not an academic journal. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This had already been addressed. Look at BobFromBrockley comment from 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) who identified in JSTOR that the majority of 32 articles from peer review journals citing ADL as a reliable source in the last 3 years. Vegan416 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff where he discusses the Carnegie Endowment one from 2024 which I objected to specifically? Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

He didn't look at my selection. Inspired by me he made a new search in JSTOR only in peer reviewed journals. His comment is right here below/ Search for the words "32 articles since 2020 that mention the words "antisemitism" and "Anti-Defamation League"" on this page. PS while Carnegie Endowment might be called advocacy group, it is definitely not biased towards Israel or Zionism. Vegan416 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: can you, for every source you cite, give the exact page number? For example, I have no idea where this source talks about ADL, so I can examine the context for myself. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

While obviously it would have been more helpful to give page numbers, I don't think it's that big a deal. Using search, I can see that the ADL is cited in footnotes 72, 73 and 126. It might be easier to read on the publisher's webpage here: In 2023, Jewish organizations faced an epidemic of swatting incidents, in which a hoax reporting of a crime at a specific address brings armed police to a site at which they expect to confront violence. This increase took place prior to the spike in antisemitic threats and violence that occurred after October 7.72 Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography, spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses.73 And: The Anti-Defamation League challenged the 501(c)3 status of extremist organizations such as the Oath Keepers militia, whose leader was found by the Department of Justice to be guilty of seditious conspiracy.126 These, to me, are good examples of a reliable source using ADL as a source for facts about antisemitism in an unproblematic way, in two cases without in-text attribution and in one case with. I would say this is good practice, and why we should avoid option 3-4 for the antisemitism topic area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Many of the sources here are thinktank reports rather than peer-reviewed articles. Limiting to the latter by filtering gives 32 articles since 2020 that mention the words "antisemitism" and "Anti-Defamation League". The majority of these treat the ADL as a reliable source, although a small number (e.g. Ben White in the Journal of Palestine Studies) criticise it and some are history articles that mention it without using it as a source. Particularly notable are Daniel Staetsky (praised as a model of excellent methodology by Nishidani elsewhere on this page) saying that his methodology builds on one of the ADL's surveys,[48] a terrorism researcher listing ADL's HEATmap in a list of useful databases on extremism,[49] and a review by a criminologist of various hate crime monitors that discusses ADL as a source precisely for this.[50] In other words, quite a bit of USEBYOTHERS data. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The ADL may well be reliable for this or for that but there 3 RFCs, IP area, antisemitism and hate symbols. Stick to those. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Well, if you look at the next to last source I brought, from PNAS which one of the top tier of peer reviewed journals, you will see that it cites the ADL twice on questions of antisemitism (Maybe @Bobfrombrockley missed it because it spells "Anti-Semitic" instead of "antisemitism"):

"Internationally, one recent global survey of 100 countries found that 32% of people who have heard of the Holocaust think that it is a myth or greatly exaggerated, including 63% in the Middle East and North Africa and 64% of Muslims in the region (11, 12)."

"11. Anti-Defamation League, ADL Poll of Over 100 Countries Finds More Than One-Quarter of Those Surveyed Infected With Anti-Semitic Attitudes. (2014). https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-global-100-poll. Accessed 27 March 2020."

12. Anti-Defamation League, New ADL Poll Finds Dramatic Decline in Anti-Semitic Attitudes in France; Significant Drops in Germany and Belgium. (2015). https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/new-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-19-countries. Accessed 27 March 2020."

Here is the proper citation as you like it:

Nyhan, Brendan. “Why the Backfire Effect Does Not Explain the Durability of Political Misperceptions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 118, no. 15, 2021, pp. 1–7 Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You said that these were ADL cites from after 2020, those are two ADL polls from 2014 and 2015. Besides that, so what? I don't think anyone has denied that the ADL is cited by others. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant that the citations appear in articles published after 2020. This is how the search works in JSTOR. And I explained why I brought those sources - WP:USEBYOTHERS. This is particularly relevant against option 3 and 4 that ADL should be deprecated or declared generally unreliable. Vegan416 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The RFCs are about specific areas, as regards the antisemitism RFC, most editors up to now appear to be arguing for attribution rather than gunrel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it is necessary, but in order to achieve consensus I won't object to attribution. Vegan416 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11? cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context) - can you provide the exact quote where the ADL is being cited for something about the Israel-Palestine conflict? That is, the statement about the I/P conflict that they're being used as a citation for? I searched it myself and none of the citations to the ADL there even mention Israel or Palestine, nor were they used for parts of the paper discussing them. If it was an error or if you can't turn up a quote, could you strike the (including in the Israel-Palestine context) bit? --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The specific example you asked about is a bit complicated because for some reason the footnotes have a separate link from the article itself.

Here is the article link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.4?seq=9

And here are the footnotes link (that's what I posted here before): https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11?seq=6

The references to the ADL there are in footnote 73:

“Anti-Semitic Incidents Surged Nearly 60% in 2017, According to New ADL Report,” Anti-Defamation League, February 27, 2018, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/anti-semitic-incidents-surged-nearly-60-2017-according-new-adl-report; “ADL Records Dramatic Increase in U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Following Oct. 7 Hamas Massacre,” Anti-Defamation League, October 24, 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-records-dramatic-increase-us-antisemitic-incidents-following-oct-7;

This footnote is a footnote to this sentence in the article itself: "Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography, spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses."

I think it is quite obvious that this talks about antisemitism in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Vegan416 (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It has been argued in the survey above that ADL is fringe, including because it supports some version of the IHRA. E.g. From an academic position, the ADL's position is fringe, not mainstream - much as religious adherents, despite their numbers, do not define the mainstream; scholars do. However, as this section shows, a significant number of scholars consider it a reliable source. I believe the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism is the only academic journal focusing specifically on antisemitism. Looking at the articles in its recent issues that focus on the US, most cite the ADL, explicitly taking its attitudinal surveys and incident monitoring seriously.[51][52][53]Here's a chapter in a recent academic book taking it extremely serious as a reliable source. Historian Deborah Lipstadt, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, spoke last month at one of its events.[54] She cited the ADL in testimony she gave the House last month too.[55] David Myers, a UCLA prof who spent the weekend defending the encampment there from Zionist counter-protestors, cites them as a reliable source for antisemitism figures.[56]And there are so many other examples.[57][58][59] If we diverge from this practice, it will be us who is fringe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the ADL only appears to have crossed over into its extreme fringe conflationary position fairly recently – I'm not sure exactly when – so it's hard to know in terms of dating which sources can be said to intellectually support it. I do know it was ridiculed by Hillel exactly three weeks ago. Reaching back to sources from several years back is not necessarily reflective of the most recent dark turn that's been taken by the organisation. This year began with the ADL's staff in an uproar, and Google "ADL conflation" and go to news you'll see a real deluge of recent criticism, including, just two days ago: The Anti-Defamation League Has Abandoned Some of the People It Exists to Protect. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the bias issues have intensified recently, especially during the current phase of the conflict, but to clarify all of the examples of scholarly use I gave just here are fairly recent, although obviously the material they cite was published prior. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RS having to revise articles based on ADL data

Since we are doing multiple subsections, I'll add one. Here are two examples of news media having to revise articles after having uncritically used ADL data:

• The recent CNN story based off the ADL data includes this note: Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War. CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the press release in the Jan 10 version of the article, but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic.
• NBC likewise had to revise its article: Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. surged after Oct. 7 Hamas attack, advocacy group says. Their note reads as follows: CLARIFICATION (Jan. 11, 2024 1:57 p.m. ET): This article has been updated to add details on how ADL has changed the way it compiles data on antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7. NBC had to change the headline as well; the original read: "Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. jumped 360% after Oct. 7 Hamas attack, advocacy group says".

This suggests that ADL has become an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

If a news outlet has used a source uncritically, isn’t that more of a reflection on them than on the source? I see neither of these two updates is described as a correction (rather, they are described as clarifications). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily, ADL trumpeted the increase but didn't trumpet the change in criteria, misleading at best. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the original ADL press release which indeed trumpeted the increase and didn't mention the change in criteria, although thrice says the data is "preliminary". It notes that it includes "1,317 rallies, including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism." I can't see what was changed when it was amended a week later. I agree that not mentioning a change in methodology is sloppy at best, misleading at worst. Don't think that evidences general unreliability in the way being argued though. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is in my view bias to the point of unreliability to lump any of those three things together. Much less all three of them. Loki (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Not if you are tracking public anti-Jewish actions and using modern definitions, then all 3 are covered. FortunateSons (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve previously pointed out that the Working Definition of Antisemitism, while popular among governments and advocacy groups, is controversial among scholars and by no means universally accepted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a reflection on both, isn't it? If skepticism is required of the sources claims, that implies it's not actually generally reliable for our purposes. Loki (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The clarification wasn’t to increase skepticism, it was to increase visibility of the definitions being used. I agree that not stating the definition change alongside the headline statistic is questionable, but I think that is evidence more of bias than unreliability. Looking into their explainer[60] on the change, they present it not as a methodology change, but rather that the backdrop context of the war renders certain expressions of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic that might not have counted in mellower times. That is ultimately their opinion, and the charge of anti-semitism is closer to a subjective opinion than an objective fact. Certainly this source needs to be handled with greater than usual care, and it’s not a source which should get waved through into wikivoice - hence “additional considerations”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman These are not "corrections" but "clarifications". In other words CNN and NBC do not say that the ADL was wrong about facts, but rather that definitions used were not clear enough. And CNN and NBC do not say that ADL definition (that AZ=AS) is necessarily wrong either. They just clarify what is the definition used by the ADL because some people objected to this definition. A dispute about a definition doesn't make the ADL generally unreliable. Vegan416 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, we, as a community, object to that definition as fringe. Nowhere on Wikipedia will you find a statement substantiated in Wikivoice asserting that conflation, because it is, politely speaking, unacceptable fringe, and, frankly speaking, drivel. Again, were in not already painfully obvious from a conceptual perspective, you only have to look to see Anti-Zionism and antisemitism existing as separate pages and briefly check the definitions, or do the same on any encyclopedic or RS resource, to observe the difference. Similarly, nowhere will you find the notion that the conflation is a valid minority position within the academic mainstream. You will find RS and scholarly sources denouncing the conflation, and then a small coterie of POV-pushing sources defending the conflation as somehow not intellectually and morally bankrupt. Needless to say, we stick to mainstream. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 To be clear, politely speaking, what you said here is absolute nonsense. We don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is a type of AS” for the same reason that we don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is not a type of AS”. Namely, because as wikipedia community, HAVE NO OPINION on this question, and therefore we neither endorse, nor object the view that “AZ is a type AS”, and we definitely do not regard this view as fringe. This is because of WP:NPOV policy. And the fact that there are different articles for Antizionism and Antisemitism doesn’t prove your claim either, because even those who think that “AZ is a type of AS” don’t mean that these concepts are exactly identical! That would be ridiculous because AS is much older and much wider than AZ. What “AZ=AS” actually means is that AZ is a subset of AS, or to be even more precise that there is a large overlap between AZ and AS. This view about the relation between AZ and AS is best illustrated by this Ven Diagram here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheRelationshipBetweenASandAZ.jpg

As for the question of what we can say is really mainstream and what is really fringe (outside of wikipedia’s NPOV) this had already been discussed here enough and continuing this discussion at length here would be bludgeoning. Therefore I’ll respond to you about that in my talk page later and notify you so you can respond there if you (or anyone else here) will wish to do so Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't state that "AZ is not a type of AS" because you don't need to affirm a negative – it's the default state of things. And of course Wikipedia endorses opinions: it endorses mainstream opinions based on a consensus understanding of RS sources. You neither understand the issues here nor how Wikipedia works. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You are bludgeoning here. As I said if we you wish to continue this discussion you can respond at my talk page when I'll write my lengthy reply, or you can move the discussion to your talk page. I'll be glad to continue there as well. Vegan416 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are doing infinitely more bludgeoning than anyone else here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

From the River to the Sea" in the Real World Context

There was significant discussion about this phrase above, so I want to make a distinction between the hypothetical meaning of it, and the "real-world" meaning of it to which the ADL refers.

Some people say that the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” doesn’t necessarily negate the idea of Jewish self-determination in the holy land, since a "free and democratic" one-state solution can in theory be a manifestation of the self-determination of both Jews and Palestinians. That is debatable. But in any case, if people really meant this slogan in this way, then this should have been reflected in the protests where this slogan is chanted. For example, it would have been expected that the people chanting this slogan would do it while carrying the flags of Israel and Palestine together. Or that they would print on their shirts some of the ideas of combined flags that had been suggested for a one-state solution (see for example here, here and here).

But in fact, nothing like this happens. In all the protests, the people who chant this slogan carry only Palestinian flags and symbols. Moreover, quite often this slogan is visually explicated to mean the deletion of Jewish self-determination, by using it alongside images of the entire area of the holy land “from the river to the sea” covered by the colors of the Palestinian flag, or by a Palestinian keffiyeh, without any Jewish symbols whatsoever. See many examples from demonstrations (1 2 3 4 5), T shirts (including sold through Amazon), badges, masks, book covers and more.

So, to sum up, while hypothetically the slogan “from the river to the sea” might perhaps be used in a meaning that is not contradictory to Jewish self-determination, in practice in the protests and other contexts that the ADL condemned, it had actually been used as a slogan against Jewish self-determination, i.e. an Antisemitic slogan according to the IHRA definition appendix. In the words of Per Ahlmark - in the past, some antisemites wanted to make the world Judenrein, today some antisemites want to make the world Judenstaatrein.

PS, the US house yesterday condemned this slogan as antisemitic, by a landslide majority of 86%! This shows again how ridiculous is the opinion that this is a fringe view, and that holding this view should make the ADL an unreliable source. This is especially true if consider that this is after all a political question and not a scientific one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this drivel forgot to sign, but I'd like to inform them that we do not listen to what any particular government has to say about a polarized issue. How would you react if someone made an argument phrased identically to yours, same big bold letters and everything, but instead of arguing about the U.S. House passing a resolution saying that "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic, it was an argument about the various governments of the world that endorsed South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Not well, I'd imagine. We do not repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard 1. You are using a straw man. I never said that we should "repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice". What I actually said is that it is ridiculous to say that the view that "From the River to the Sea" is antisemitic is fringe, when it gets 86% majority in the USA House.

2. You are also wrong in claiming that this is the view of one "particular government". In fact, this is the view of several governments and scholars. See here From the river to the sea#Legal status. The IHRA definition which is the base of this view is accepted by an even larger number of governments and scholars. See here Working definition of antisemitism#IHRA publication - Adoption section. So again, it cannot be viewed as fringe.

3. You also completely ignored the main point of my comment, which was that the way that the slogan is used in the anti-Israeli protests actually proves that the intention of the protesters is to delete the Jewish self-determination. Vegan416 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:BLUDGEON. nableezy - 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I’ll give Vegan416 a moratorium of three more comments before reporting them for bludgeoning. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you one guess who wrote that... Levivich (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin the suspense. nableezy - 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Complete and utter rubbish. Campaigning for one cause has never required one to carry the flag of every other cause on the planet. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What should be discerned from this RFC?

Obviously results are highly polarized, with a lot of “ADL is no good at all” and a lot of “ADL is 100% reliable”. There’s obviously not enough of a consensus to label it as any one thing, but there are enough reputable editors showing concerns about its reliability that it should somehow be acknowledged as a controversial and un-ideal source for most claims (since nothing it’s cited for is uncontroversial). Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My take away… it can be cited, but use in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There are 3 RFC's. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I know but it’s basically one super-rfc Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do see some difference between them, leaving aside the obvious crowd of "1"'s. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Even though I voted 1, for the sake of consensus I won't object to 2. I don't see in-text attribution as an affront when we are talking about political rather than scientific issues. Vegan416 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Think there's a pretty clear consensus for option 3 on the first two RFCs, despite the bludgeoning by a number of people. nableezy - 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say on the second one there's a clear consensus for at least option 2 and a rough consensus for option 3, but that's a quibble. Loki (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has to be based off of reliable sources, and a bunch of people saying "I don't like it" doesn't actually demonstrate the ADL in unreliable. As far as I can tell, the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been reliable sources showing the ADL lying about facts on the conflict. If you are unable to see that then I suggest you try reading the discussion again. Otherwise Id say your As far as I can tell is a personal problem. nableezy - 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've read the discussion, and this simply hasn't been convincing. No need to throw around insults, though. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Unaware of any insults thrown around. But your being convinced is not the metric we decide consensus on. The claim that the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source remains a straightforward false statement. nableezy - 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus on anything. I suggest you count and read the discussion again. Vegan416 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Lol, it isn’t based on how many times you said the same thing that the overwhelming majority of editors disagreed with. nableezy - 08:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I made a rough quick count of the votes on the antisemitism question (please recheck since I could have made mistakes). These seem to be the result:

1: 12, 2: 17, 3: 20, 4: 6

That doesn't look like any consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity, nor is it plurality, in fact it is not settled by votes. There's a reason we refer to them as !votes. However one thing a reviewer is likely to take away from this distribution of !votes is that the broad majority of people who attended to the RFC had mixed feelings regarding the use of the ADL for antisemitism questions and that, at the very least, there is a clear and substantial majority who would prefer avoidance of wikivoice for ADL claims. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

lol 12 ppl said generally reliable, 43 said not: looks like the answer is "not." Levivich (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL. If you'll look well you'll see that I responded here to Nableezy's and Loki's claim that there is a consensus on option 3 in the second question (about antisemitism). I stand by my claim that there is no consensus on option 3 in the antisemitism question, and the numbers prove that. And while I'm breaking my temporary silence here, I'll also mention another high quality RS that cites the ADL on antisemitism, that wasn't mentioned before, I just found it accidentally while exploring another topic, it is an article from 2023 in one of Nature journals: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01624-y. And DroneBogus since you are counting, it's 1 out of 3. Vegan416 (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Use by others is not really the issue here (and your math needs improvement). Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad I didn't realize "There is absolutely no consensus on anything" meant there was consensus on something. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

One consideration I haven't yet seen is that the ADL's reliability may or may not vary with its management. Different leadership, staffing, and strategies correspond with changes to any organizations capabilities (either on a particular subject or generally) and, as a result, should perhaps change expectations.

For example, the ADL has made efforts to expand its international capabilities, and, there has been discussion surrounding the difference in capabilities, degree of controversy, and areas of focus between the current leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the previous leader, Abraham (Abe) Foxman 1, 2, 3.

This may not be a practical standard to implement, but perhaps its worth consideration that material from the ADL on different subjects may meet different standards of reliability depending on when that informational material was published. Glinksnerk (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a very good point. For example, most of the negatives above relate to the period since October 23, including a definition change in January and descriptions of protestors in this period, so I think there might be a stronger case for option 3 in this period (and for issues relating to the conflict) than in the prior periods. However, the three links there kind of cancel each other out. The third, an opinion piece in Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser of the Jewish Leadership Project, attacks Greenblatt for being too left-wing, for supporting Black Lives Matter and other groups allegedly "hostile to the Jewish community". It also attacks Greenblatt for taking money from Pierre Omidyar. (Apparently, "Omidyar has also financed The Intercept, an Iran-apologist, radical left-wing news outlet that has at times defended Hamas and Hezbollah, antisemites in the British Labour Party, the Jew-hating leaders of the Women's March, and supporters of Louis Farrakhan.") So if we take that seriously, it's hard to also take seriously The Nation, which criticises it for being too pro-Trump. The Tablet, meanwhile, is not that critical (it discusses how the ADL attempts to be bipartisan and even-handed in a partisan, polarised world) and does not raise any issues relating to reliability. The criticisms of the ADL under Greenblatt which they cite are more aligned with the Newsweek op ed: that it is too critical of Trump and right-wing antisemitism and not sufficiently focused on Jewish-only issues rather than a civil rights perspective more broadly. These criticisms contradict the arguments raised on this talk page against ADL, which say almost the opposite. So my take-home from these three articles is that both the left and the right have ideological dislike for ADL, but I see no reliability issues raised in them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should actually read the criticisms in detail, and not put them into boxes. The Nation doesn't just criticize the ADL for being too pro-Trump but for collaborating directly with the government of Israel, which by itself would make the ADL not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that that's a different Nation piece than the one I was replying to, which was the one Glinksnerk linked to.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What that article establishes is a single opinion writer for a single left-wing outlet thinks the ADL is the spy agency of a hostile foreign power. If anything, the opinion piece goes to great lengths to emphasize how reliably and authoritatively the ADL is viewed by news outlets. I'm not going to value a single opinion piece over decades of earned credibility from mainstream news organizations, in other words. Toa Nidhiki05 03:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nation isn't "left-wing"; it's "progressive" within US politics, which just means it picks up on a handful of meaningful social issues and presumably supports the slightest vestige of social security. The ADL is associated with at least one well-documented espionage scandal, and is openly a lobby group, so that's not controversial. And James Bamford is an award-winning journalist and specialist on espionage and intelligence, so it's not a random opinion; it's a featured analysis from an experienced, specialist journalist. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

And he still states very clearly in the article that the ADL is uniformly regarded as reliable and reputable by mainstream media. He doesn’t like that, but it absolutely is. Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

While detailing all of the organisation's red flags, he essentially points to the glaring and inappropriate systemic bias in coverage of the ADL – essentially flagging the very issue that Wikipedia editors should watch out for. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's such a common take to hear that "US politics are so right wing that any progressive in America is unbiased by the world's standards". It's not based on reality. The first thing I found when I went to The Nation's website is this article which claims that Trump is on Xanax because he fell asleep in court. [61] This is unhinged. According to The Guardian (which is British), people fall asleep in court because there is no air conditioning and legal proceedings are boring. [62] If the first article I see on The Nation is some guy making up a rumor that Trump is on Xanax and presenting that as news I highly doubt an opinion piece is more reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nation strikes me as the sort of magazine you can publish anything in, from quality journalism to baseless conspiracy theories, as long as it toes the ideological line. Dronebogus (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Greenblatt just took his next step into the abyss. As noted in the comments, all this chap seems to do these days is defame in defence of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If we used Greenblatt's remarks to camera on MSNBC (a highly unlikely scenario), then we'd presumably be citing Greenblatt/MSNBC, not the ADL. I don't think this is pertinent to the discussion. Our question isn't whether Greenblatt is a sensible commentator, it's whether ADL publications are reliable or not. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As the figurehead for the lobby group in question, Greenblatt's position is highly relevant. When he speaks and is given a platform, it is as the representative and spokesperson for the ADL. The things he says he says openly as the head of the ADL, so I'm not sure how that can be detached from the group. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

He presents as the public face for the org, much like Dave Rich does for CST, neither go out of their way to specify that they are simply rendering their personal opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

While you might dislike such comments, JVP is pretty uniformly regarded in the Jewish community as a disagrace, primarily due to their radical anti-Zionism and support of Palestinian terrorism and terrorists (see: Defending the October 7 attacks, hosting convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh, harassment of LGBTQ Jews at a pride parade, and suspension from Columbia University for "threatening rhetoric and intimidation"). Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Odd of you to attempt to claim that JVP is not part of the Jewish community, and that only Zionist Jews determine what is a "disgrace". Also odd framing on most of your links. But par for the course I suppose. nableezy - 14:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

JVP is a part of "the Jewish community", I really do dislike it when this mysterious "community" is summoned to berate "bad Jews". I don't believe the Jewish community is any sort of monolith. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure both of you are better experts on the Jewish community than the ADL, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

J Street? Or are they just slightly bad Jews? Not yet consigned to the pale. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, J Street has certainly faced criticism from the right, but it certainly isn't loved by anti-Zionists - Norman Finkelstein called them "loyal opposition". Not sure why you're referencing a group generally regarded as mainstream here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Because they are out of step with AIPAC, who are also "mainstream", no? Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

When have I mentioned AIPAC here - what are you even talking about? Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, not a monolith. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I still have no clue what you're talking about. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I will just have to take responsibility for my failure to explain the obvious. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't make claims that some Jews are considered a disgrace by the Jewish community, that's borderline hate speech. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what he is going for is “highly controversial” or “broadly disliked”, which I can strongly affirm within my anecdotal experience (young, centrist/liberal European Jews) and aligns with what I see in online spaces.

I can’t speak for groups and places with which I am unfamiliar, and some of the more rabid responses are (in my personal opinion) wrong, but his description is a generally accurate assessment of broadly held sentiments. FortunateSons (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They well be "at odds with most Jews in the U.S., including friends and family" but "In a conflict so often reduced to Arabs versus Jews, the Jewish identity of JVP comes into play beyond simply guiding the personal politics of its members. As one small part of a broader movement for Palestinian rights, JVP sees great strategic value in turning out large numbers of Jewish dissenters to Israeli policy, according to Saper. "We know that we have such an important role to challenge false accusations of antisemitism,” Saper said, “and also make it so clear that, actually, our Jewish values teach us to take action for justice." resonates. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So we both generally agree with what Toa said then? FortunateSons (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a more nuanced opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the difference? It may be off topic (and the curiosity killing the cat), but to me it feels like you two are phrasing the same content differently, not a difference in content. FortunateSons (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is about the reliability of the ADL and they are certainly not reliable for their views about JVL (or much else, so it seems). Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly a way to characterize what I said, Levivich. The ADL has a fairly comprehensive primer on why JVP is not representative of mainstream Jews or Judaism. What I said isn't controversial whatsoever. In that regard, they're quite similar to Neturei Karta - a group that, while Jewish, are uniformly regarded as outside the mainstream. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, an advocacy group explains why a conflicting advocacy group don't get to get counted among the Jews? That form of Jewish erasure is not exactly shocking, but given the source, it's of dubious value. Can be filed with Trump explaining Biden's lack of popularity. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what the source says - they aren't Jewish. That is what the ADL is arguing verbatim, and I'm sure you can cite exactly where in the article it says that.

Now, if you actually did read it you'd note it simply says their views "[do not] represent the mainstream Jewish community, which it views as bigoted for its association with Israel", cites specific examples of areas where JVP has engaged in extremely dubious behavior (endorsement of violence, use of antisemitic tropes and cartoons, casting traditional Jewish religious doctrine as racial supremacism, etc.). Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they're defining "mainstream Jewish community" as those who agree with the ADL, so that those who disagree with them do not get counted, when actually huge portions of American Jews disagree with the ADL in varying forms and levels. It's the

True Scotsman" fallacy. About 1/6th of American Jews think Hammas's motivations are valid, and fewer than 2/3s think Israel's actions are totally valid. So the ADL views may be the most common but it's not so slanted to erase all else from the "mainstream". In the mainstream, there are broad disagreements among Jews, which is hardly news. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You want to trust not just the lobby group but its blogs as well now? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I regard the ADL as a reliable source on Judaism and the American Jewish community. So do most reliable sources. Shocker, I know. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If they stick with that, that'll be good. Diversification isn't working out too well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But, umm ... WP:BLOGS? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a blog. The ADL is a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Aside from looking like a crap blog, it has blog in the URL and sits under the tag of "blog". I admire your tenacity in resisting this, but I'm not sure you can escape the self-evident reality here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think you know what a blog is, or what a self-published source is. I see no reason to continue this discussion and would advise you to… actually read before you cite policy. Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Walks like a blog, looks like a blog, says it's a blog.....it's a blog. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't really be quacking harder. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you be willing to elaborate how (in the sense of policy, not name) you believe it meets the requirements for Wikipedia:Blog or Wikipedia:Newsblog? I think an argument can be made for the latter, I’m lost on how it could be the former. FortunateSons (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Newsblog -> Newsorgs (might be OK, depends, not auto assumed as OK) (ADL isn't a newsorg or even a newsmag)

Blog No good unless expert author. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of what the ADL does can be construed as news/reporting (construed broadly), so an application of the policy regarding news blogs could be reasonably argued for IMO.

On the other hand, it’s clearly non-analogous to a blog by a random person/group, but I guess this is something for the closer to interpret. FortunateSons (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a chance, its an advocacy group, CST does the same thing in the UK, dresses up a blog like it was news. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on a very cursory reading, I would also consider the HRW news tab to be RS as well, wouldn’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I consider HRW reports to be reliable. Anything else, depends. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I appreciate how consistent your views are, and choose to disagree with that assessment as well FortunateSons (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I would not trust the ADL to be a reliable source for information on Jewish Voice for Peace. Nor an Israeli newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejecting all newspapers from a country as unreliable is not only ridiculous - it’s bigoted. If this is genuinely something you believe in, not sure it’s worth further discussing anything. Toa Nidhiki05 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA - I suggest you retract that aspersion and AGF. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? I don’t trust anything PRC papers say about Taiwan or Falun Gong, and it’s not because I irrationally hate mainland Chinese as people. Dronebogus (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

And, rather specifically, the claims that JVP have used "antisemitic tropes" is dependent on the assumption that anti-Zionism is intrinsically anti-Jewish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so, working off of the axiom that you believe the same things that the ADL believes, the ADL is correct. But that's some pretty circular logic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it more depends on whether you consider the examples in Working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as part of the definition or whether you go by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism which was drawn up to avoid the problems with the examples. I think it is pretty clear the ADL agrees with the examples and does not agree with the Jerusalem Declaration. I'm fine by the Jerusalem Declaration and I reject the idea of calling Jews antisemitic because they do not agree with the actions of Israel. NadVolum (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This section might be useful to brainstorm the simplest possible consensus statements, so as to avoid having multiple RSP entries, but thus far we mainly have involved participants restating their own opinions, but reframed as pseudodispassionate consensus statements. I guess I'll link a pet essay: Wikipedia:No pre-close summaries, please. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I come back after 10 days and somehow this has turned into a discussion about Trump on Xanax (my new band) and who is a Jew? Dronebogus (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Harvard Kennedy school professor noting how she now disavows ADL data altogether (due to its deterioration) and just goes by FBI numbers. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And not just any prof, Juliette Kayyem. Levivich (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But seriously, what should be discerned from this?

Coming back to this with fresher eyes I see something vaguely resembling a consensus— the “option 1” voters are mostly leaning on the circular logic of “the ADL is authoritative because it’s widely treated as authoritative” or even “it’s authoritative because OF COURSE it is”, while most of the others who actually provide evidence and reasoning obviously fall under various degrees of “unreliable”. Specifically I think you could read this discussion as pointing towards “unreliable for uncritical statements on Antisemitism and I/P; potentially acceptable for cited opinions; hate symbols database unreliable due to lots of shallow, dubious information and lack of methodological transparency.” Thoughts? Dronebogus (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the database that does look like the consensus. On the database, there are relatively few 3 !votes. I think the consensus there is more like "OK but seek out more specialist sources". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but I am quite happy that I am not the person who has to close this, because trying to figure out the ratio of !votes and actual policy-based arguments seems to be an almost hopeless endeavour, including some rather novel factors used to establish (un-) reliability.

I think the only clear close is likely to be 3, probably a 2 with the additional consideration being something along the lines of "attribution and cautious use for historical background" FortunateSons (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to point to the Working Definition of Antisemitism instead of the ADL so it wasn't circular, but in fact it seems the ADL was already going this way back in 1974 according to New antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

“the ADL should be considered authoritative/reliable in wikipedia because it’s widely treated as authoritative/reifiable in reliable sources (both newspapers and scholarly works)” is not circular reasoning. It is the accepted Wikipedia policy of WP:USEBYOTHERS.

And a note for Levivich: "Anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism" is objectively true, at least in my opinion. Because denying the Jewish nation the right of self-determination while upholding it for other nations (e.g. the Palestinian nation) is using double standards against the Jewish nation, i.e. antisemitism.

And Dronebogus this is comment 2 out of 3 which you allowed me in your grace in this discussion. One left... Vegan416 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's your objective opinion, then I recommend you do some more study both on what modern anti-zionism is today and on historic opposition to zionism. Far from being an inherently antisemitic position, it was one long held by large portions of the Jewish populace. Here, to demonstrate, is an 1897 article talking about how fringe a belief Zionism was among American Jews at the time. Much of the objection in the years before the founding of the modern state of Israel was religious in nature, with some religious Jews feeling that this was a worrisome intersection of the religious and the political, while others holding that we were not supposed to return to Jerusalem until the messiah comes. This is not to say that an anti-Zionist belief cannot be reached for antisemitic reasons nor that it cannot be expressed in antisemitic ways; both are common. But there are other objections that folks have to Israel existing in the form and location that it does, and some of that is not only not in opposition to Judaism, but in direct embrace of it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping count for me, not really getting the actual message that “you are commenting too much and your comments are mostly belligerent contrarianism” Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not circular logic to say the ADL is reliable because reliable sources say it is - that's exactly how we decide what's reliable. And there's been no evidence provided in this RfC that the ADL is regarded as anything less than authoritative by reliable, mainstream media outlets - even criticism acknowledge this. What comments that should be disregarded are ones that rely on personal opinions or judgements about the ADL that aren't backed up by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's also logic that belongs in the past. Here is Slate on everything currently wrong with the ADL: The Anti-Defamation League Has Abandoned Some of the People It Exists to Protect. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That article doesn’t seem to be saying that the ADL is unreliable - just that the author has disagrees with it on subjective matters. BilledMammal (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep - it says they are "the go-to American organization on antisemitism". So even if an opinion piece from Slate is to be seen as authoritative - which it shouldn't (the website is notorious for contrarian viewpoints, or "Slate Pitches") - all you've done is back up the fact that even opponents of the ADL know it's regarded authoritatively. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I doubt you did more than just skim it. Read it again. It systematically works through all of the organisation's recent failings and lays numerous charges against it. If you can't see that, we must be looking at reality through mutually incompatible lenses. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I read it fully - can you provide some quotes? I understand that the author strongly disagrees with the ADL, but nothing they say suggests the reason is objective, rather than subjective - and we cannot classify sources as unreliable based on subjective disagreements. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism" is objective, at least in my opinion. But I really do think that's objectively true. In the same that it's objectively true that anti-Pan-Arabism is not anti-Arab, or anti-Pan-Iranianism is not anti-Persian, and anti-Iranian-theocracy is not Islamophobic. Levivich (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering that this is matter of some dispute, I would call it subjective, and also non-analogous to the examples made. The equivalent would be if an opposition to Palestinian self determination in any areas of Palestine is anti-Palestinian, where I think that a rather reasonable answer is yes. Note that this means anti-zionism in the literal and proper sense, not the way it is sometimes wrongly used as criticism of conduct by Israel/their government or past actions.

That being said, I think we are at IHRA again, so not sure how novel this discussion will be. FortunateSons (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the dispute is. Mainly lobbyists and politicians like the IHRA definition. Even some of its authors have subsequently issues culpa mea statements over its undue conflation – and the IHRA is less extreme than the maximalist ADL position. By contrast, scholars including Amos Goldberg wrote the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which 200 scholars signed, specifically to address antisemitism while avoiding the same muddling of issues and conflation. The IHRA, let alone the ADL's extrapolation of conflation to realms beyond, has never had a scholarly quorum behind it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It makes it very clear that the ADL is unreliable for applying the label antisemitic. It does not even correspond with what most young American Jews would describe as antisemitic. Their use of the term is not one we can use in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)]

I agree that we should not use their definition in wikivoice… HOWEVER, they are prominent enough that I think we should mention their definition with in text attribution. Their opinion on what is (and is not) antisemitic matters. The ADL is hardly fringe. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that there are currently more Christian Zionists in the world than Jewish Zionists, the notion that anti-Zionism can even conflated with antisemitism is really quite risible. It only even arises to the level of discussion because misguided individuals and irresponsible organisations profer the notion up and need to be dismissed. That the ADL has gone down this track is the ultimate hallmark that it has gone full pro-Israeli lobby group, with Greenblatt apparently willing to drag the entire enterprise through the mud in order to tar political opponents of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether the Earth is flat is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Whether vaccines cause autism is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Just because somebody disputes something doesn't make it subjective. Don't forget that "Zionism" does not mean "Jewish self-determination." Nobody would think that being anti-Hamas would constitute being anti-Palestinian, and that is also objective. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Zionism does generally refer to some idea of a Jewish homeland through which they exercise the right to self determination [1], including according to the ADL ADL FortunateSons (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no, not "some idea," a very specific idea. Why would you cite Britannica or the ADL for this? Look at the Wikipedia article, and sources cited therein. "is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, particularly in Palestine." Zionism, especially modern Zionism, is a political, nationalist movement for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. That last part being extremely important.

Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism. It is not antisemitic.

This boils down to an old question: can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? If it's Jewish -- if it gives rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then it's not democratic. If it's democratic, then it won't be Jewish (indeed, due to demographics, Jews may not even be a majority in a potential one-state solution). The majority of Israelis, and Jews around the world, think (according to polling) that Israel should be Jewish, even if that means it's less democratic. A minority of Israelis/Jews think that Israeli should be democratic, even if that makes it less Jewish (like not majority-Jewish). This minority opinion is, objectively, not antisemitic. The ADL says it is antisemitic. This is the problem. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but we are going in circles here, so I’ll just reiterate my invitation from the other comment as not to clutter this up with the same discussions we all fruitlessly had above. I hope others agree as well, continuing this will just make the close harder. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk, claim->rebuttal seems like a straight line to me, not a circle. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let’s start simply: cite a place where the ADL explicitly says that advocacy for an OSS by a Jewish person is per se antisemitism? Because that was discussed above, and there wasn’t one.

Secondly, the definition of Zionism vary, particularly in the modern context, and there just isn’t a mainstream agreement on exact scope, even if you discount all that are as close to objectively wrong as a political definition can be FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism.

Not really true: see Reuven Rivlin, who believes in a one-state solution that does not give special rights to Jews, but who is still a Zionist and who still staunchly believes in a Jewish state in Palestine. He just thinks that Jewish state should include full voting and civil rights for the Palestinians. But it wouldn't, symbolically, be their state.

(And as far as I can tell, when one-state solutions show up in Israeli politics they tend to look like this. Something similar was also advocated by older forms of Zionism that supported a bi-national state.) Loki (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not a one state solution, that's a "version of a one state solution," without Gaza. Levivich (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this discussion. @Levivich, When you look at all the Arab states and the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, it seems quite likely that a "one state solution" where the Jews will be a minority, wouldn't be a fully democratic state and the Jews would likely be persecuted there to some degree. But even if miraculously it will turn out to be the first fully democratic Arab state and Jews could live there safely and enjoy full equality, it would still not be a fulfillment of the Jewish right of self-determination. For example, the Czechs, Polish, and Hungarians were all enjoying safety and equal rights in the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the 20^th century and yet at the end of WW1 it was internationally accepted that the right of self-determination means that they should all be given independent states. If someone said then that these nations should stay under the Austrian rule and be satisfied with their equal rights there, then such a position would rightly be considered anti-Polish, anti-Czech and anti-Hungarian.

Dronebogus this was comment 3 out of 3. From now on I shall keep forever silent in this discussion... Vegan416 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Another thing to remember: if anti-Zionism were antisemitic, then a Jewish person who is against Zionism would, according to this "logic," hate Jews, which means they'd be a "self-hating Jew." The idea that anti-Zionist Jews are self-hating Jews, or that they hate Jews, or that they're antisemitic... all of that is, well, antisemitic. And demonstrably wrong. Not a reasonable opinion to hold. It's objectively true, at least in my opinion, that Jews who are against Zionism do not hate themselves or other Jews. It's not a matter where reasonable people can disagree. And this is why the ADL's recent AZ=AS stance is making so many people upset. It must be remembered that AZ=AS is not a reasonable opinion, no more than saying that being against Intifada is Islamophobic. This is just patent nonsense. In my opinion :-P Levivich (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally, there are about as many Jewish people who deeply hate

every actively antizionist Jews as there are such Jews, but if you ask me, neither group is antisemitic, just often misguided (and occasionally malicious). And just to be clear, you can definitely be biased against your own group, no serious person would argue that a gay person can’t be homophobic.

While this is very interesting, we are getting to for OT here, please feel cordially invited to my talk page if you would like to continue. FortunateSons (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

But seriously, new sections for involved parties to reiterate their arguments under the guise of "consensus" aren't helpful. Also, WP:USEBYOTHERS != "circular logic". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel quite bad for whichever poor admin gets tasked with closing this RfC. The Kip 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We need to figure out what we’re supposed to be getting out of this, otherwise it’s just an extremely long WP:NOTFORUM for people to argue about ADL and antisemitism. And I’m reading a consensus of “not reliable” in broad strokes that keeps getting drowned out by digression and contrarianism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not "we," an uninvolved closer. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I think an uninvolved closer should come along and close this because it’s getting ridiculously long and increasingly unproductive Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While you may see a consensus for unreliability (no surprising, given how you !voted), I see a very strong no consensus (no surprise, given how I !voted). An uninvolved closer is going to be essential here, and it's probably going to be a shitshow afterwords. Toa Nidhiki05 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah, easy close (sorry, closer). Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No consensus, tldr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment leaderboard

As best as I can tell, here are the comment counts across the above ADL sections:

• Vegan416: 73
• FortunateSons: 70
• Iskandar323: 67
• SelfStudier: 58
• BobFromBrockley: 37
• LokiTheLiar: 29
• Levivich: 27
• Toa Nidhiki05: 25
• Nableezy: 22
• BilledMammal: 17

Id suggest if you dont feel youve gotten your point across after 20 comments that comments 21-10000 will not be helpful, and at a certain point dominating a discussion like this is straightforward bludgeoning that should be reported as disruptive editing. This is not a partisan request, my own name is on that list, as are editors who have had similar positions of mine. But if you have made this many comments, trust that people know what your position is at this point, and please for the love of anything you hold dear stop adding to the count. nableezy - 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for taking the time to write it all down.

I think if no-one is opposed, all people listed should (if not completely) refrain for 48h and see if this discussion is even alive without them, otherwise we’re all beating a dead horse here. Is someone willing to join me? FortunateSons (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another unnecessary comment, lol. This one as well, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion weighs in at 1.9 tomats. Closing it is the work of reading two novellas, digesting and weighing the arguments, and then summarizing it. It's over three hours just to read, disregarding the necessary note taking and weighing to craft a close. This is why everyone needs to say their piece and leave shit alone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to reply to the idea lab discussion but its archived, anyway what I would have said is that well timed administrative interventions like the one you just made should be enough to keep things on track. My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't think that a 500 or 1000 word limit down at the next dumpster currently catching fire would be helpful? Also, every time I've popped into a discussion to remind people that someone has to close it, and that prolonged exchanges between the same editors aren't productive, keep uninvolved parties from engaging, and make closing far more difficult no one actually stops the back and forths. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn you knew what discretionary sanctions meant. nableezy - 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Discord

This recent addition at Sam Reich:

Citing a private Discord chat room, the service for which I cannot determine whether it has any mechanism for validating the identifies of users. My knee-jerk reaction is to say 'no way', but I'm surprised to see this hasn't been previously discussed (I assumed there'd be a WP:RSP#Discord), and there's some possibility it might fall unxder WP:SELFPUB (considering I'm unfamiliar with this social network). Anybody know more and better than I? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:Discord#shortcut?:) My immediate reaction is that citing Discord would be absurd, but thinking about it, I can't see any meaningful difference between it and other social media platforms that we allow under WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Discord chat rooms are, unless configured otherwise, public and as such constitute (self-) published information. You have to set up an account and accept their Terms of Service to see the information, but that is also true of Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library, and many other perfectly acceptable sources. Difficulty of access is not something that disqualifies something as a source either; again see Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library... Discord can't possibly be a good source—if you can only source something to there, is it really WP:DUE?—but technically it is permissable under the existing guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

So a Discord chat room being private and inaccessible doesn't run afoul of WP:SOURCEACCESS? How does one verify the claims made? Secondly, do the chat rooms have a account verification mechanism for the participants, such that what an article attributes to alleged person "X" is actually and verifiably person "X"? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A private chatroom would be unusable because it wouldn't qualify as WP:PUBLISHED. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm talking only about public rooms. And as I said in the original discussion on Wikipedia talk:Discord, lack of account verification is not unique to Discord, it applies to the vast majority of accounts on all social media platforms. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Private discords are generally unusable for several reasons. First of all, they don't qualify as WP:PUBLISHED for WP:V purposes; since they are private, they are not available to the public. Second, it can be incredibly difficult to verify that someone on a Discord is actually who they say they are; they lack any form of account verification. While WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to cite people on other social media platforms for trivial biographical details about themselves, that's only possible because such accounts are usually verified or well-known, and because they are publicly available, satisfying our definition of "published." Even if a chatroom is open to the public, and even if the citation provided enough information for people to find it (a necessary component), the issue of eliminating any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person in question would remain. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  This are all good reasons to avoid citing social media, but I'm struggling to see how they apply to Discord more than say, Facebook or X. Those sources are also only "publicly available" if you have an account. And the operators only verify the accounts of a tiny fraction of users. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Generally twitter is, as I understand it, available to everybody who has an account. The same is not true of a discord server, which is available only to a certain subset of users, at the whim of whomever runs it. So if I post something on Twitter anyone who bothers to sign up for an account can read it; if I have a private discord server then only people who specifically apply to me for permission can see it, and only if I decide they meet my criteria, which can be whatever I want them to be. (Facebook uses both models depending on a user's settings; I would consider a public Facebook page, which is more akin to Twitter, to be more acceptable than a private one, more akin to discord) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I think we are only talking about public Discord servers here. An analogy might be that while tweets on Twitter are okay sources, direct messages are not. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, first of all, they said it's a private discord (aka invitation-only.) That's obviously unusable for WP:PUBLISHED reasons. But second, Facebook and Twitter provide at least some degree of verification (although Twitter has been pulling ridiculous nonsense with it since Musk took over, they do still label a few accounts that way.) It's only a tiny fraction, but that tiny fraction (plus those who are unambiguously verified by high-quality, reliable secondary sources) are the only ones we can use. Obviously a Facebook or Twitter account that hasn't been verified in any way cannot be cited, that's basic WP:ABOUTSELF. Discord is different; it has no verification and is not structured in a way that makes it easy to see and verify who someone is, nor, in most cases, is there any meaningful secondary coverage that could verify an account. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine it hasn't been discussed because it's such a gobsmackingly awful idea nobody has even conceived of the idea of citing it -- it's a random vendor-locked closed source IM application where messages can (and do) randomly go poof for no reason, with no public record of the messages or even of the fact that they were deleted. There is no way to provide archived copies of them. It's literally against the Discord terms of service to keep local records of your own messages! Of course it is not acceptable to cite it. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Discord is a social media site. Citing a private Discord channel or server is about as bad as I can imagine, but I don't agree with blanket banning it. Many companies use it as a mechanism for public communication now, in the way that certain countries or groups use Telegram as a method for disseminating information.

I don't believe we should make an WP:RSP entry for Discord because it's going to be very dependent on the context of its usage. As an example, statements made by an organization in its official Discord server would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF while statements in a DM are about as unverifiable as it can get. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One thing I think we can take from this discussion, which might be obvious but isn't actually spelled out anywhere, is that WP:SOCIALMEDIA only applies to public posts etc. on social media platforms. I've made a minor edit to hopefully clarify that. It might be worth a follow-up discussion of how many barriers a platform can throw up (i.e. accept our ToS, register an account, download our vendor-locked software) before we stop considering it public/published. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would consider Discord posts unreliable sources in anything but exceptional circumstances, to the point where I can't quite think of a counterexample. Joe Roe seems to have it well. I'm phrasing my view this way so that no one uses "But Discord!" as an excuse to exclude, say, a quote from Discord that is later published in a reliable source that we reasonably expect to have had good fact-checking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Deprecate. I second what JPxG said. I would argue Discord is never an acceptable source, without any possible exception. First, it has to be said that Discord is not a social media platform. At least, not in the way we usually think of that term. It's far more analagous to Skype, Zoom, or even your phone's text messaging feature than it is to Twitter or Facebook. Having a registered account isn't enough to access "public" content. A "public server" is still far less "public" than public content on other platforms, and the only difference between a direct message and a "server" on Discord is that a "server" is a group chat. There is also a maximum number of users who can be in a server, and a maximum number of servers a user can be in. Think of all the issues with citing Reddit (which also has an RS/P entry and is rightly deprecated), and then multiply the severity of those issues by at least five. You must currently be a member of a server (with permissions granted to view relevant material - not all material in a "public" server is public even to its members), and there's nothing stopping server administrators from making particular text channels hidden, hiding them from certain users (either from individuals or entire groups of users), or making the entire server private at any moment without warning. And unlike Tweets, news articles, and even Reddit posts, there is no way to verifiably archive contents of a Discord server.

Whether you cite an invite link, a link to the message, or the contents of the message, all three of these are far more volatile than equivalents on proper social media websites. Invite links expire or are deleted and replaced frequently, the text channel a message is in can be hidden or have permissions reconfigured, messages can be effortlessly edited or deleted not just by the poster but by anyone with permissions, etc. Once a message is deleted, it's gone forever and not even the company has any verifiable records of it, which is why it's effectively impossible to report illegal content to Discord. If secondary, reliable sources publish an article that sources information from Discord, cite that secondary source, but don't try to cite Discord. Everything about the nature of this platform makes it a verifiability nightmare. It's not just how hard it can be to access content, or how volatile that content is, it's those two factors combined that make this such a uniquely bad source even compared to other deprecated sources.

There's one more cause for concern that hasn't been brought up yet. By Discord's nature, nothing is truly public, which creates privacy concerns when using it as a source. It is, after all, linking to somebody's instant messages. The original post of this discussion showed someone editing an article to state that the subject is queer because they said so on Discord, that's definitely not acceptable, especially not on a biography of a living person. Citing a Reddit AMA is questionable enough (how can you know the user claiming to be the article's subject is who they say they are when there's not a proper verification system?), but a Discord AMA is worse for this reason. We do not know how public or how private the subject thought their messages were. If there's no other sources confirming the subject being queer, citing a Discord message, no matter what server it's in, is effectively outing them.

It's fine to cite discord.com as a primary source of information about the company on their official website. But never, ever a server. There is no circumstance under which it would ever make any sense to cite Discord, not even an edge case. Thankfully, attempts at citing Discord seem to be pretty rare, because no one in their right mind would even think of citing it. But if it starts to become a problem and enough people attempt to cite message links or invite links as sources, those two types of urls need to be in the spam blacklist. I fully endorse a blanket ban.

Apologies for writing a whole essay here, I'm pretty bad at being concise and I had a lot of thoughts on this one.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes... Using Discord is closer to using an email or a letter than it is to using a Twitter/X or Facebook post. There would have to be some intermediate sourcing going on, the way we'd trust a private letter if it were properly published in an archive maintained by professional historians or a private email that was published as part of a book or magazine article. The reliability comes from those authors and fact-checkers, not from Discord. I think my thoughts are coming up as "Do not use directly" and "But it does not poison." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. If I send someone an email or a letter, the whole world can't read it. If I post something in a public Discord channel, they can. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Google is a public website, but {{cite web|url=https://google.com/search?q=jpxg+theranos+scandal}} is not an acceptable Wikipedia citation for JPxG reportedly advised Holmes to continue defrauding Theranos investors, which he described as "going epic mode girlboss style" and "unfathomably lulzy and based".^[23] The reason for this is not that it isn't public, but that which results come up from a Google search are unpredictable, and depend on a multitude of factors that are essentially random and frequently change without warning. jp×g🗯️ 00:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way is it "not a social media platform"? You make an account, you join groups, you post things in those groups, anybody else in them can read it – that's social media. The similarity to private chat services is just in the interface, but that's immaterial to its status as a source. Some groups are public, some aren't. Here's a link to the Wikipedia server – you can click it, sign in or make an account, and start reading the full archives in your browser right now. No approval is needed. You could lose access later, but the owners of Twitter accounts, Facebook groups, subreddits, can also remove, make their content private, or block specific people from seeing it whenever they like.

Otherwise, I think you make a lot of excellent points, but the apply equally to all social media platforms. Social media is a unreliable source that should be avoided if at all possible, we already have a consensus on that, but Discord is not meaningfully different to the others. – Joe (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and I think we agree more than we disagree. You put it better than I could with "Social media is a unreliable source that should be avoided if at all possible, we already have a consensus on that". I'll try my best to articulate why I feel Discord is a bad source even compared to other bad sources.

But first, let's get the not-so-important stuff out of the way. Since I said ("Discord is not a social media platform. At least, not in the way we usually think of that term.") and you asked ("In what way is it 'not a social media platform'?"), I guess there's no avoiding a quick tangent about silly semantics to answer that question.

I'm pre-emptively collapsing it because, as you said, it's immaterial to its status as a source and therefore not really that important. Only typed this out because we both brought it up.

Unimportant side tangent: Is Discord is "social media?"

It really depends on how you define it, which there's more than one correct way to do. The short version of what I'm arguing is that, while the simplest definition is the broadest one (any time communication happens on the internet is social media), there's also a narrower and harder to nail down definition that more accurately describes what people usually associate with that term. If you define it broadly as any digital platform where communication occurs, then yes, Discord is a social media platform, just like Skype, AOL Instant Messenger, and Microsoft Teams are all examples of social media platforms. Interestingly, all three of those examples are mentioned in the "social media" article, but the term "social media" never appears on any of their respective Wikipedia articles. That fact alone illustrates how debatable their status as social media is. Discord is also not described as social media in the prose of its article, only briefly in the infobox (the term is only used in prose to compare it to social media, not to describe it as social media). Compare that to Facebook and Twitter which are described in prose as social media dozens of times throughout their articles. So why is it that no one would disagree Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, TikTok, and even LinkedIn are all social media, but it's weirder when that term is applied to Skype, Zoom, AIM, Microsoft Teams, and Slack? Surely there's something more to what makes something "social media" that can explain why. In a majority of the platforms that everyone would agree are social media, there's some very noticeable overlapping features: every post published to the platform is itself a new standalone web page on the platform users have feeds to help them discover new content on the platform social interaction is gamified using "likes" or similar systems to quantify how good something posted is users have their own profiles which are standalone web pages under which the users' posts appear posts from other users can be reposted to appear on your profile users can subscribe to or follow other users' accounts to add their user-generated content to their feed. Because of those common characteristics, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and even YouTube and Reddit, all have more in common with each other than they do with Discord; they are the quintessential "social media" platforms that come to mind when one hears that term. Skype, Zoom, AIM, Teams, Slack, and Discord are all simply instant messaging / group chat platforms. In terms of functionality, Discord is nearly identical to Slack, while it marketed itself as an alternative to Skype. That is why Discord is "not [social media] in the way we usually think of that term."

Now onto things that are more relevant to its quality as a source:

"You could lose access later, but the owners of Twitter accounts, Facebook groups, subreddits, can also remove, make their content private, or block specific people from seeing it whenever they like."

An important difference is that a post on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit can be archived. As mentioned above, a quintessential feature of social media is that every post published to the platform is in and of itself a new webpage on the platform. A Discord message is not a standalone webpage. Sure, you can right click it and generate a link to it, but all that link does is scroll up your chat window to find it. It isn't a webpage, it cannot be archived. This is why Discord makes for a far more volatile source than the others.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia server – you can click it, sign in or make an account, and start reading the full archives in your browser right now.

Out of curiosity, would it change anything if authenticating your Wikimedia account was mandatory instead of voluntary? Would this categorically make it no longer a public server? Or, if there was a message you wanted to cite, but it was in a hypothetical channel that can only be viewed by extended-confirmed users, even though the rest of the server is "public", would that be categorically different? Now consider that this sort of thing is very commonplace on Discord.

Even within a "public server," you can never know how much content may actually be inaccessible to new or even established members. Any "public server" with a good number of users has at least some text channels that can only be unlocked by meeting certain arbitrary criteria. Publicity doesn't exist on a server-by-server basis, it's more like a message-by-message basis. No such thing as a "public server." The lines between "public" and "private" on Discord are undoubtedly more blurred than on any of the other platforms we've named in this discussion. That is a meaningful difference.

TL;DR: privacy and volatility make Discord a far worse option than Twitter or other social media sites, even putting aside ease of access concerns. At least there are circumstances where citing a Tweet makes perfect sense. There are exactly zero situations where citing Discord does.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason to disallow Discord that would not equally apply to Musk-era Twitter. —Kusma (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • At least Musk-era Twitter still has meaningful verification for political or governmental figures (for now).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Like, separate from all the reasons that Vanilla Wizard posted above? jp×g🗯️ 00:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think Discord has taken a role more similar to a web forum or social media in some circumstances, and discussions like this are a good example of why that's a bad thing. But I think the purely practical concerns (restricted access, lack of archiving tools) are enough for me to say that it currently is not an acceptable source for use on Wikipedia. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  If there's ever a tool with similar reliability to the Internet Archive for archiving Discord conversations or some other means of preserving them then I don't think it would be less reliable than any other social media where we do allow their use for WP:ABOUTSELF statements and similar. So I would probably be against full deprecation if this becomes the subject of an RFC in the future. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Legal Insurrection

What is the reliability of Legal Insurrection for courtroom reporting of legal trials?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Mokadoshi (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously but no clear consensus was reached: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: Legal Insurrection. While its blog articles tend to be political opinions, the blog also features courtroom reporting of major trials. I have found this reporting quite helpful for presenting additional information about the legal strategies used by attorneys in Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College. For example, this article makes the following factual claims:

1. The plaintiff (Gibson's Bakery) hired an accountant to make a determination of financial damages using tax documents and other financial statements.
2. The accountant estimated the business would be impacted for 30 years.
3. The accountant calculated total projected damages to be $5.8 million.
4. The defense (Oberlin College) hired an expert witness which testified that the maximum damages possible could only be $35,000.

The article was written by Daniel McGraw who was in attendance in the court room during the trial, and he has written for the NYT and some other publications that are also referenced in the Wikipedia article. Ohio Supreme Court documents confirm (1) and (2), but as far as I can tell, Legal Insurrection is the only available source for (3) and (4). Based on this information, I'm inclined to believe (3) and (4) are factually accurate. The Wikipedia article benefits from this information, particularly point (4), because without it the article is too strongly written in the plaintiff's point of view. I am trying to improve this article to GA status, and I believe it will be hard to achieve WP:NPOV without reporting of the defense's arguments in court. Not many news agencies provide this level of coverage. I have cited Legal Insurrection a few times in this article for similar reporting. As a blog, I think it's clear it cannot be considered "generally reliable." However, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about whether it could be considered reliable specifically for its court room reporting on arguments made by a legal team during a court trial. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

because without it the article is too strongly written in the plaintiff's point of view [...] I believe it will be hard to achieve WP:NPOV without reporting of the defense's arguments in court.

As a matter of policy, that is not how NPOV works. We do not pick a predetermined point of view that we think is neutral or balanced and then go out to find the sources that can support it. We survey all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and cover those views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to address the NPOV feedback given to me on the article's Talk page. Still, the NPOV issues aside, the question here is whether these types of articles can be considered subject matter experts as they are written by professional journalists that have written about the same court case for other newspapers. Mokadoshi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think journalists are considered subject matter experts generally speaking, and I would not consider just being a journalist to be a qualifier for EXPERTSPS. Also, I don't know if my interpretation is anywhere close to what voorts intended, but if the two issues identified are 1) POV and 2) marginal RS in support of that POV, the solution is not usually to add marginal RS in support of the opposite POV. My recommendation would be to first try and cut down the play-by-play to what is in your top secondary RS and consider what the overall thrust is like (you can do it in your head or just as a plan, it doesn't have to be written). Other sources can then be used to fill in the gaps, but you'd want to try and adhere to the proportion set by your top RS, and not let the rest of the sources dominate (which includes the mentioned RSOPINION, any primary sources like court documents even though there is usually no question about their reliability, etc). I would suggest extreme care using primary sources when DUE is implicated (not just first-party: Independent sources may not necessarily be secondary, and secondary sources not independent), primary sources are generally too narrow to properly assess DUE, and it's unlikely you'd be able to fix a DUE problem with them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My point was more about WP:RSBIAS, which is that we should be careful about the context in which we use biased RSes. I was not saying that the sources were per se unreliable, but that in context, non-biased sources should be preferred over biased ones when reporting on factual issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Mmm. Caution is to be applied to the ordinary reporting of biased sources, but the editorial and opinion pieces (even in otherwise excellent sources) are also covered under WP:RSOPINION. So in general those would be considered unreliable, for statements of fact, and especially for establishing due weight. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• On side note:Just fyi: MOS:LEGAL may have some guidelines, a guideline related talk page discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 and leaning 3. If the only source for the defense argument is a highly partisan blog we don't need to include that source to create a false balance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 and leaning 2 per above, it may well be OK for strictly reporting on that is said (it is an SPS, but by a subject expert), but interpretation may be more iffy. The issue here may well be more of an Undue than as RS one, is what they say really relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 just jumping on the bandwagon, apparently, and agree with Simonm223 and Slatersteven before me. I probably lean more 3. While bias certainly does not disqualify a source from being reliable, highly opinionated sources that are lacking in other indicia of reliability tend to jaundice my eye, so to speak. Were I emperor of Wikipedia, I would not use it, but if Slatersteven's view prevails, I won't quibble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• At the very least, attribution needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Mokadoshi: I have re-added your signature immediately after the four options to make the RfC compliant with the "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short" requirement in WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Please feel free to adjust if needed, as long as the RfC statement meets this requirement. — Newslinger talk 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you; sorry about that. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• We need to be very careful to restrict any decision to courtroom reporting. A quick search of the website's front page reveals recent (non-courtroom reporting) articles that are obviously opinion pieces and not marked as such. First example Leslie Eastman's article on lab-grown meat: I might be more sensitive to that argument were it not for the electric vehicle mandates and the ban on gas stoves I have been battling for many years Second example Mary Chastain's article on pro-Palestine protests at an American university: What a bunch of spineless cowards. Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway agreed to eight of the ten demands given to him by the pro-Hamas mob [...] This one sickens me because these people are TOTES the victims here, not Jews and Israel Third example, Mike LaChance's commentary on links on transgender swimmer: Once again, Biden is putting the priorities of the far left over real problems the country is facing. All he cares about is votes. Democrats are becoming victims of their own policies. The effort to ‘get’ Trump continues. Fourth example, Stacey Matthews' article on pro-Palestine protests at an American university: As further evidence that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum at Columbia University ... So apparently Jewish students, faculty and staff, and their families were supposed to be assured ... Yeah, right. None of these authors' articles should be used for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 03:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Turns out that Legal Insurrection has apparently eleven regular contributions, I covered four above, leaving seven, now minus Mandy Nagy for not writing since 2014 since suffering a stroke, leaving six, let's check them for opinion articles. Kemberlee Kaye, Senior Contributing Editor: On October 7, and 8, and 9, and beyond, the putrid hate generated by these ideologies spewed forth on campuses, shocking the nation. Our readers were not shocked. I wish we had been wrong. But we were right. Fuzzy Slippers, Weekend Editor: You can’t make this stuff up. The least self-aware politician in the entire nation, Hillary Clinton (who is sometimes referred to as “Killery” for the long long list of dead bodies that float up in her wake) has just taken Democrat projection to a whole new level. James Nault, Author: Although the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Mark A. Milley, was terrible, as we reported almost a year ago, his relief and the current Chairman, Air Force General Charles Q. “CQ” Brown, is even worse Jane Coleman, Author: You might think that after the school finally put its foot down, the Intifada campus crowd would get the message. Instead, they pushed back harder ... This is exactly the kind of mealymouthed answer that got the presidents of UPenn and Harvard ousted following their disgraceful appearances before the congressional committee investigating campus antisemitism last December. William A. Jacobson, Founder: Woke eats its own ... Oorah for that, but maybe it’s time to for woke corporate America to wake up to the monsters they have created ... Google is horrendously biased. And everyone knows it. Only one out of ten active contributors, Vijeta Uniyal, who is based in Germany and reports on international news, did not immediately appear to be writing opinion articles. I would say that the other nine can be discounted for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 04:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mokadoshi, Simonm223, Slatersteven, Dumuzid, and NoonIcarus: - notifying of the above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

    Since this is seeing some activity again: Just for the record, my opinion is that it's generally unreliable per WP:BLOG, I just don't see why we need an RFC about it. Not that GUNREL means never use, and I doubt we'd need to DEPREC if it's only come up twice, but using it doesn't solve the stated issue (that of NPOV/DUE). RFC seems to me to be a bit of an XY problem, so to speak. Court room reporting is PRIMARY anyway, different content type, different level of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, different standards. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks @Starship.paint I agree we should hesitate to use this source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about this source distinguishes it from any random political blog. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have found this reporting quite helpful for presenting additional information about the legal strategies used by attorneys in Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College. Oh, no wonder, it’s User:E.M.Gregory’s response when they were prevented from adding poor material at Oberlin College. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting I’m a sock? Mokadoshi (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was commenting on how the article came to exist and why it's chock full of poor sources. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

Things appear to have gotten a little weird at the Jewish Chronicle, as detailed in this piece by Prospect, since it got bought out in 2022 after slipping deep into debt. Now nobody appears to know who is truly funding it, but possibly it's Paul E. Singer, and JC has taken a lurch towards the loony bin since, as evidenced by its hosting of all sorts of strangely spun news pieces and commentary, not least the maniacally themed Anti-Israel Jews are worse than just antisemitic. The JC is currently listed as sound before 2010 and potentially less sound after. Does it need a further clarification for post-2022? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s an opinion piece; given we already consider it unreliable I don’t think it’s cause to reassess this source? BilledMammal (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is one of editorial oversight. Platforms are still partially responsible on some level for the opinions that they allow to be published. Any platform platforming an opinion piece saying "Pol Pot was a wonderful human being and an exemplary leader", or "the sky is orange" would be laughed out of town. The "it’s an opinion" arms-length defense only gets a publication so far. Editors decided: "this checks out", and definitiely isn't hate speech. And that was just a meagre example. I implore you to peruse its work for yourself. So again, oversight. The Prospect suggests it has become malign. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

? (I do partially agree with your more recent statement - for example, systemic issues in their opinion pieces are a reason to look at whether those issues exist elsewhere, and to take those issues more seriously if they do - but I am uncomfortable with the different standards being applied here) BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But read that opinion headline again. It's more than just fringe. And this isn't an RFC; it's just a discussion. And for me, I smell more than just roses with this source. I'm still going to look further. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't actually (currently) consider it unreliable after 2010 - we just consider it more reliable prior to 2010. Check its WP:RSP entry. --Aquillion (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think ownership matters… that smacks of “guilt by association”… what matters is having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don’t know the source well enough to pass judgement on its reputation. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, ownership can affect a site reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; and a lack of transparency can impact it, too. When determining whether a source is editorially independent, it's important to know who owns and funds it in order to tell if it's avoiding conflicts of interest, for instance; it's normally considered concerning for a source to conceal its ownership and funding. Of course, the impact that that has on its reputation ought to be demonstrated by looking at how it's covered. Additionally, when a source's ownership and management changes, it's reasonable for us to stop considering older coverage (which may not reflect its state.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Last go round was 2021, I do think it might be worth some discussion, quite a few developments since then.

‘Unacceptable’ Jewish Chronicle Puts Sham Press Watchdog IPSO on the Spot Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding BilledMammal, we already have a mostly-universal policy on opinion pieces being unreliable for anything but the attributed views of the author. It's worth looking into their reporting content to see if the bias presented by the opinions has seeped elsewhere, but until then, I'll need more evidence to declare it unreliable as a whole. The Kip 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I just posted some, by a news media expert in a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely the case that opinion published by the Jewish Chronicle (including by its current editor (Jake Wallis Simons, appointed in December 2021 with no prior journalistic or editorial experience as far as I can see) is increasingly fringe and biased. (It previously published a range of voices from across the spectrum of Jewish opinion, including anti-Zionist.) I think we should avoid considering any opinion in it under the current editor/owners as DUE unless there is secondary sourcing. Its ownership is also shadowy, which should make us vigilant. However, I've not seen any evidence of unreliability in reporting of facts. Actually, if anything, the spate of sloppy reporting around the Corbyn period (giving rise to the IPSO issues Selfstudier mentions) seemed to trail away after the scrutiny it was under. The Cathcart/Byline opinion piece Selfstudier cites is discussed on the Jewish Chronicle article's talk page. Its author is a respected media expert but he also has a vendatta against IPSO, which is part of the context for his opinion piece. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This part: "When it first came under pressure to act, in late 2021, IPSO had found the paper in breach of its code of practice 33 times in three years – an extraordinary record of editorial failure for a small weekly publication, and all the worse because in the same period, the paper had admitted, and paid settlements for, no fewer than four libel settlements." - would appear to give reasonable cause for concern, assuming Cathcart has his numbers right. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

One Cathcart’s numbers see the extract from the Telegraph at Talk:The Jewish Chronicle under “Telegraph comment on libel”. The 33 breaches = 8 upheld complaints, some very minor, but some complaints were that reports breached multiple items in IPSO’s code. It’s worth looking at the actual breaches. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry 28 breaches = 8 complaints. 33 breaches = 9 complaints as per the Press Gazette link below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Easy test of late: it's still got its beheaded babies story up, without clarification. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Although everything they say is attributed, and it concludes “The JC has been unable to independently confirm these reports.” But anyway we wouldn’t generally want to use a UK-based newspaper with no journalists in Israel/Palestine as a source for Israel/Palestine; literally everything they report on the conflict is sourced second hand and attributes it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but leaving this sort of high-profile disproven material without so much as an "FYI, this claim is now known to be not true" is not great. We expect it from the Daily Mail, which only corrects itself on pain of litigation, but this is a source being upheld as GREL. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you send them an email or reach out in some other way? For smaller and non-activist sources, that may fix it pretty quickly FortunateSons (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a direct sequel to the Cathcart piece. Apparently there's a whole series. He's definitely no fan of either IPSO (though who is, it's toothless), or the publication, but here it is: No Surprise as Ipso Brushes Off Latest Challenge over Serial Failures at Jewish Chronicle. There's also a Press Gazette piece that notes: Since December 2021, there have been three upheld IPSO complaints around accuracy made against the Jewish Chronicle. One article in September 2022, in which the newspaper inaccurately reported a Rabbi had said “the figures for how many people who died in the Holocaust are exaggerated”, resulted in IPSO’s complaints committee sharing concerns with its standards team, which in turn raised them with the IPSO board. - so that's one pretty egregious instance of defamation right off the bat. None of this is indicative of a source with zero issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider me troubled. It's a rough time for periodicals; so many lose revenue and get bought out and tilted against their editorial history. If the Chronicle is going to defame people, misreport on their words, and continue propagating ambiguous/spurious reports, I don't think our community can regard it as a generally reliable source. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Press Gazette reporting includes grounds for optimism in that, rather than describing the current period as problematic, they show that IPSO at least identifies the final years of the previous editorial period (Stephen Pollard was editor 2008-21) as the period of lapses and 2021+ as a time of addressing them. In 2022, when the claimants made a second attempt to get the JC investigated, this was the response: IPSO has declined a request to launch a standards investigation into the Jewish Chronicle. The regulator’s chairman Lord Faulks told a group of complainants it would not be “proportionate” to launch an investigation before the impact of recent training given to Jewish Chronicle staff can be assessed. He also pointed to the newspaper’s 2020 change of ownership and recent changes in editorial leadership... In an email, Lord Faulks said concerns about the Jewish Chronicle’s compliance with the Editors’ Code and its handling of complaints have been “continuously monitored” by IPSO since early 2018. He wrote in December [2021]: “The executive decided targeted training to all members of the editorial team would be an appropriate and proportionate course of action to remedy the concerns identified. A specially tailored training programme conducted in cooperation with the editorial leadership of the Jewish Chronicle has been developed and delivered during the course of this year. The publication has cooperated fully with these efforts, ensuring that staff attended the sessions conducted by IPSO. “Taking this into account, along with the size of the publication and the changes of ownership and personnel it has undergone during the relevant period, it is the board’s decision that it would not be proportionate to launch a standards investigation at this time before the effects of the training programme and the other changes at the Jewish Chronicle can be fully assessed.”[63] Here is the ruling on the breaches that post-date this announcement, relating to an article published in Sept 2022. It's the breaches of Clause 1 (Accuracy) that specifically concern us here if we're debating reliability. The key paragraphs are 17 and 18, which identify where IPSO found a breach (other text complained about was not found inaccurate) and they consider the JC to have failed because of the slowness with which it made a correction (a month) and the quietness of the apology (the latter being an ethical concern but not a reliability issue). Clearly, this was shoddy on the JC's part, but it also shows that they are under intense scrutiny and that they make corrections to their errors. I think we should monitor the pattern, but I don't think this warrants a significant downgrade. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why this is "maniacally themed"? It is an opinion which you and I may not agree with, but if according to IHRA examples denying the Jewish right of self-determination is antisemitism, then if a minority of "progressive" Jews wish to deny the right of self-determination from the majority of other Jews it can be described to be in some sense a worse kind of antisemitism than when it comes from non-Jews. Vegan416 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, actually. If you had an objective criteria for a hate crime, it would be the same regardless. Censuring your neighbours more harshly than strangers is the language of the zealot castigating the traitor or heretic. It is a form of bigotry in its own right: one where the greater threat is not the external enemy, but a perceived fifth column. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a nice sentiment, but perceived betrayal is almost always perceived more harshly than just hostility. This just isn’t an exception, something that is almost indisputable no matter what you think of anti-zionist Jews. FortunateSons (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a particularly irrational and disturbing form of hatred and one that most people would be wise enough not to put to paper, and that editors learned in the history of the last century should stop. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 But opinion pieces are never written from an "objective" point of view. And your talk about "criteria for a hate crime" is a complete strawman. This opinion piece doesn't say a word about hate crimes or any legal steps against them. It just describes the writer's personal opinions on these Jews, and how she thinks the Jewish community (not the law!) should relate to them.

And a word to clarify my position. I personally am a libertarian. I think that no one owes allegiance to any group in which he was accidentally born, unless he made a conscious commitment to it as an adult. But I realize that the vast majority of people in all cultures and societies don't think like me, and in fact as FurtunateSons said "perceived betrayal is almost always perceived more harshly than just hostility". This is hardly a "zealot" position. Just think how even moderate and mainstream Islamic or Arab publications describe ex-Muslims who preach against Islam, or Palestinians who support Israeli right wing positions. Vegan416 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The hate crime is antisemitism (or worse apparently – hate crime beyond hate crime), obviously, as elucidated in the title. The piece makes the ADL faux pas of being unable up distinguish between that and opposition to political ideology. It's generally a fairly contemptible rant. It also somewhat hilariously reads like there is an unawareness that Morris is a new historian too. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Another strawman. Merely expressing antisemitic views is not a hate crime in the UK, because you know - freedom of speech. It has to be accompanied by threats or incitement to violence to be considered any crime.
2. As we have already discussed ad-nauseum in the ADL discussion the IHRA and ADL position on AZ⊂AS is faux pas only in your opinion. Others think that denying the Jewish right of self-determination while upholding the right of self-determination of Palestinians (and other nations) is double standards against Jews, i.e. antisemitism.
3. The difference between Morris and other new-historians like Pappe is that Morris is not anti-Zionist, whereas Pappe is.

Vegan416 (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hate speech then. Not really the point. The focus here is a source, not this opinion piece. You're wholly off-topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing that it’s good, I’m arguing that it’s human. I can’t speak for all, but based on my anecdotal experience within my social circle, a person who is LGBTQ+ and supportive of a right-wing politician that wants to take away gay/trans rights is likely to encounter hostility from the community far beyond what a cis-het person would. I’m weary of such tribalism too, but if we wanted to ban it, we would have to exclude almost any media written by or for minorities, something I would find unacceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree that the murky distinction between antizionism and antisemitism is occasional used to unduly vilify the former or excuse the latter, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t often extensive overlap, including the call “coming from inside the house”, so to speak. FortunateSons (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"according to IHRA examples denying the Jewish right of self-determination is antisemitism"

The IHRA definitions of anti-semitism are highly debated (especially with context to Israel) and Israel didn't achieve independence through self-determination in the context of post-colonial states. This is very much a case of "Anti-zionism" being directly conflated with "anti-semitism" especially with the example given of progressive Jews being labeled anti-semitic for critiquing a nation. Galdrack (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. However, I think you are awfully close to the I/P-restrictions here. FortunateSons (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, if you find yourself needing to use either of "Israel" or "Palestine" in a comment, odds are you are over the line, no more of that, please. Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on a cursory reading (and the last check I did for it when I needed to cite them), there do not appear any significant issues with reliability.

It tends to represent a pretty mainstream line of Jewish thought (though I am not aware enough on the margins to know whether @Bobfrombrockley is right on a changing scope of opinion pieces), but even if it did not, I see no conduct that the existing policies on opinion pieces don’t cover. Otherwise, I would consider them to be reliable and usable for all relevant topics, requiring only the same awareness as any other source biased in the relevant areas. FortunateSons (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Every editor can form their own assessment and weigh in about such in discussions. This kept in mind: FortunateSons, over the past couple months it's become increasingly difficult to understand your assessments of sources. Iskandar has told us that Jewish Chronicle pushes the antisemitic trope of the "self-hating Jew"; has linked to reliable sources documenting multiple IPSO breaches; and has raised examples (with links) of dubious content like defamatory coverage of a rabbi and promulgating inaccuracies about infant violence. Based on what, then, have you concluded that there are no significant issues with reliability? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the covered issue is an opinion piece and to be treated as such, not a news article.

Excluding the discussion about the IPSO-Topic (about which I am quite frankly not informed enough to form an informed opinion, but seems closer to insignificant than catastrophic), the long history of the source (including very good reporting) and my last check (which was a lot more thorough than this one, because a JC piece inspired me to write an article) led me to my conclusion of general reliability. I chatted with some regular readers and some trusted community members who explicitly weren’t, read some of the articles where I had knowledge of the topic at hand, and looked for significant controversy that would catastrophically impact the reliability of the source.

With the exception of what was linked above (with my opinion on IHRA and reliability-unrelated source conduct being well documented in the discussions about the ADL and NYT), I see no significant issues that are not avoidable with a modicum of common-sense or just by a standard application of policy. Whether or not the IPSO issue and the complaints have been resolved is a matter of debate, but this is about broad patterns, not localised issues, and as much as I have looked, the IPSO-related issues seem to have not caused severe problems, and neither has anything else.

While caution should be applied to anything owned by individuals or states, I would not consider it a mark against the source here even the speculation above turns out to be accurate (but as always, beware of bias).

Im also mostly (on outcome, not necessarily argumentation) in line with what @BilledMammal, @Bobfrombrockley, @Vegan416 and @The Kip have argued, so it isn’t like I have taken a fringe free-speech position or something similar.

Off topic, but while the article is imperfect, it should be rather clear that there are non-antisemitic uses of the “self-hate” accusation as well, similar to the way “traitor” or “un-American” is used. I don’t particularly like using it (or most people who do), but the issue is quite a lot more complicated than the article suggests it is.

On a personal/off-topic note, I’m very much not amused by some of their opinion pieces either, but if I stopped reading every paper with takes about Jews that I disagreed with, I would have to stop reading newspapers FortunateSons (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The opinion piece should have no bearing on any assessment of the source's reliability. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the issue was never centered on that single opinion piece. If it was, the thread would be about just that single JC opinion piece and framed as such. The opinion piece was merely proferred as an example of the hysterical rhetoric that the outlet appears to tolerate in its opinion section. I said JC hosts "all sorts of strangely spun news pieces and commentary, not least" that particular example. This was merely a follow on from the criticisms presented in the Prospect piece. Since then, more significantly, a large volume of IPSO complaints and upheld complaints have also surfaced. The discussion here is a broad one in the source, so please do engage, but don't shift the goalposts by attempting to narrow the scope – it doesn't help the conversation. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The opinion piece clarification was about the response to my comment, not about your post, don’t worry. FortunateSons (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• My two cents: it’s clearly super-duper biased towards Israel even in the news section but the opinion page is full of extreme right-wing fringe nonsense conspiracy theorizing about CRT “radicalization” no sane outlet should tolerate. I’m not sure if this warrants any adjustment but that plus the mystery ownership issue means I would place it in the “just not worth the effort of trying to use” category. Dronebogus (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Unreliable in I/P & antisemitism areas -- the contents of the The_Jewish_Chronicle#Criticism section is such that I would not consider the source to be reliable on these topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Only the last two paragraphs of that section relate to reliability issues (both focusing on the 2018-21 period). The rest refers to criticisms of its editorial stance or opinion pieces. As with anti-Zionist sources we have discussed, bias is not unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's also the lawsuit section, but I'll answer on that below so the chronology doesn't become too wacky. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: there's no presumption of reliability on wikipedia. Per WP:RS: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. What is the evidence that JC is reliable on these topics? For example, are there 3rd party sources that attest to its accuracy and fact checking? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Although there’s no general presumption, we have prior consensus that this source is generally reliable for news, especially for the period to 2010, so to overturn this consensus I would have thought we’d need new evidence against. However, I’ll look later for use by others etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the prior discussions; however, I don't believe that the above is an accurate characterization of what's currently at WP:RSP, as it leaves out this part: There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians (emphasis mine). --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct. So on other topics we’d need new evidence (and an RfC?) to overturn the consensus. On these topics, there’s more onus on those arguing for reliability to evidence their case. (I think the Neturei Karta rabbi example (from Sept ‘22) and the op ed libelling Iran (from Nov ‘22) fall outside those topic areas.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Examples of use by others, all from last couple weeks, per K.e.coffman request:

1. Times, May 2024. The Jewish Chronicle has reported concerns about two [defectors from the Green Party to Labour] who went on to be elected. Abdul Malik appeared to share a video of Hamas defending October 7. The Greens said Malik was unwittingly tagged into an offensive post he did not himself publish, and Malik has said he condemned the attack on Israel. Malik joined Labour in 2017 because he supported Corbyn. Mohamed Makawi, another Bristol councillor elected last week, shared posts with references to the “Zionist enemy police”, “Palestinian resistance” and the Hamas terror attack on Israel being an “American Zionist lie”. Makawi apologised and the Greens said they gave him social media training. (Evidence its investigations - relating to antisemitism, the UK left and British Muslims - are considered reliable and noteworthy.)
2. Telegraph, May 2024. [Ghassan] Abu-Sittah has expressed regret for his choice of words in the past, telling the Jewish Chronicle: “While I may in the past have used emotive language at the funeral of a friend or following an extra-judicial killing, I vehemently oppose terrorism, and civilian casualties on all sides. (Evidence is considered reliable and noteworthy. Topic is a British Palestinian public figure.)
3. Guardian, May 2024. Last week, Edward Isaacs, president of the Union of Jewish Students, wrote in the Jewish Chronicle that “as Jewish students muster the resilience to begin sitting their end-of-year exams, campuses take another step forward in increased toxicity towards [them]”. (Evidence it is treated reliable and noteworthy as source for opinion of UK Jewish community representative on topic of antisemitism/Palestine solidarity in UK.)
4. Irish Times, May 2024. “Our concerns as a Jewish student body have fallen on deaf ears, most notably through the squashing of the opposition groups and anti-union campaigns,” [Agne Kniuraite, chair of TCD’s Jewish Society] wrote in the Jewish Chronicle. (Evidence it is treated reliable and noteworthy as source for opinion of Irish Jewish community representative on topic of antisemitism/Palestine solidarity in Ireland.)
5. Forbes, May 2024.Drake's biracial identity often led to feelings of alienation. He discussed these feelings in depth in a 2010 interview with The Jewish Chronicle, where he described the difficulty of fitting into either the Black or Jewish communities. (Evidence it's treated as reliable and noteworthy as source for opinion of Jewish public figures in other contexts.)
6. BBC, May 2024. Ariel Cunio, his girlfriend Arbel Yahud and her brother Dolev are also thought to have been abducted in the same attack on Nir Oz. Eitan Cunio, Ariel's brother who escaped Hamas, told the Jewish Chronicle that his last message from Ariel said: "We are in a horror movie." (Evidence is treated as reliable source for interviews with survivors relating to Israel/Palestine.)
7. Jerusalem Post, May 2024. The parents of kidnapped, now murdered, IDF Cpl. Noa Marciano revealed on Wednesday that their daughter had been murdered by a doctor from Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital, according to the Jewish Chronicle. (Evidence is treated as reliable source for interviews with survivors relating to Israel/Palestine.)
8. Norman Lebrecht in The Critic, May 2024. When [[[Mieczysław Weinberg]]’s The Passenger] arrived at English National Opera in 2011, the Daily Telegraph gave the show two stars and the Jewish Chronicle’s editor hated “every minute of it”. (Evidence its cultural commentary is considered noteworthy.)
9. Telegraph, May 2024. Op ed by the JC editor. His views are unpalatable, but the fact that a strong RS deems his opinion noteworthy should be a reason not to consider his own publication unreliable due to his opinions.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

More examples, from March and April.

1. Lancashire Telegram, April 2024. Hyndburn Council health and communities boss Cllr Sajid Mahmood is standing for re-election in his Church ward in Thursday's local elections. The probe by Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) which follows an article in the Jewish Chronicle is the second investigation into his behaviour in recent weeks... The CCHC inquiry follows an investigation by the Jewish Chronicle which says it discovered extremist and anti-Semitic posts from three Conservative local election candidates standing in the North-West - Cllr Mahmood, Bolton's Mazhar Iqbal and Rochdale's Shajan Ali. (Significant here because these are right-wing not left-wing local politicians. Evidence it's seen as a reliable and noteworthy source on non-left-wing antisemitism in the UK.)
2. Al-Monitor, March 2024. an Israeli man who was wearing a kippah was accosted by a man in Finsbury Park in northern London as he awaited a bus. “I felt someone beating me on my shoulders and head and saying, 'I’m going to kill you. Kill the Jew,’” the man told the Jewish Chronicle. (Evidence it is considered noteworthy and reliable on UK antisemitism.)
3. Sky News,[64][65] April 2024. The JC editor as a pundit on a daily news roundup. Again, the fact that an RS deems his opinion noteworthy should be a reason not to consider his own publication unreliable due to his opinions. See also another op ed in the Telegraph, another, and one in the Evening Standard, all in March.
4. LBC, April. Mr Kebede has already been criticised after he and Jeremy Corbyn were photographed holding a pro-Palestine banner days before the conference alongside Ismail Patel, who reportedly “saluted” Hamas for “standing up to Israel”, and Adnan Hmidan, who said he “loved” the terrorist group’s founder, according to the Jewish Chronicle. (Evidence it is considered reliable and noteworthy for UK politics, in this case a story involving a left-wing trade union leader.)
5. Jerusalem Post, April. Pressure is mounting for the United Kingdom to designate the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), one of the groups involved in October 7 and terror attacks predating it, according to a Friday article by the Jewish Chronicle. And JP again, also April.Youth Demand demonstrators campaigned outside Labor leader... Starmer’s house in London and effectively forced his Jewish wife Victoria out of her own home, The Jewish Chronicle reported on Friday, April 12. And the JP again in March. The United Kingdom’s Foreign Office held a seminar where it taught staff that Hamas was not a terrorist organization and that Israel was a “White, settler colonialist state,” an investigation published by the Jewish Chronicle on Tuesday found. (Evidence it is considered reliable and noteworthy for UK politics.)
6. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April. “Part of the role is to carve out a little piece where my heart lies, and there’s an awful lot going on in children’s world these days, between post-COVID and social media use,” [the new Jewish Sheriff of Nottingham] told the Jewish Chronicle. (Evidence considered reliable and noteworthy re UK Jewish community.)
7. Jerusalem Post, March. The Jewish Chronicle reported on Tuesday that there were three masked and hooded men, and the group had also paid a visit to Jewish cuisine deli Noshers [in London]. (Evidence is considered reliable and noteworthy re antisemitism in UK.)
8. Times, March. The Jewish Chronicle shared a video online of Abu-Sittah crying at a memorial for Maher Al-Yemani, a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine... According to The Jewish Chronicle, Abu-Sittah’s lawyers said he had not known that Jarrar was suspected of involvement in a killing and that he would never condone murder. (Story is on a British-Palestinian public figure.)
9. Jerusalem Post, March. Shortly after, between late December and early January, someone took photographs of Green at his home, according to the Jewish Chronicle. (This is a story about neo-Nazis stalking a journalist in the US, so indicates considered reliable and noteworthy on antisemitism/far right topics outside UK.

• Conclusion: currently considered reliable and noteworthy by a range of RSs on a range of topics, including its core area (UK Jewish community, antisemitism), as well as some of the disputed topics (UK left, British Muslims, Islamism), and some other issues too. Although I find its editors opinions unpalatable, he is clearly not fringe as he is regularly platformed by range of RSs. Most but not all of the RSs using it are on the political right and pro-Israel, but bias is obviously not unreliability.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No way it is reliable on Muslims, Islamism, AI/IP, trash source for that, even their views on the left are seriously biased but I guess there are others with similar views of the right so OK. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Iskandar23, here is another question for you. How is it that suddenly you consider "problematic ownership/financing" as a reason for disqualifying a source? Didn't you say in the discussion about Al-Jazeera that "These aspersions based on ownership are like some sort of neo-Orientalist attempt at shoring up systemic bias"? You can't have it both ways. If "problematic ownership/financing" is reason to disqualify a source then we should also disqualify Al-Jazeera and Middle East Monitor who are owned/financed by a non-democratic and pro-extremist government, and Middle East Eye which has a "mystery ownership/financing" as well, and is suspected of being financed by same non-democratic and pro-extremist government. If on the other hand "problematic ownership/financing" is not an issue with these media outlets then it shouldn't be an issue with the JC. Vegan416 (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's very simple. Transparency. Honesty. It's the difference between sources that are open about their affiliations and those that aren't. News platforms are meant to be honest, and if they are organisationally opaque, well that's not great. Yes, Middle East Eye also has opacity issues, but it's not GREL, so indeed, holding the JC to the same standard is pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Where is it said that Middle East Eye in not GREL? Vegan416 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Eye is nocon. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I browsed the discussion referenced there. I didn't read every word because it is way too long. But my impression is that the thing that bothered the people there who were against it was not its lack of transparency about its funding and ownership, but rather its factual unreliability ("fake news"), its connection to terrorist organizations and its lack of editorial board (I'm not saying this is all true, just that this is why the people there considered it unreliable). In fact the words transparent, transparency, opaque and opacity do not appear in that page at all. So contrary to Iskandar23 suggestion we cannot deduce from that discussion that lack of transparency about funding is a reason for disqualifying a source. Vegan416 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally becoming increasingly unreliable in matters related to the IP conflict and antisemitism, adopting quite an extremely biased approach as seen by the instances mentioned above. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

What I noticed about this newspaper is that it is heavily conspiratorial and publishes bigoted articles against Muslims.

It came under public criticism in 2019 for unleashing communal poison. (source: "'Islamophobia a bogus label': Jewish Chronicle under fire over article", "The Guardian", 17 December 2019)

In an article published in 6 March 2024, "The Jewish Chronicle" newspaper denied the existence of Islamophobia and advanced the conspiratorial lie that "concept of ‘Islamophobia’ was created in Iran to silence any critique as racist".

According to wikipedia, this newspaper was started in the 19th century and surprisingly had anti-zionist stances during that period. Overtime, it's ownership changed and became overtly pro-zionist and in recent years, it has been acting like an unhinged zionist propaganda machine. In 2013, this newspaper hosted a conference with Britain's far-right UKIP party. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity, both articles are opinion pieces, right? FortunateSons (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazon urged to withdraw ‘antisemitic propaganda’ children’s book

Here's the JC last December, saying that Amazon is promoting "antisemitic propaganda". Who knew? Book still for sale with a 5* rating. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That is actually a news article (and therefore significant for reliability), thank you. Could you cite a factually inaccurate part of the article for me? It seems like it’s all firmly (as not to re-open the discussion above) within IHRA territory, which was adopted by the UK government. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazon clearly doesn't agree. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a general issue, I’m afraid. FortunateSons (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazon is, in case it wasn’t glaringly obvious, not a reliable source or even a “source” at all. So whatever point you’re making here is completely invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazon didn't withdraw the book, simple. Don't see how that is invalid. Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, JC doesn’t say this. It reports others saying that. (“Legal advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel has called on Amazon to withdraw a pro-Palestinian children’s book which it accuses of being ‘anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda’.”) The clue is the quotation marks. Where’s the inaccuracy here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Those Islamophobia pieces are pretty concerning. The latter comes just a week ahead of a UN experts warn Islamophobia rising to “alarming levels”, which makes that instance of prejudice denial especially extraordinary and outrageous. And apparently the publication failed (once again) to learn from the first instance, in which the regulator ruled that it could not be shown that the JC had taken the care to be accurate. This is material that is not only conterfactual, but, in denying the existence of prejudices, is itself prejudiced. The JC appears to be fairly consistent in its low editorial standards and high tolerance for bigotry, inaccuracy and defamation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Islamophobic Chronicle – The War on Gaza and the Weaponization of Antisemitism Ilan Pappé, last week, (not very high) opinion of JC "In recent weeks, the London-based weekly newspaper The Jewish Chronicle (JC) began to target Palestinian and Muslim students for their solidarity with the victims of the Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip. This campaign included a particularly vicious assault on our students and staff at the University of Exeter, which has relatively a large number of Palestinian students. As British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called for extra vigilant policies against extremism and racism, he should have begun with the long Islamophobic tradition of JC." Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces. Pollard is in my view completely wrong, but he’s not denying the existence of what he calls “Anti-Muslim hatred” but arguing against the use of the word “Islamophobia” for it. He’s specifically disputing the official definition of Islamophobia that is being used in the UK on the model of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Just as those who argue against the IHRA definition or that antisemitism accusations are “weaponised”, Pollard’s position is a legitimate opinion. The JC publishing this opinion has zero bearing on reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I just see this as him inventing an artificial distinction that performs no meaningful function other than to facilitate denial. If the topic was flipped to read: "It is entirely right to call out anti-Jewish hatred, but the concept of ‘antisemitism’ was created to silence any critique as racist", I don't think that discourse would be well recieved. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I see him as profoundly wrong and making excuses for anti-Muslim racism, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit opinion in an op ed that has zero bearing on reliability. We have a whole article Weaponization of antisemitism full of links to opinion pieces by people (some of whom are as culpable of apologism for antisemitism as Pollard is of apologism for Islamophobia) that are quite analogous with Pollard's take. Presumably you don't want all those outlets declared unreliable because of this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Depends on whose opinion it is I suppose, if they are experts in the relevant area, then those count for something in WP, if there are several such opinions saying similar things, they have even more weight. What is Pollards expertise here? I see none. Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pollard has no expertise here, so if someone quoted him as an expert on this I’d remove. But that’s not what we’re discussing. Publishing opinions I disagree with by people with no specific expertise is prevalent across the mediasphere and is thankfully not a reason to consider a source unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Are you in favour of designating Zionist sources as unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: Define Zionist sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The person I'm replying to used the term when they said the Jewish Chronicle became overtly pro-zionist and in recent years, it has been acting like an unhinged zionist propaganda machine. I'm wondering if they could elaborate on if that's a universal standard. Shadowwarrior8 said that the publication used to be anti-Zionist, and I'm wondering if the point is that Zionisation of a source makes it unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question, I'd like to see Shadowwarrior8 define it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

overtly pro Israeli and unhinged Israeli propaganda machine would have been better, true. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The current situation, dating to the last RfC, is that there is no consensus on whether it is reliable on the British Left and Muslims. It should therefore be used with great care and attributed if it is necessary to refer to it on articles related to those topics. I tend to concur with BobFromBrockley that it has been better than it was before in terms of those two topics under its new editorship. I can't off the top of my head think of a genuinely false story it has published for a couple of years, when it was putting out one ever two or three issues for a while. However, I share his view that it has politically become more extreme and is a far-right publication (in the broader sense of the term). I think we need to review the weight we give to opinion it publishes, viewpoints in the JC might now only be WP:DUE if the writer is themselves a prominent individual with recognised expertise in the subject they are writing about. In terms of factual reporting relating to the Jewish community and or the UK, I feel it can probably still be useful, bearing in mind the caveats re comment on the left and Muslims.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

In answer to Bob's earlier note that the criticism section enters a bit of a dry spell after 2021 (not forgetting the Prospect piece), the JC nevertheless had one regulatory tangle and one lawsuit apiece in 2022 and 2023 (in that section). The first coincidentally also stemmed from Zoe Strimpel, so clearly no lessons learned there. The second was the defamation case that was previously mentioned in this discussion. However, an added detail in the lawsuit section of the page is that the JC knowingly repeated a claim that it knew had been retracted. Now that is definitely a reliability issue. It points to an editorial oversight policy in 2023 that was flexible when it came to the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly think I can write anything better, so I'll simply second this comment - treat it with extreme caution with regards to DUE and BIAS and such, same as any other openly far-right/pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian source. At least to me, the IPSO complaints are concerning, but (for now) don't seem overly excessive compared to the records of other major publications (see the NYT fiasco from a few months back). There's already guardrails in place at WP:RSP regarding its questionable record on Muslims, Palestinians, the political left, and the I/P conflict - perhaps we could split its entry into a GREL and M/GUNREL similar to WP:ANADOLU, or what's been proposed for the ADL above?

Also, with all due respect, I'm not entirely sold on the merit of some of the OP's claims when they've displayed contradictory positions toward sources favoring the opposite side of the conflict - to be blunt, it reminds me of some users who're arguing above that the ADL is reliable on the conflict, but previously insisted Al Jazeera isn't. The Kip 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: Which contradictory positions in particular are we about? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As respectfully as I can put it, I'm not satisfied by your explanations for why you're now concerned about fringe views in opinion pieces and shady ownership, after having previously and recently defended them for sources expressing the opposite ideology to the one here. The former amounts to a subjective "but this is different" and the latter should be of concern no matter how open a source is regarding it.

Although I try to AGF, for the same reasons as many of the "1" votes at the ADL RfC I can't entirely take your word as a neutral complainant here. The Kip 20:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: Ah ok. I didn't defend fringe views in an opinion piece; it was in a video simply reposted on a website as commentary (which is different content and use case). And I don't consider transparent Qatari ownership to be shady ownership – I find that entire line of argumentation specious (if not a little bit racist) and a major systemic bias issue. Editorial controls, oversight and track record are all key. Genuinely opaque ownership raises questions about oversight, as indeed were raised by the Prospect (not me), which specifically fingered the change of ownership for various potentially onerous alterations in editorial performance. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Getting out of hand - this comment chain focuses on a different source entirely than the one in question here. The Kip 16:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Iskandar32, stop using the fake "racism" argument. The criticism of AJ on account of Qatari government ownership has nothing to do with the fact that the skin color of Tamim bin Hamad is brown or his Muslim belief. We have the very same criticism of RT despite the fact that Putin's skin is white and he is "Christian". The issue is that these governments who own these media outlets are not committed to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And in the case of both RT and AJ there is ample evidence that their critical coverage of matters related to their governments and their interests is limited to non-existent in a way that is completely unaccepted by the principle of freedom of the press. And such extent of protection of the government and its interests and opinions is never found in mainstream western media nowadays, including in government owned western media. Personally I don't have a strong opinion on the question of whether problematic ownership (of any kind) should disqualify a source. My tendency is to say that it shouldn't, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. i.e. checking if the source have a rate of factual errors/lies/omissions that is higher than what is acceptable for an RS. But I am also willing to accept that problematic ownership (either opaque or non-democratic) can disqualify a source, as long as this principle is applied consistently to all sources. What I definitely won't ever accept is your double standards. Vegan416 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Vegan, do you want to get topic banned from all issues related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel? Because this is how you do it. I warned you about bludgeoning on the ADL thread and now you appear to be attempting the same thing here. Dronebogus (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Now it begins to feel that you have a personal vendetta against me. I copied now this JC discussion to a text editor and counted the number comments me and other have made here. The total number of comments is 55 and the person who made the largest number of comments in here is by far Iskandar323 who made 19 comments (i.e. more than a third of the comments here). I come far behind him with 7 comments (in a tie with FortunateSons), and Bobfrombrockley is third with 6 comments. And yet instead of telling Iskandar323 off for bludgeoning you decide to pick on me... Vegan416 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) You should discuss personal disputes on user talk pages, not here. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I don't appreciate the double standards personal attacks. But more generally, the above is nonsense. AJ is reliable because it has a reliable track record. RT is unreliable because it has an unreliable track record. However, this talk of "Qatari money" (or its implication) is basically just the hottest and most stereotypical thing on the propaganda airwaves these days. In the US, the right wing loonies are now blaming Qatar for the student protests. Yawn. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ilan Pappe weighs in on a recent "toxic campaign of misinformation and slander" by the JC against students and staff at the University of Exeter. The same piece reveals that a 2018 report by the Muslim Council of Britain found it to be among the most Islamophobic publications in Britain, with more misleading headlines on the topic than, among other publications, the Daily Mail. Finally, Pappe states: "Since November 2022, the JC has shown loyalty to the extremist government which was elected in Israel, parroting Netanyahu’s false equation between Islam, terrorism and antisemitism." There's also some additional unflattering material on Wallis' editorial indiscreption (albeit outside of the JC's pages). Iskandar323 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Missed this down here, sorry, reposted above. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles on Exeter uni would come under the British left and Muslims, areas where the reliability of the JC is in doubt in wikipedia. In practice this means that anything it publishes on these topics can be quite easily excluded from an article if it is the only source. The opinion article you link is wrong and stupid, but it is opinion and it is not masquerading as anything else.

I don't think this editorial line affects our assessment much. With regards to the topics JC is likely to publish misleading or false stories on, it is already recorded as a suspect source. We need to see an expansion of its unreliability into new areas for there to be any reason for another RfC. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

GREL is a status that is demonstrated, not a right. What in the above discussion, with all the highlighted flaws and issues, conveys the notion that the JC is GREL? The impression it conveys to me is one of extremely imprudent editorial sloppiness and an inability to learn from its mistakes, even when raised repeatedly with an oversight body and frequently found to be merited. The publication appears wedded to bad editorial practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Palestine Chronicle (which you linked) appears to be an Islamic and antisemitic publication that supports terrorism. Some quotes from it:

• The colonized have either to accept subjugation or use whatever means necessary to demand their humanity. For demanding that right and refusing to disappear, Hamas – an Islamist political party and military movement in Gaza – has been condemned by the Global North. [66]
• On the October 7th attacks: “They swept on them and they killed them and damn good. I was so pleased and people who supported the resistance applauded, absolutely. If we had been able to spring a surprise on the Boers and knock down a hundred of them, the people would have been rejoicing on the rooftops. It’s the struggle, the armed struggle and in International Law, the occupied people are (justified). It’s accepted International Law that they have the right to that kind of resistance.” [67]

The October 7th attacks was antisemitic terrorism committed by an Islamic group. While not all Muslims and Palestinians are anti-Semitic, the ones that committed the attacks were. It appears hypocritical to me that you're saying the Palestinian Chronicle can call the Jewish Chronicle Islamophobic for saying that many Palestinian activists support terrorism when the Palestinian Chronicle openly says the October 7th attacks are justified. Your standards for what constitutes an extremist publication appear to hinge on whether or not the news outlet supports Israel or Palestine, otherwise you wouldn't have cited Palestine Chronicle as a reliable source. There's no rational standard where Palestine Chronicle is reliable on Israel-Palestine and JC is not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats a very warped presentation of Palestine Chronicle. There is nothing Islamic or antisemitic about the first quote, the second one is taken from an article by Ronnie Kasrils that was written in response to an article, published by Palestine Chronicle, criticizing Kasrils' comments on the 7 October attacks. Finally, the idea that only sources that are not pro-Palestinian are acceptable and others are "Islamic and antisemitic" and thus not is and always has been bs. Your standards on what is an acceptable source have consistently shown the mirror image of what you claim of others, that if a source is opposed to Zionism or Israel it is "antisemitic" and thus not acceptable. That is, as stated previously, bs. It is fine for you to feel that The October 7th attacks was antisemitic terrorism committed by an Islamic group, but no source is obligated to agree with you for it to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Lest we forget, the view that the October 7th attacks were, at least in part, completely acceptable resistance to foreign occupation and colonialism is a significant POV, and NPOV kind of has requirements for including those views. nableezy - 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The PC article's perspective is that JC is unreliable because it describes Palestinian activists as supporting terrorism. To determine which is reliable, we need to determine if that statement is true. Since you and I acknowledge that the October 7th attacks were, at least in part, completely acceptable resistance to foreign occupation and colonialism is a significant POV among Palestinian activists, the dispute narrows down to whether or not the October 7th attacks were terrorism + antisemitic (since I doubt you dispute that the Islamic Resistance Movement is Islamic).

• If that is an incontrovertible truth, then JC is reliable and PC is unreliable.
• If that is a matter of dispute/opinion, JC/PC can both be reliable.
• If its an incontrovertible lie, JC is unreliable and PC is reliable.

Since you acknowledge that at the very least this is subject to dispute, that article doesn't have a bearing on JC's reliability. It's just two outlets disagreeing on a matter of opinion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The original article wasn't pointed to because it was a PC article, but because it was an Ilan Pappe article. It's not a PC perspective, but a Pappe perspective, and Pappe is a subject-matter expert who is reliable in his own right. The PC's perspective is irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to treat it as an WP:EXPERTSPS, then it's not very reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which is certainly not reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the topic on which Ilan Pappe is considered a "subject-matter expert" in this context? Vegan416 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 20:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's PC's latest opinion piece (which is labelled as an article) on how to de-Zionize society:[68]

the organization will need to disaffiliate from the Zionist movement. This could and should be allowed where the organization has some kind of Jewish communal representation function. Most obviously this applies to synagogues, schools, student and youth groups (like the Union of Jewish Students) and the ‘communal organizations’ themselves (the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council in the UK or the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations in the US).

Once the organizations are gone we will move on to the more individual level of DeZionisation. Again, this does not involve physically harming, far less ‘exterminating’ Zionists. Rather it is about abolishing the material circumstances that give rise to Zionism (the fact of the Zionist entity or any hope that it could ever be resurrected), after which Zionism would start to disappear. This would need to be accompanied by a re-education program designed to ameliorate the most toxic effects of the continued existence of Zionist ideas.

Or to paraphrase, all Jewish organizations must reject Zionism as a condition of their continued existence. Individual Jews will be sent to re-education camps until they reject Zionism. This is not a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't make the JC any more reliable, though. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your disdain for the views of a source are not and have never been a method of determining literally anything on Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

the entire context of this discussion is that JC has taken a lurch towards the loony bin since, as evidenced by its hosting of all sorts of strangely spun news pieces and commentary, not least the maniacally themed Anti-Israel Jews are worse than just antisemitic. Many of the comments here mention that JC is unreliable because it describes anti-Zionists as being anti-Semitic, or just disdain for the views of the source. To quote Dronebogus, the opinion page is full of extreme right-wing fringe nonsense conspiracy theorizing about CRT “radicalization” no sane outlet should tolerate. Fringe opinions can be used to declare a source unreliable, and that's something that applies whether a source is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine.

My points are firstly that JC is correct that anti-Zionism can be anti-Semitism, so that's not a reason to declare it unreliable, and secondly, that PC is an unreliable source to criticize JC with given that it promotes fringe viewpoints. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

An “Islamic” source is no more reliable or unreliable than a “Zionist” source. We need to stop making reliability judgements on the basis of ideology. (Personally, I don’t think Palestine Chronicle is a reliable source but nor is it “Islamic” or antisemitic. The piece by Pappe is an opinion piece, so we wouldn’t cite it in an article, but it can be useful to share criticisms of sources we are discussing, even if they’re not necessarily 100% reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Reopening the status of VOA as a perennial source

In light of the recent deprecation of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the United States Government that it's far past time we stop treating these obvious propaganda vehicles as if they were RSes. Frankly the purpose of VOA and of the now deprecated source are the same - to spread negative news against socialist states that the United States opposes. That VOA has had enough caution to avoid blaring out open antisemitism hardly makes it any better. Frankly all of these US government propaganda outlets should be deprecated and not just the Cuba one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of state-owned media outlets we allow on this site that are eminently reliable - like the BBC, for example. What matters isn't who or what owns an outlet, but if they follow journalistic guidelines. From the research I've done, it seems like VOA is a pretty well-respected news outlet with a reputation for editorial independence. Do you have evidence to the contrary. If there's nothing new, I see no reason to change from the current advisory. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this - @Simonm223, if you want its reliability revisited, you'll have to provide definitive evidence of poor-quality and/or unreliable reporting (which was provided for the OCB). Simply declaring a source to be propaganda does not inherently make it so, and plenty of state-owned or state-funded media outlets (BBC, Deutsche Welle, NPR, France 24, Al Jazeera, and so on) are considered reliable both by Wikipedia and the wider world. The Kip 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A similar suggestion was closed as SNOW rather recently, with the suggestion being a specific targeted approach to Cuba.

Opening this now without a major change would likely be a pointless unless you can show an overwhelming development over the last few weeks, which I doubt. FortunateSons (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Office of Cuba Broadcasting was deprecated because of poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presenting opinion as fact, reporting on unsubstantiated information, and promoting propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Is there evidence that VoA has similar issues? BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I avoid VOA on anything relating to politics which the USA takes a side in, given it is specifically designed to be a propaganda outfit and gets its funding for that reason. It is not the BBC world service. But an RfC would require evidence of systematic false reporting, as was found in the Cuba service, in order to deprecate.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

How systematic are we talking, do you think? Surely even a semi-frequent pattern of errors concerning a particular topic isn't good enough unless we have some external validation of false reporting going on at the outlet. Remsense诉 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as anything else, uncorrected errors are useful as is expert comment.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think VOA is reliable. I perused through some of their mainpage articles about controversial topics (such as [69][70][71][72]) and they seem fine. It is certainly not the way Xinhua and Russia Today are. Curbon7 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course they're not the same type of outlet as Xinhua or RT. No one would argue that without their tongue poking a hole through their cheek. Let's continue examining the character of American propaganda on its own merits—I use that term neutrally. Propaganda can be true!

I have started to poke around though. Here's one that made both my eyebrows raise, about the recent spat surrounding TikTok:[73]

“

In a comment to CNN on March 13, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said:

"In recent years, though the U.S. has never found any evidence of TikTok posing a threat to the U.S.’ national security, it has never stopped going after TikTok.”

That is false.

There is abundant evidence directly refuting the denials by ByteDance and the Chinese government of TikTok’s ability to influence U.S. public opinion and prompt Americans to act.

For example, ByteDance recently tried stopping the U.S. bill by directing millions of American TikTok users to call their Congressional representatives’ offices and protest the potential ban. So many Americans did so that the calls overwhelmed the lawmakers’ communication lines, CyberNews reported.

“TikTok’s gross stunt proved our point,” said Ashley Hinson, a Republican representing the state of Iowa, during the March 13 debate. “What if on Election Day TikTok sent out an alert saying our elections were canceled?”

”

Goodness gracious. I don't want to get into pundritry here, but this is mighty thin gruel, especially for what is presented as a fact-check instead of an op-ed. The article goes on, and later cites what I can characterize as some bot accounts spun up by a state-funded hacker cell on TikTok, which I think is the only material evidence in this fact-checking report. It's frankly nothing, I'm sorry. Like I said, I just started but one of the first fact-checking pieces I clicked on left me deeply worried. Remsense诉 08:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t trust state sources on controversial issues that are obviously COIs, but that seems like common sense. But I don’t support deprecating them because they’re state-owned, obviously, because that would mean the BBC is suddenly completely unreliable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We're not deprecating a source because it's state owned, we're deprecating it because it is unreliable. Remsense诉 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we? There's nothing technically inaccurate or indicative of unreliability in the extended quotation you provided. Beyond that you don't deprecate because a source is unreliable, that category is called "generally unreliable" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on each point of course, I was speaking generally.

To make this point more concrete: do you think it would potentially be due when writing on the relevant subjects to cite what I linked above, attributed or not, as an example of TikTok being a national security threat (their words!) to the US? Remsense诉 22:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Both generally and specifically I would attribute fact checks. TikTok is a national security threat, but that is also a truism. You could also say that TikTok is a national security threat to China (which unlike the US actually does ban it). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so I would use {{Cite truism}} for that first one, right? Remsense诉 23:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No I would keep the citation but attribute. Wang Wenbin's comment is objectively false, there is plenty of evidence of a threat... What more reasonable people point to when defending TikTok is that none of the threats are proven, not that there isn't evidence for them. We can't forget the context, this is a fact check of an official statement by the PRC's foreign ministry... Its only relevant in the context of that official and their comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing a corporation asking users to contact their representatives as evidence of the corporation being a threat to national security threat is lying, full stop. There's a difference between acknowledging context and casting unqualified aspersions. Is there an actual difference you can articulate between "threats are unproven" and "threats do not exist"? Threats, as potential future outcomes, are substantiated only by the evidence cited. Claims of a threat that do not cite substantial evidence should be treated as what they are, which is unconvincing. If the VOA does this often enough, that would make them unreliable.Remsense诉 23:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(EC) What is the lie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That a corporation asking users to contact their representatives is evidence of a threat to national security. No adequate argument or connection to other evidence was attempted. Remsense诉 23:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In the article its presented as evidence of their "ability to influence U.S. public opinion and prompt Americans to act." which it appears to be. They present a different series of evidence for that national security point specifically later in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And the conflation of that with a threat to national security is lying. Nothing cited in the article bridges this gap. Remsense诉 23:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How so? Given the context they present later in the article the "ability to influence U.S. public opinion and prompt Americans to act." is clearly a national security threat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the disinformation botnets, I suppose I'd have to start citing outside the US foreign policy nexus to characterize that as something other than a threat. Ultimately this is an opinion piece and not a fact check, and I wouldn't cite it for anything other than the views of the American government. Remsense诉 00:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Fact checks are in general a form of opinion content, albeit normally expert opinion (especially when it comes to something inherently speculative/subjective like we have here), which is why I said that they should in general be attributed. This is not citable as the opinion of the US government, VoA isn't some sort of spokesperson despite the name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What would have to be demonstrated for this characterization to hold water in your mind? Analogous to the way that People's Daily is a PRC mouthpiece. I know you've explicitly noted it, but the name is Voice of America, and their mission is to promote America in their work, though almost certainly with more editorial freedom than Xinhua or RT. It's been set up such that they don't need to be told what to say necessarily, but that doesn't mean they don't express the opinions of the US government pretty rigidly. Remsense诉 04:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

In general the US government doesn't hold rigid opinions, that one of the differences between a multiparty system and a single party system. Even within the US government there are often large differences of opinion, its pretty rare that anything gets set in too rigidly... The OCB which we were just talking about for example has often found itself at odds with US government policy and opinion largely because of its own rather absurd rigidity and resistance to change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that. No state actually has a coherent opinion or motivation about anything, it's just that China's system sublimates those tensions, democratic centralism yadda yadda. Remsense诉 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

China has been ruled by the same political party since 1949. The US has been ruled by the same political party since 2021. After objecting so strongly to a "lie" before are you really going to try to characterize some of the most brutal political repression on the planet as sublimation (divert or modify into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was using the term as I understand it to mean, with neutral connotations. The point was that I agreed with you, in any case. To clarify my general position, I appreciate HEB's deliberation and I have not proven anything yet, and do not presently think VOA should be deprecated as unreliable based on anything discussed so far. If I happen to find anything else of note, I'll share it with the class.Remsense诉 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd provide some data points from RS descriptions of Voice of America not always having full editorial independence.

1. A 1982 article in Law and Contemporary Problems giving an overview of the VOA:

   • Voice of America (VOA) is the "official" spokesman of the United States government in the arena of international shortwave radio.

   • Moreover, not all of the Voice's employees are journalists by trade: about twenty-five important jobs are filled by career members of the foreign service.

   • Most American presidents have promised editorial freedom for the VOA, but none have been able to refrain from exerting pressure on its newswriters to tone down material that might damage or embarrass the administration.

2. A 2017 opinion article in the Columbia Journalism Review by a former overseas bureau chief of VOA who had worked there for 35 years:

   • To hold VOA and its parent agency out as journalistic paragons of virtue, as some major media have done, and assert they are no different from non-government media, ignores basic facts.

   • That structure alone makes clear that VOA and other government-funded media are most certainly not 'news companies,'

   • The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd.

   • Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn’t stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.

3. A 2021 article in Mail & Guardian:

   • Voice of America (VOA) has been accused of whitewashing atrocities and airing propaganda in favour of the Ethiopian government during the course of the civil war being waged in that country’s northern Tigray region.

   • Journalists who requested anonymity said the division heads are able to slant the editorial coverage in this manner knowing that, with families to raise and the lack of Ethiopian language newsroom opportunities elsewhere, few journalists are likely to openly protest despite growing discontent.

4. A 2021 article in The Guardian:

   • A coalition of Voice of America journalists has called for the director of the organization and his deputy to resign, alleging in a letter they retaliated against a veteran reporter for questioning Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

All news organizations make occasional mistakes, have inherent reliability issues (e.g. those detailed at WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSBREAKING), and may have some bias (which does not necessarily mean unreliabile), but there are certainly more considerations for VOA than the well-established news organizations that we generally hold to be the most reliable. I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is at the level of deprecation, but using the description of at least WP:MREL is reasonable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first point in 1982, VoA has gone through restructuring and is now independent of any U.S. intelligence, which would arguably make quite a difference.

VoA (and all media) is ostensibly subject to the same standards as U.S. Agency for Global Media has been, and consensus has repeatedly been re-affirmed as generally reliable, thus VoA seems to rank among the “well-established news organizations that we generally hold to be the most reliable.”

As you said, all news organizations are imperfect, but I don’t believe that VoA should require greater scrutiny than it (and other reliable sources) gets now. AnandaBliss (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

All news organizations are imperfect, but the circumstances of VOA's imperfections seem worthy of additional scrutiny. Remsense诉 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean this sincerely, what does the additional scrutiny look like? I'm still not seeing a trend of VoA being repeatedly out of "range" with other sources in the "generally reliable" category. As an aside, I think the nature of VoA means that it is very commonly under higher scrutiny by individual editors, and there's a pattern of people challenging instances of VoA citations because it's VoA. AnandaBliss (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We're doing the scrutiny right now by having this discussion. Remsense诉 19:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we? This discussion doesn't actually seem to be productive and it wasn't opened in a constructive manner (there is no question being asked, its a series of non-neutral statements)... Simonm223 appears to be ranting, not making a constructive request for input on source reliability. They should have posted this on their personal blog, not at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No.1 is very out of date, and not germane to use as a source now.

No.2 (which predates our previous consensus on this source) is very interesting, but the extract here does not convey the substance of the article, which warns of the potential for political oversight under a Trump administration but does not suggest anything like general unreliability. No.4 relates to the same Trump period, and shows that most VOA journalists have good ethics and integrity but that the director allowed the network to be played for propaganda purposes on two occasions. If this reflects a pattern, we could think about additional considerations for reporting related to the Trump administration.

No.3 is evidence of bias and selectivity in relation to a specific geopolitical region, and gives us reason to always triangulate with other media sources (the article praises Reuters, Deutsche Welle, CNN, the BBC and Bellingcat) when geopolitical bias might be a consideration.

In short, there is no new data here that suggests a significant change to our consensus. At most, we could infer a switch to yellow flag status with some additional considerations (triangulation when US allies' interests are at stake; seek better sources for coverage of Trump) made explicit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose re-opening question of status per my comment above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, no reason to re-open has been shown. FortunateSons (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fine by me also. Almost always possible to replace it with a better source if it's irksome.

  Remsense诉 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose re-opening question of status per Bobfrombrockley. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose re-opening per above discussion and RfCs at WP:RSPVOA. AnandaBliss (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• The last RFC is from 2021, any user should feel free to open a new RFC on the topic, and there is no reason to hold a vote on if an RFC should be opened. If somebody wants to open one they should do that, and then we can see where consensus is. nableezy - 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t going to start a vote but once I saw one going I figured it must be standard procedure. AnandaBliss (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn’t this already an RfC? That means there was no one and nothing that could have stopped this discussion, so I feel that the original poster did “feel free.” It seems that the consensus has not changed much over the last several discussions in the last several years. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RFC are listed and advertised, so anyone interested can add their comments, and are usually closed with a statement stating the consensus. This is just a discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica and Rafida

Can the Encyclopedia Britannica be considered a reliable source on Rafida, rejection by Shia Muslims of the first three caliphs? One of the editors in a dispute at DRN contests the reliability of the Britannica, because they take issue with the statement: To the majority of the Shīʿites, who do not condemn Muḥammad’s immediate successors and only assert ʿAlī’s right to the caliphate over Muʿāwiyah (the first Umayyad caliph)...

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is familiar with the topic, here is my issue with the above statement and why I think this particular Britannica article is not a reliable source for our article about the term Rafida. What follows is quoted from the dispute:

The above claim is factually incorrect. The (overwhelming) majority of Shias do in fact condemn the first three successors of Muhammad (caliphs). In their view, these caliphs usurped this political position (caliphate) from Muhammad's designated successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib. For them, the first three caliphs thus left the faith. (For convenience, I've cited here only from our article's current sources.) If this Britannica article is wrong about this basic fact, what other errors could it contain? Why insist on citing a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica" when there are several excellent academic research and reference articles on the topic? (There are exceptions like this Britannica article authored by two well-known Islamicists, which is indeed cited in our article about Ali.) Albertatiran (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That statement isnt wrong. While majority of Shias adopt the view that Ali was the rightful successor, they do not go as far as to condemn the first three Caliphs. Most of them stop at their claim that they were wrong in not giving the allegiance to Ali, while a minority of them condemn them as open transgressors and apostates.

"Among the members of the Medinan community, the leadership of these two close companions of the Prophet went essentially uncontested—save for an initial but temporary refusal on the part of 'Ali and a number of his close companions and family members to give the bay'ah to Abu Bakr. ... While the conflict between Abu Bakr and 'Ali over succession to the Prophet had some repercussions throughout the Medinan and Meccan communities, it still remained, essentially, a disagreement among brothers. ... In fact, a number of events at the Battle of Siffin seem to confirm that the two caliphs were generally held in high esteem by most members of Ali's camp. ... Even in Shi'ite sources, one finds instances in which 'Ali contrasts the virtuous leadership of Abu Bakr and 'Umar."

Moreover, Zaydi shias and contemporary Ismaili shias have favourable view of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Stance of majority of the contemporary Twelver Shia clerics is either the espousal of ambiguous positions or to not openly condemn them. Only a minority of hardline Twelver clerics advocate for the open condemnation of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: It's indeed not clear when the Shia majority (that is, Twelvers and Isma'ilis) adopted this tenet of their faith (that most early companions, including the first three caliphs, had gone stray). Dakake, as you noted, suggests that early Shias did not hold this view. What remains an indisputable fact, however, is that the Shia majority has for long condemned the first three caliphs, among with most of the companions of the Islamic prophet. See my first post above.

@Robert McClenon: Perhaps we should ask other editors (with interest in Islam) for feedback. This is such a basic fact that the situation leaves no question in my mind that Shadowwarrior8 is not sincere in his arguments. Albertatiran (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would consider Britannica a low quality source whos reliability is no better than Wikipedia. Surely there are better sources that can be found if this claim is widely regarded as true? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears on the perennial source list, see WP:BRITANNICA. It's a tertiary source when secondary sources are preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would note that the Britannica entry[74] is old. According to it's 'Article history' it was copied into the online version in 1998. I can only assume it was copied from an even earlier physical version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specific issue of Rafida, but in general Encyclopædia Britannica is a prestigious high quality general encyclopedia. Having said that even such high quality sources can make mistakes (rarely). The question is whether there is overwhelming evidence against it on this specific issue. Vegan416 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

While Britannica's certainly been trusted and used a lot throughout its history, this characterization is a bit much. Plenty of more glaring issues with Britannica's quality have existed at points throughout its history, and its prestige definitely diminished considerably around the 60s and hasn't fully rebounded before the paradigm shift first of Encarta, then Wikipedia. Remsense诉 04:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica is WP:TERTIARY. It's certainly reliable, but it's also often not as in-depth as the best available secondary sources. If editors disagree over some aspect of what it says, I'd look for more detailed secondary sources and use those. If no other source mentions this then there are also potential WP:DUE issues. The statement presented here is... I'm not sure exceptional is the right word, but it's treated as extremely broad, sweeping, and fundamental, which means it should be trivial to source it to multiple high-quality secondary sources. If none of those are available then that might indicate something is wrong or at least that we're giving a passing characterization in Britannica undue weight. (And if nobody has bothered to search for other sources - which I suspect is the case from glancing at talk - then stop that. I can understand the urge to go "no, Britannica is obviously reliable" but if something can be trivially settled by spending a few seconds searching then it's best to do that and not waste time; and if it turns out it can't be trivially settled then perhaps we should be more cautious about citing sweeping statements about the fundamental tenets of major sects of major religions to a single passing line in a single source.) Also, glancing at the talk page and dispute more carefully, it looks like a big part of the dispute isn't just the line itself but how to characterize it. It does seem to me that ...Shīʿites, who do not condemn Muḥammad’s immediate successors... is extremely weird and potentially POV wording. Isn't the entire original dispute between Shia and Sunni Islam to be whether Mohammad appointed a successor? This wording is like an article about Christianity and Judaism saying ...Christians, who do not condemn the Messiah..., or like an article on Protestents and Catholics reading ...Catholics, who do not condemn the successors to Saint Peter... in that it's inherently written from a Shia perspective and implicitly casts the Sunni perspective in a negative light; in that respect it really is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Either way, I would get people on talk to be more specific about their issues with this line and to try and find more sources for alternative wordings. --Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the phrasing "... majority of the Shīʿites, who do not condemn Muḥammad’s immediate successors..." isnt factually wrong per se. The key word here is "condemn", which is different from "criticize".

Criticizing is a broad term that encompasses a range of evaluations, which may or may not include moral implications. There are several forms of criticism, such as constructive criticism, self-criticism, etc. Condemnation is a very severe form of criticism that involves public denouncement and moral implications, and in many cases, legal implications as well.

Majority of Twelever Shias criticize the first three caliphs, but they have different approaches on how they do it. Most of the twelver clerics in Iraq, Lebanon, Azerbaijan and Pakistan dissociate themselves from Abu Bakr and Omar by ignoring them and forbid their followers from openly criticizing them. Some of the Twelvers adopt ambiguous stances regarding their personalities, while criticizing their actions. A minority of hardline Twelver clerics condemn the first three caliphs, often by inciting their followers to engage in certain forms of public denounciations, such as communal cursing rituals. The majority of Twelvers don't outright condemn the first three caliphs; however, they may choose to criticize their actions or the circumstances of their rule.

Zaydi shias hold Abu Bakr and Umar in high regard. Contemporary Ismaili Shia also have a favorable view of the first three caliphs, and their current religious leadership recognizes the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar.

So in summary, it is a fact that majority of Shias do not outright condemn the first three caliphs. Academically speaking, many Shia hold nuanced stances towards the early caliphs. Respect for Abu Bakr and Umar, is a completely valid position within Shi'ism, contemporarily as well as historically. You may read my previous comment in this discussion for more insights. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The line has two obvious implications that go against WP:NPOV. First, by talking about Muhammad's successors without qualification in the article voice, it implies that Muḥammad had unambiguous immediate successors that everyone agrees on, which is obviously not the case - that's what I mean by it being written from a Shīʿite perspective. And, secondly, it implies that other people do condemn these clearly-defined successors, which is a non-neutral way to describe the fact that many people do not accept them as successors at all. Obviously these implications are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would require more than a one-line aside from an encyclopedia to put in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I should add, for clarity, that the person objecting to this text only questioned Britannica's reliability once in an edit-summary and here, where they said, more specifically, Regarding Britannica, an article authored by "Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica" is not a reliable source, especially when there are a dozen top-tier sources about the topic, including the Encyclopedia of Islam. At any rate, nothing was removed. That sentence was just replaced with similar (but far more reliable) claims from much better sources., here. I don't agree with their broad dismissal of an article there just because of its attribution to editors (although it might be worth digging into - what does that attribution mean? Here is what Britannica says), but the second part of their comment, where they say they're using multiple better sources, is much more important. --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: RFE/RL

Is the U.S. Government agency "RFE/RL" (AKA "Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty"):

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Previous discussions (as near as I can find - please feel free to edit with anything I missed): 2008, 2019, 2021.Chetsford (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• See also 2021 RfC and 2022 discussion on Radio Free Asia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• 4 While it's possible to find individual instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS, common sense would dictate that robust content analysis on an outlet's unreliability or propensity to publish falsehoods should be given more weight in source evaluation than a drive-by "according to X" mention. Following is a non-exhaustive (and easily expandable) list of 14 pieces of evidence documenting RFE/RL's unreliability:

a. RFE/RL has a documented history of broadcasting lies, rumors, and conspiracy theories

From 1950 to 1971, RFE/RL disseminated overt lies to its audience about something as basic as the identity of its editor. That year, an expose revealed that editorial decisions at RFE/RL were being secretly made by the CIA, something RFE/RL falsely denied over a period of decades [75].

• Penn professor Kristen Ghodsee writes in The Baffler that - well after the CIA had divested itself of RFE/RL - executives continued managing the outlet to advance "a new genre of psychological and political warfare", that the outlet trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories, and reported "unsubstantiated rumors as fact". [76]

b. RFE/RL has a documented history of intimidating -- up to and including firing -- its own staff to ensure reportage aligns with U.S. global ambitions

• In 2023, Blankspot reported that multiple RFE/RL "journalists" who reported critically on Azerbaijan were fired during a period the U.S. was cozying up to the Azerbaijani government. [77]
• Also that year, Arzu Geybullayeva, in her blog, explained that her conversations with RFE/RL journalists found that they faced "systematic harassment" from management if they veered from the U.S. foreign policy line. [78]
• In 2018, the entire staff of the RFE/RL station in the Republic of Georgia protested the firing of their director and asserted "growing intimidation, unfair treatment and attacks from RFE/RL management" over the topics and tone of their reporting.[79]
• The GAO has documented that USAGM's own staff, generally -- including staff from RFE/RL, specifically -- have stated that management has meddled with editorial independence by taking "actions that did not align with USAGM’s firewall principles". [80]

c. RFE/RL is both objectively and subjectively non-WP:INDEPENDENT and has been described as "propaganda" by RS:

• According to Jennifer Grygiel, a media studies scholar at Syracuse University, under U.S. federal law, "RFE/RL is required to support the U.S. government abroad". [81]
• The objective fact of its structural non-independence has been subjectively confirmed by studies; an article in the scholarly journal UC Irvine Law Review in 2020 reported that RFE/RL operated by "not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policy".[82]
• In 2018, the New York Times implicitly described RFE/RL as propaganda, writing that it "used Facebook to target ads at United States citizens, in potential violation of longstanding laws meant to protect Americans from domestic propaganda" [83].
• Magda Stroínska, scholar of linguistics at McMaster University, describes RFE/RL as "propaganda" in her 2023 book My Life in Propaganda: A Memoir About Language and Totalitarian Regimes (no online copy available).
• As reported by the Wall Street Journal, a variety of sources have criticized RFE/RL for distributing "foreign propaganda favorable to authoritarian regimes in Central Asia".[84]

d. RFE/RL has no legal incentive to be accurate in its reporting on BLPs Under federal law, RFE/RL has the unique position of being absolutely "immune from civil liability". Even fully deprecated outlets like Gateway Pundit and Occupy Democrats have a pecuniary interest to get claims about living people roughly correct. RFE/RL, however, does not as it can never be sued.

e. RFE/RL is closely associated with deprecated outlets. RFE/RL is operated by the same controlling mind (U.S. Agency for Global Media) that oversees Radio y Television Marti, which has been deprecated by community consensus as a purveyor of falsehoods.

Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

a. This material relates to a very long time ago. I don't think we consider it a reliable source for geopolitical topics during the Cold War.

b. There are a bunch of legitimately concerning issues raised here, which point to some management failures, both in the USAGM senior management during the Trump period and in specific national teams at various time limited periods. Without trivialising these, including the labour disputes and internal politics involved, I don't think these sources suggest reliability issues. It suggests the potential for bias, with the recent Azerbaijan case being most concerning, but even that article explicitly says Despite the criticism towards editor Ilkin Mamamdov, it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.

c. These speak to bias not reliability. The tl;dr of the Conversation op ed is in the sub-heading: Major US outlets present mostly facts – that support American values It talks about the "firewall" eroding under Trump (the issue covered in b, but remaining mostly in place. The Irvine Law Review piece (same author) speaks about trustworthiness as a form of propaganda, i.e. building a reputation for honesty as a way of building soft power - again bias alongside reliability. Stroínska talks about listening to RFE while growing up, i.e. during the Cold War, so that's not relevant. The WSJ piece covers material on specific central Asian services under Trump that fits with the stuff in (b); in all of the cases the complaints (relating to bias not reliability) triggered action to correct them, so don't raise critical reliability issues.

d. This speaks to a theoretical issue rather than actual identified problems.

e. In previous RfCs, "association with deprecated outlets" has been dismissed as a factor. I think it's only significant if RFE is sourcing material from the deprecated outlet or using the same authors.

In short, a strong case for bias (especially at particular times for particular national services) but no reason to depart from general reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• 1 No evidence of unreliability has been provided, and in my experience it is a generally reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Unanswerable - What is the context in which we are examining the source? What information are we citing it for, and in which WP article? Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• 4 Per Chetsford - the US state-owned anti-socialist propaganda structure is not, nor has it ever been, from a mission perspective, the equivalent of state-owned media such as BBC or CBC. CIA documentation refers to Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty as two of the largest and most successful covert action projects in the U.S. effort to break the communist monopoly on news. [85] - We cannot possibly see this as a reliable or neutral source. Furthermore this non-reliability has been demonstrated via the recent use of antisemitic conspiracy theories within the Cuban broadcasting arm of the US propaganda apparatus. It's quite clear that, rather than being editorially independent if ideologically suspect, media outlets, these propaganda vehicles will say whatever they believe most likely to serve their mission of undermining US enemies. This is not what we should be basing an encyclopedia off of. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thats talking about the original implementation, not the modern implementation that has no relationship to the original beyond the name. BilledMammal (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  In that quote that is not where the sentence ends (despite the period used here); it is specifically referring to the communist monopoly on news and information in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. - which was absolutely real. (p. 2) Relatedly, it's also highly relevant that this document is from 1969 (p. 11), over half a century ago during the Cold War. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 the source received broad citations (below) and is generally respected (ex.: b. 2. above). While some arguments can be made about not citing during CIA control, those generally were not shown to be applicable after. While it could be called propaganda, it was not successfully shown to be propaganda in the sense that is relevant to reliability (see 2019, per @X1\), and was considered closer to BBC than to a propaganda outlet in the more contemporary sense of the word (see 2021, by @Shrike). In particular, internal conduct is generally concerning from a human but not generally from a reliability perspective, and I see no conflict of interest with the government that is not equal or worse compared to Al Jazeera Media Network, Deutsche Welle or many others. Regarding @Chetsfords last argument, I would like to mention that the discussion on USAGM, which was closed as SNOW, showed that there was broad consensus that USAGM is not a sign of unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I say only with the most respect to X1, etc.'s opinions from previous discussions you cited, but referencing the opinions of people (myself included) who have registered free Wikipedia accounts as sources to establish a site's reliability may be less convincing than referencing the research of RS to establish a site's reliability. "RFE/RL is reliable because HomicidalOstrich1987 said it's reliable" is maybe not the equivalent of "RFE/RL is reliable because the New York Times said it's reliable." Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1- I don’t see anything here that’s especially concerning except they were kind of dubious 50+ years ago. The evidence of them being propaganda in the current day is slim and a bunch of passing mentions. No actual evidence of incorrect information has been provided. Unless we want to mark all state owned broadcasters as generally unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - No current and concrete evidence of unreliability has been provided here, only characterizations that appear to be used to conflate what it was decades ago with what it is today. - Amigao (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4: RFE is clearly propaganda produced by a government. As such, it's not making even the careless attempt to be factual expected of WP:GUNREL sources. It's an active and knowing source of false info, which is prime deprecation territory. Loki (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per others. Source appears to be well-respected and cited by other outlets. Deprecation or downgrade would not only be excessive, but outright unwarranted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. While it is historically significant, it is still a propaganda outlet established by the CIA; see eg. - arguments above that "what it is today" has somehow shifted aren't really meaningful, since independent coverage doesn't actually document an improvement or provide any reason to think that it has changed from its propaganda roots. (It is obviously a given that statements from figures within RFE, the US government, or the CIA are not usable to establish reliability for WP:MANDY / WP:INDEPENDENT reasons.) And I'm not convinced by what WP:USEBYOTHERS exists, for several reasons. First, as Cone documents, the CIA (and RFE itself) went out of its way to manufacture signs of support for RFE in the US media; and many there, despite knowing that RFE was a CIA propaganda operation, collaborated with them to give it the veneer of legitimacy. There's no reason to think that this has stopped - statements from the people involved that amount to "we stopped after we got caught" are not persuasive. Second, ultimately, use by others isn't as convincing as outright coverage describing it as a propaganda outlet; the best way to establish reliability is with sources outright discussing a source's reliability, and in RFE's case they're pretty clear that it's a propaganda outlet rather than a legitimate news source. This is starkly distinct from the more legitimate government-funded news sources some people have tried to compare it to, which were open about their funding and which have in-depth independent coverage describing them as reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Stacey Cone article is about RFE in the 1950s and 60s, not its current form. RFE's current funding and financials are available in its annual Form 990, available here. - Amigao (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous examples, I've provided, of more recent editorial indiscretions - as recent as 2023 - taken by RFE/RL, such as firing journalists who report factual information that doesn't align with U.S. government policy and its 2016-renewed statutory mandate to support the U.S. Government. Insofar as the fact RFE/RL now says it's not secretly controlled by the CIA, it made the same claim over a period of 25 years. Why is its current claim more believable than its last claim (which was proved an elaborate lie that it falsely reported thousands of times over a period of decades)? What changed that allows us to now take what its says at face value, no questions asked? Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided none regarding RFE's current funding to back up your claim. - Amigao (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As I specifically said, nothing anyone has produced has demonstrated that their reputation has changed, which would of course require similar WP:SECONDARY coverage specifically describing a change with a clear-cut line we could use; you assert that that article does not apply to its current form, implying that you believe there is a clear line, but obviously their own 990 Form is useless for establishing something like that. If its assurances that it has changed have been taken seriously - and have actually altered its reputation - you should be able to produce secondary sources proving that. The fact that you had to resort to their own 990 form to argue it via WP:OR using WP:INVOLVED primary sources implies that secondary sources establishing its reputation has improved do not, in fact, exist and that it is therefore still as unreliable at best and more likely an active source of misinformation. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this (linked below) might get me partial credit regarding your request FortunateSons (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Perhaps option 2 for non controversial stuff but for anything impacting US relations/policies, seems like propaganda push, even if no outright falsification. Not 4 because prefer 2/3 first and then see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, u:Chetsford has provided compelling evidence that the source is biased and therefore may not be suitable for certain areas or to determine due weight. Editor discretion is definitely required. I'm reluctant to !vote 3 or 4 without any examples of deliberate and/or uncorrected falsehoods. Alaexis_¿question? 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 ~ Per State Media Monitor [86] it's parent oragnisation is considered "Independent State-Funded and State-Managed (ISFM)" -- which they describe as having a "medium" level of independence. Prior to '71 it should definitely be considered a propaganda broadcaster, but I don't see reason to do anything more than mention it's circumstances somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

State Media Monitor is, itself, questionably RS and certainly not INDEPENDENT. It began as a project at CEU but is now the singular writing of a man named Marius Dragomir who is a former RFE/RL employee (and whose qualification to engage in media studies analysis includes a B.A. degree).
He is unquestionably wrong in his assertion it's "independent" since it is run by a single person who serves at the pleasure of the president of the day, unlike independent state broadcasters such as Deutsche Welle who are run by a multi-stakeholder board. Why he would make this clear error, one can only speculate. Chetsford (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 at worst. We classify Xinhua as option 2, even though [f]or subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately. It is already clear from the above discussion that RFE/RL is in a substantially better position than that.

Furthermore, I find the OP’s argument to be particularly unpersuasive. While I don’t doubt that there are more sources that could be used for this, the claims presented here appear to be a mixture of relevant, irrelevant, and cited to marginally reliable or unreliable sources. In addition, many of the arguments are not supported by the sources, particularly involving substantial overstatements of what the sources actually say, or missing substantial context from the same sources.

A non-exhaustive list

Point A bullet 1 is sourced to a long list of links to primary sources with little associated analysis. The claim that [pre-1972] editorial decisions at RFE/RL were being secretly made by the CIA is contradicted by the Radio Free Europe article, which states only that they received covert funds from the CIA during this period and that the CIA and US State Department “issued broad policy directives”, but that the policies were “determined through negotiation between them and RFE staff”. Regardless, as others have noted, this is more than 50 years ago and is irrelevant today. In point A bullet 2, supposedly the source supports that executives continued managing the outlet to advance “a new genre of psychological and political warfare.” However, the source says that [one of the RFE directors] argued that the Radios should traffic in “a new genre of psychological and political warfare.” (emphasis added). In other words, it’s a statement about something that RFE was not doing at the time, and it’s about a single executive, not executives broadly. This is still a valid argument, but it is considerably weaker than the argument that is actually presented. Point B bullet 2: the source is marked as unreliable by WP:UPSD. Point B bullet 4: the source describes several instances in which firewall principles to preserve journalistic independence were not observed. It also documents the existence of those firewall principles and states that journalistic independence is in fact the policy. Point C bullet 2: The claim that RFE does not always address facts unfavorable to U.S. policy does not logically support the broad conclusion that [t]he objective fact of its structural non-independence has been subjectively confirmed. (Also, what does it mean to appeal to subjective confirmation when arguing for an objective fact?) An argument can be made based on this source, as it discusses a concern (raised by the staff themselves), that a 2017 restructuring made them more susceptible to interference, but that is not the same thing. It does document interference, which is a valid criticism, saying that the policy of editorial independence was officially rescinded during the several months of Michael Pack’s tenure, but I would presume the policy is now reinstated given that the new CEO is one of the people who resigned at his appointment. Point C bullet 3: Again, this does not logically follow. Laws are overbroad and catch unrelated conduct all the time. Describing the original purpose of a law does not imply that someone who may have violated it (and subsequently stopped the relevant conduct) was necessarily committing the type of action that the law was designed to prevent (let alone that it usually commits such actions, which is the implication from describing it as propaganda without qualification). Furthermore, the article implies that being state-funded is one of the relevant issues, which does not entail the organization being propaganda. Point C bullet 5: According to the same source, the result of this was that RFE/RL said the Tajikistan service had "failed to live up to RFE/RL standards", and announced the resignations of both the Tajikstan branch director and the Central Asia regional director. In other words, it shows acknowledgement of error. It may be justified to consider specific regional RFE branches unreliable, such as this one (or the Azerbaijani one mentioned in one of the other points). It could also be justified to be more skeptical of branches of RFE/RL that appear to promote authoritarian regimes, but I doubt this is the majority of their overall content. Point D: This statement is unsourced and I cannot find any secondary sources supporting it. Perhaps it is true, but when I narrow my search terms I get the text of specific laws such as this one that appear to discuss immunity only for the board of directors. While this could still be a relevant argument, I would presume the liability of the actual journalists to be the most important. It's certainly not the same thing as saying there is no legal incentive for the entire organization. On the other hand, perhaps it is a reference to sovereign immunity (assuming it both apples to RFE/RL and there is no relevant exception, neither of which I have information about), but then it would certainly not be in a unique position as it applies to every government agency, including highly reliable sources like the CDC.

RFE/RL has had instances or time periods of propagandizing, but e.g. they were also a key source of news during the Chernobyl disaster. They may also be one of a very small number of reliable news sources reporting from repressive countries, where at minimum they are likely to be more willing to report criticism that local sources cannot or will not publish. Sunrise (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"a very small number of reliable news sources reporting from repressive countries, where at minimum they are likely to be more willing to report criticism" While that's certainly RFE/RL's boilerplate in its press releases and marketing brochures, independent sources disagree:

Reprise of evidence against

Wall Street Journal (2019): "Indicating the depth of concern, a group of academics who specialize in Central Asia wrote in a letter published in March on the Open Democracy website: “Radio Ozodi [RFE/RL Tajik bureau], once the most credible source of news and information in the country, has become a mouthpiece for the deeply corrupt authoritarian government of Tajikistan’s President, Emomali Rahmon.” [87] Blankspot (2023): "After Azerbaijani journalist Turkhan Karimov was dismissed from his position as a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s (RFE/RL) Azerbaijani branch Azadliq Radiosu (Free Radio), at least one person was hired who is accused of spreading Azerbaijani regime propaganda. The new recruit, Mammadsharif Alakhbarov, has worked as a reporter and producer for Azerbaijani regime media for the past 15 years... There, he has been an editor for films that glorify the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and praise President Ilham Aliyev ... In addition to reactions from journalists who have worked for Azadliq Radiosu, the Council of Europe’s media protection body, together with the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), has also responded. On August 8th, they demanded answers from RFE/RL regarding the working conditions for journalists."

... among numerous other examples, etc. Chetsford (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This reply is simply a repetition of two of the same examples from the original comment. I have already said my list is non-exhaustive, but these two are similarly unpersuasive:

Continued from previous list

Point 1 (point C bullet 5 in OP): I already commented on this in my previous reply (one of my bullet points was misnumbered, which I have now corrected). Beyond the points I already mentioned, an additional issue is that the source is prominently reporting criticism coming from the US State Department. In other words, in this example the alleged source of the bias and unwillingness to report criticism is actually working to address bias and ensure that critical material is reported. The quote provided here is presented as supplementary to the US government's role and is placed further down in the article. USAGM is also specifically described as an independent agency. Point 2 (point B bullet 1 in OP): Instead of supporting the idea that independent sources disagree, this source directly supports the claim in question. Specifically, it says that RFE/RL is considered one of the most prominent sources of independent news in otherwise authoritarian countries like Azerbaijan. The source even specifically applies the statement to Azerbaijan, a country where the local branch is currently under substantial scrutiny for not being sufficiently critical. The source goes on to add concrete evidence, saying that Despite the criticism towards [the editor], it’s worth noting that during his tenure, significant investigations have been published. For instance, the Azerbaijani team exposed corruption among high-ranking politicians in Azerbaijan.

--Sunrise (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. In summary, the opening rationale does not adequately distinguish between bias and unreliability, and the cited evidence is largely of the former and not much of the latter. A source can be reliable for facts, while being biased in its selection of facts. Indeed, the most effective propaganda is that which is composed entirely of factual statements, arranged in a biased fashion. Imagine, for example, that a source published an article every time a Russian committed a crime, and never published an article about an American committing a crime. The reader may be influenced to form a negative opinion of Russians, and yet the source could still be a reliable source of information about those crimes. Some more detailed commentary on the given rationale:
  • Point A focuses on Cold War era activity. For content published by this source in that era, an additional consideration is warranted. But it's not clear how relevant this is to the modern organisation.
  • Point B is short on details of actual unreliability. The first bullet point amounts to an accusation of bias. OK, but did they publish false information or not? The second bullet point quotes "systematic harassment", but this phrase does not appear in the source (which is a blog - not exactly the pinnacle of reliability itself). The third bullet point says the protest was "over the topics and tone of their reporting" but the source doesn't support that.
  • Point C is about bias. not always address[ing] facts unfavorable to U.S. policy is compatible with how I described bias working in practice: the selective omission of facts does not mean the selected facts are not still facts.
  • Point D is dubious. Even if RFE/RL enjoyed immunity in the US, they have operations in less friendly regimes, where presumably there is no such immunity. The reference to BLPs is spurious.
  • Point E is guilt by association. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 (2 at very worst). Evidence has been presented for bias. No evidence has been presented for unreliability, and some of the evidence presented for bias actually affirms reliability. (See my response to Chetsford above for the reasoning - perhaps I should have posted that here and not as a reply in which case feel free to move it.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - should be attributed as we would any statement from any government agency, and no this is not analogous to the BBC. NPR is analogous to the BBC, this however is material the government is publishing to advance its interests to a foreign audience. And that should be, at the very least, attributed. nableezy - 19:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Philosophically, this seems like a reasonable solution when attribution is crafted as "according to the U.S. Government's RFE/RL" as opposed to "according to RFE/RL". The very name "Radio Free Europe", presented without context, is violative of our NPOV policy, specifically WP:ADVOCACY, by falsely presenting this is (a) a European operation, (b) free of state influence. If Italy, under Mussolini, had a state-run news agency called "the Most Accurate Sources Available" it would be a little ridiculous if we simply weaved into WP "according to the Most Accurate Sources Available ..." anytime we referenced it. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree here -- attributing something to "Radio Free Europe" is pretty misleading (one is inclined to suspect that this might have been part of the idea behind naming it that). jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - as long as Al-Jazzera is considered GREL it would be absurd to give RFE/RL less than that.Vegan416 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1ish Bias isn't teh same as being unreliable. None of the evidence provided strongly points to it not being generally reliable on the stuff it reports on, that said it seems that there is certainly cause for concern around it not reporting on certain thing or omission of facts—blindlynx 23:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, 2 at worst. As far as bias goes, I find worse things in NYT. At worst, it's guilty of a bias of omission on certain topics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Radio Free Europe has clear editorial independence unlike Xinhua and Russia Today. Are we going to deprecate NPR and the BBC now because they're state media too? All sources have biases, so that itself is not a sufficient argument for unreliability, only if the bias becomes so pervasive it directly impacts the factuality of the source. Curbon7 (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Are we going to deprecate NPR and the BBC now because they're state media too?" NPR and BBC have insulating, non-partisan governance boards. RFE/RL is run by a unitary political appointee. NPR and BBC don't have legal mandates to advance the cause of their host governments. RFE/RL does (as detailed in my !vote). NPR and BBC don't have a host of RS calling them propaganda and questioning their accuracy. RFE/RL does. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see why some participants have !voted for option 2, but no one has explained sufficiently why it should be fully deprecated, a status that not even Xinhua and Anadolu Agency and Russia Today have. Of course one should scrutinize an article when it is in an area the US government has a vested interest in (WP:COMMONSENSE) or in some other areas identified above like Azerbaijan post-2023, but it seems generally reliable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. This is one of the best and most informative sources on subjects related to Russia, for example. The source of funding does not really matter per WP:V. What matters is the reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and it has a very good reputation. An explicit attribution to specific author (rather than RFE/RL) may be needed for opinions, as usual. And no, this is not a propaganda source by any reasonable account; it is generally not even a "biased source". For comparison, Voice of America is more biased, less informative and less professional, but even that would be "Option 1" I think. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be objective, the quality of this source may depend on the country it covers, and even on specific program director. For example, Masha Gessen was terrible as a director of Russian program, even though she is a very good journalist. She was replaced by a much better director. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Sunrise and My very best wishes. It is an important sources for Wikipedia, because it often attempts to do RS-quality reporting in regions that are extremely hostile to it. Also, other RS trust it enough to rely on its reporting. I also don't see any compelling evidence of unreliability presented here, and too many arguments about theoretical bias that don't even touch on its actual reporting. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. How many angels can manufacture consent on the head of a pin? I really don't think the precise number matters -- it's preposterous to imagine that we have only two options here, with one being "they're biased which means that their claims are factually incorrect" and the other being "their claims are factually correct which means they aren't biased". Neither of these claims really make any sense. Can't we just put up a post-it note somewhere saying that they're somewhat biased on the issue and move on with our lives? jp×g🗯️ 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Compared with other RSs, RFE/RL does not seem out of line with journalistic output. Dramatic restructuring in the last few decades has given it editorial independence from the State Department, for example. While its focus may be on region-specific news to region-specific audiences, the quality of journalistic output itself is not at a low level, and should not be treated as such. Furthermore, there is very widespread skepticism here on Wikipedia, meaning instances of it being cited are very frequently scrutinized as though it were a low-quality source. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 In my experience RFE/RL is a solid source for Russia and Ukraine, particularly when compared with other sources that focus on Russia. There is some discussion in the media and scholarly literature on to what extent it is biased, as there should be, but it does not appear to rise to the level of making it unreliable. Its biases seem similar to the biases you would find in western sources that are widely regarded as reliable, such as The New York Times or The Washington Post. RFE/RL also does report some things critical of Ukraine and the West/the US, such as this or this. However, I do not have experience with all of RFE/RLs various branches across different countries. It may be possible some specific ones should be used with more caution, but even then I'm doubtful they would be "generally unreliable". --Tristario (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Especially in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, their coverage has been on-the-ground and in-depth. I note the repeated mentions of Central Asia, where I do not usually edit. Maybe that is the reason for the difference in perspective. If problems are being noted there specifically, then perhaps a narrower RfC may be in order. If Trump takes office again, perhaps another RfC may be in order. Right here, right now, we are using it extensively in Ukraine without any complaint from anyone afaik until now. Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: There is some WP:USEBYOTHERS as evidence of reliability in some cases, but also detailed descriptions of editorial lapses and concerns over autonomy (not just bias) for the modern iterations of RFE/RL in some cases (e.g. OP's point C and the WSJ on Tajikistan). At a minimum, attribution should be given in controversial topics. Additional caution should be applied to areas involving the US government. Anything from the old Cold War era RFE/RL should be generally unreliable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• A recent previous RfC dealt with the Radio y Television Marti (AGM) of which RFE/RL is one of its sibling brands. I'm GF pinging participants in that discussion since this is closely related: User:Toa Nidhiki05, User:FortunateSons, User:Cortador, User:Aquillion, User:NightHeron, User:Simonm223, User:Alaexis, User:Boynamedsue, User:LokiTheLiar. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be so kind as to tag those that participated in the SNOW-discussion as well? I think that discussion may be relevant here too (unless I missed that you did, in which case I apologise). :) I think it might be beneficial to link to that discussion too, as the SNOW-consensus seemed to be that there can be significant difference between the sources, particularly that their reliability is not necessarily related. FortunateSons (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Adding participants from the relevant USAGM discussion if not mentioned above:@Amigao, @Red-tailed hawk and @Hemiauchenia FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• It should be noted that WP:RADIOFREEASIA is already listed as a result of a previous discussion.

• Selection of use by others:

1. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221002-sergey-kiriyenko-so-called-viceroy-of-the-donbas-helped-launch-putin-s-career
2. https://time.com/5444612/ukraine-kateryna-handziuk-acid-attack-protest/
3. https://www.businessinsider.com/video-russia-soldiers-using-ukraine-pows-as-human-shields-report-2023-12
4. https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/worldreports/world.93/hsw.pdf
5. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/43964/flooding-in-azerbaijan
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/345567b0.pdf
7. https://kyivindependent.com/investigative-stories-from-ukraine-parliament-still-closed-to-journalists-raising-transparency-concerns/
8. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video-ukraine-appears-show-russians-121936734.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAApRwJTfaPCfSe5Cgh2IWJ-dgRMeHrWoUOu4emZZR8QMVYEcN17h_ZbyYfNdzj1nvaI8hdwjY8uXyaqwvMFQeiN-bYiJK1pV9D5vvPAK4ddxEN0GzQSM9UEIpRNqxxHzVcDLadz5R8JHYL2cR7bTcZaGxy_QAHnIiTYa-jMu9YMn (from insider)
9. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/death-toll-rises-to-55-from-kyrgyz-tajik-border-clashes/2230340
10. https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1166583/belgian-air-force-shares-video-of-russian-jet-intercept-over-baltic-sea
11. https://www.newsweek.com/eu-chief-calls-more-ammo-ukraine-top-chinese-diplomat-urges-peace-1782525
12. https://theweek.com/news/world-news/russia/955795/was-cyberattack-ukraine-precursor-russia-invasion
13. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2012/11/02/ukraines-prison-prone-prime-ministers/
14. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302167295/armed-men-take-police-hq-in-eastern-ukraine-city
15. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/6/who-is-nobel-peace-prize-winner-narges
16. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/15/politics/who-is-rinat-akhmetshin/index.html
17. https://socialsciences.ucla.edu/2017/08/29/are-islamic-state-recruits-more-street-gang-members-than-zealots/
18. https://fortune.com/europe/2022/09/25/putin-losing-ukraine-war-cannot-explain-to-russia-why-says-zelensky/
19. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-woman-speaks-after-release-russian-captivity-same/story?id=95670746
20. https://thehill.com/policy/international/3484858-heres-who-russia-has-punished-for-speaking-out-against-the-war-in-ukraine/
21. Positive reception: https://www.politico.eu/article/radio-free-europe-returns-to-fight-fake-news/

(Note that no specific selection regarding RS or timeline was made, primarily focussing on getting a diverse list of sourcing. Feedback and additions are welcome)

FortunateSons (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• A list of raw links with no context is too onerous to sift through to determine their veracity, however, on a cursory audit, many of these are themselves non-RS (e.g. Newsweek), or are other U.S. Government websites (e.g. NASA), or are reporting on RFE/RL rather than sourcing RFE/RL (e.g. HRW). Chetsford (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to filter them more thoroughly (based on what criteria?), but for example NASA is broadly cited. FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that one completely unrelated organization cited another completely unrelated organization run by the same government once doesn’t mean anything. Dronebogus (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Andalou is indeed deprecated, or at least discouraged. Ditto Newsweek. The rest are generally considered reliable with the usual caveats about context, except that if that Forbes is a blog, special considerations may apply. Some are better than others. For what it is worth, Ukraine war articles use RFE/RL extensively and nobody in that topic area ever complained about it. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  That depends on whether or not you consider NASA to be an RS (possible considered the high number of citations) and if you think that they are interdependent enough not to count for USEBYOTHERS. Both positions are valid IMO, but it also doesn’t really matter, because the goal is to show broad use by (preferably respected) sources. FortunateSons (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know, it’s just that’s a pretty poor example since, although NASA is respected, it’s both insufficiently independent and not known for being a barometer of where we put our editorial Overton window. Basically what I’m saying is science and politics have different standards of reliability on WP; NASA isn’t a source on the latter so it can’t be used to judge the reliability of a political outlet. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I was trying to also establish reliability for “generic” reporting (read: non-contentious), but I understand that those two may be too “close” (despite the older organisational structure being likely applicable here, per the discussion I linked above) for comfort. FortunateSons (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph and trans issues

For a while it's been fairly clear that certain British papers aren't reliable on trans issues. The most clear example of this by a large margin is the Telegraph, which appears to still be considered generally reliable on this topic mostly because nobody has bothered to compile examples of them making factual errors.

I finally sat down to do it over the past month and I found some real whoppers:

• The Telegraph ran the following five stories on consecutive days asserting that a secret recording at a school was evidence that the school let students identify as cats. [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

We have a whole article on this general style of dubious claim in right wing media, it's called the litter boxes in schools hoax. Naturally, it is not true in this case as well. See the following evidence: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

What appears to have happened is that a student compared another student identifying as trans to identifying as a cat to score a rhetorical point. There was a whole government investigation on this which completely cleared the school and the Telegraph has not retracted or corrected any of their articles. Indeed, if you look at the latest one you can see the Telegraph attempting to imply that the school's denial of the claims is false.

• The Telegraph regularly quotes a man named James Esses as a proxy for Thoughtful Therapists, which they describe as a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people or similar. ([98] [99] [100] [101] [102]). They rarely make it clear that James Esses is not and has never been a therapist: he was kicked out of his program for expressing largely the same anti-trans sentiments that they keep quoting him for, and is clear about this on his very own website: [103].
• The Telegraph recently released this article that is in part about a group called Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia. Note that for one, they describe TACTT as "trans activists" despite also being a professional organization with an agenda; contrast to their treatment of Thoughtful Therapists above. But more importantly TACTT released this response criticizing essentially every factual claim in the article about them. The most clear errors in my view are that the Telegraph called the Cass Review a report on the dangers of gender ideology when it is in fact a systematic review about trans healthcare; they describe the UKCP, a voluntary professional organization, as a regulator; and they describe calling a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the UKCP as a "coup" and "bullying" instead of a fairly ordinary parliamentary procedure. Oh, and they weren't contacted by the Telegraph before the article.

And there's tons more to be clear, I don't even have all of it on my page assembling the issues. I've mostly been ignoring factual claims made in opinion pieces, for instance (except for a truly wild claim that Joseph Mengele was transitioning children). Loki (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add some context. In 1978, Glad to Be Gay was released, known colloqually as "britains national gay anthem".

It contained the Stanza

Read how disgusting we are in the press
The Telegraph, People and Sunday Express
Molesters of children, corruptors of youth
It's there in the paper, it must be the truth

What they are referring to is Section 28, a proto-Don't Say Gay bill, which the Telegraph repeatedly platformed homophobic support for and was criticized by LGBT rights groups for.[104][105][106][107] Here's some sources that investigate their opposition to LGBT marriage[108][109]

This non-exhaustive historical context is to drive the point home: The Telegraph has been recognizably anti-LGBT for over 4 decades now. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also a variety of scholarly sources that bear out that the Telegraph is a biased source on trans issues, such as this one this one on coverage of the organization Mermaids and this one on the British press in general.

They were also reprimanded by a regulator a few times for inaccurate statements about transgender issues. Loki (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at many of the cited articles, and some listed here, but almost all the examples have nothing to do with the "reliability" of the Telegraph. They simply show that the Telegraph can be biased when it comes to coverage of trans/lgbt topics. It is well-established here that biased sources =/ unreliable sources. The few examples of where the Telegraph may have been factually incorrect is not enough to argue for deprecation/unreliability. Re cat: The Telegraph ran a article (not listed above) about the government clearing the school's name. And the original Telegraph article just seems to be an accurate transcript of the purported video. Re regulators: this example has almost nothing to do with trans coverage. It also deals with an opinion article. And the regulator even acknowledged that the publication had shown it was willing to correct the record promptly once it had become aware of the inaccuracy. Therefore, on balance, it considered the remedial action was offered with due promptness. So that's really a point to the Telegraph for making prompt corrections in their (opinion) articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even in the article you linked, there is no mention that the Telegraph got it wrong the first time and no student ever claimed to be a cat. So that's now six articles without a correction or retraction, after directly claiming that the student in question identifies as a cat several times. Loki (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing in those articles that state the Telegraph claiming that factually, simply reporting that claim made by others as central to the news story. — Masem (t) 15:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean we wouldn't get away with repeating lies (even with attribution) on Wikipedia and I don't think a newspaper should be considered reliable if it repeatedly does the same. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The very first line of the very first article I linked is A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.

Furthermore, see the following quotes:

• Difficult as it may be to believe, children at a school in East Sussex were reprimanded last week for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat.
• The incident at Rye College, first reported by The Daily Telegraph yesterday, was not a one-off. Inquiries by this newspaper have established that other children at other schools are also identifying as animals, and the responses of parents suggest that the schools in question are hopelessly out of their depth on the question of how to handle the pupils’ behaviour.
• A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a pupil who refused to accept her classmate was a cat that she was despicable. [...] The Telegraph has revealed that at other schools teachers are allowing children to identify as horses, dinosaurs and even moons.
• Sir Keir’s comments are the most outspoken by any party leader over the issue since The Telegraph revealed that two children were reprimanded by a teacher for questioning a classmate’s cat identity.

Just so we're clear, that's an explicit statement of the false claim in the paper's own words in every article but the last one. And what appear to be several other extremely dubious claims in the same vein in a few. Loki (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these are pretty unequivocally examples of The Telegraph saying in its own voice that there are students really identifying as cats (and as dinosaurs and moons, apparently). The claim that all The Telegraph did was report what people said is off the mark and obfuscates the depth of the paper's promulgation of misinformation. The Telegraph has told the world in its own voice that The Telegraph says teachers are allowing children to identify as horses, dinosaurs and even moons—how much more in its own voice can one get? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

To go through those one by one:

1. That isn't saying that a student identified as a cat, it is saying that a teacher told a pupil they were "despicable" for refusing to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. That is true, and supported by a recording - whether the student actually identified as a cat is a different question.
2. Same as #1
3. That doesn't say the student identifies as a cat, that is saying other students at other schools identified as various animals. Have these claims been established as false?
4. Same as #1 and #3
5. Same as #1

At no point does the Telegraph say, in their own voice, that a student identified as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What part of "a students decision to self-identity as a cat"(2) means the telegraph isn't saying a student identifies as a cat. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The full context is children at a school in East Sussex were reprimanded last week for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat. In this full context, we see that it isn't saying the student identified as a cat - only that the teacher told students off for not accepting it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't saying "a student was deciding whether to identify as a cat or not". It's saying "a students decision to self identify as a cat". If I said "the UK's decision to vote conservative at the last general election" I am saying that the UK did in fact vote conservative, there is no other way to read this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I only saw your edit after posting. To amend my comparison, if I said "Labour party members were reprimanded after refusing to accept the UK's decision to leave the EU" what am I saying about the UKs decision about leaving the EU. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep omitting the first part of the sentence, which changes the meaning of the second part. Without that first part, you would be correct - but because the Telegraph includes the first part, you're not, and the Telegraph is only saying why the teacher reprimanded the students, not whether the reason the teacher reprimanded the students was factually accurate. If this doesn't clarify things for you I'm not sure anything will, so I'm going to back out of this conversation now. BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Swag Lord; possibly biased, but no evidence that they are unreliable. In fact, I would point out that this is one of the most reliable sources in Britain.

The fact that British media has a different opinion on this topic than American media doesn’t make British media unreliable, and attempting to paint it as biased or unreliable because of that difference in opinion would reduce the neutrality of our coverage of the topic by omitting positions that differ from the American position. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that speaking in terms of dichotomy between the UK and US is potentially misleading: there's the rest of Anglophone media (and indeed, non-English language media) as well. Remsense诉 05:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've listed specific false claims made by the Telegraph. What's your defense of the Telegraph falsely claiming a student identified as a cat five times without any retraction or correction? What's your defense of the Telegraph repeatedly quoting a non-therapist for the position of therapists on trans issues?

I have more examples:

• the headline of this article claims that Belgium and the Netherlands called for additional restrictions of puberty blockers when that's not true and not even close to true. Neither of those countries nor any government agency of those countries has said any such thing in an official capacity.
• this article has an "expert" claim that a tweet supportive of trans lesbians violates the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which it very much does not.
• Here's an article, which is part of a whole series like this, where the Telegraph just asks its readers for cases of "wokeness" and then repeats whatever obvious nonsense they give back. I wouldn't even mention it except it's clearly labeled "news", and it's yet again another example of the litter boxes in schools hoax.

Loki (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

One by one:

• Per WP:HEADLINES, headlines are unreliable regardless of who they are published by. The fact that the Telegraph's headlines are no different is not a cause for concern or a reason to consider the publication unreliable.
• That's an attributed opinion; She said the tweet contravened the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. It isn't an indication of unreliability.
• Those are opinions attributed to readers. Again, it isn't an indicator of unreliability.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an attributed opinion

Attributed to simply a representative from a women's group. It seems truthfully introducing Women's Declaration International could arguably require additional description. Remsense诉 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you believed they should have included criticism of that organization? Failing to criticize a organization when attributing to it doesn't make a source unreliable; if it did, I don't think we would have any reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You're correct, of course. This one straddles the border between ontology and epistemology, and is borderline in any case. Remsense诉 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES is not a defense because the false claim is also repeated in the first line of the article. And attributing false claims to other people is not a good defense if you make no attempt whatsoever to fact-check them. Loki (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence contains a different claim than the headline; as far as I know, the claim in the first sentence is true? BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of that article says Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers. Is it true? The parliament of the Netherlands passed a motion[110] which notes the caution being expressed in other European countries and calls for additional research. So the Netherlands part seems true enough. The Belgium claim is more tenuous - it appears to refer to this paper[111] published in a mainstream medical journal by an affiliate of the Belgian Center for Evidence Based Medicine[112], which was commissioned by the Federal Government[113]. Now, I'm not for one minute going to claim that that chain of association amounts to this being an official action of the Belgian government, but synecdoche is common in reporting about countries, so it's not a smoking gun of falsehood. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The evidence shared, both in this thread and in OP's link to the much longer userpage list of examples, persuades me that The Telegraph is generally unreliable for trans topics, and if it comes to an RfC I would there say as much. This isn't down to a difference of opinion. This is about a periodical repeatedly making errors of fact and misrepresentations in this topic area. It's true that biased sources aren't necessarily unreliable, but our tendency to be okay with expecting editors to parse through biases doesn't become a shield for a biased source that is also unreliable. I'll add that an editor's claim that this is about how British media has a different opinion on this topic than American media is not what OP is saying. Although OP wrote, British papers aren't reliable on trans issues, that claim was not framed as being because they report different things from U. S. news sources (for that matter, the very American news network Fox has propounded the "litter boxes in schools" hoax too). And for evidence of the errors of fact of the The Telegraph, the OP has included non-U. S. sources, such as The Guardian. And this rightly shouldn't be reduced to being a difference between national newspapers; this is also about contradicting academic consensuses in trans healthcare and more. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Co-signed. Concerning the judgment that there has been insufficient evidence presented for The Telegraph's frequent factual errors on this subject to consider an RfC, I would ask what would suffice? We're capable of deprecating a source based on a sufficient collection of individual incidents in context. Remsense诉 05:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Given that the Telegraph is a newspaper of record and a quality press, you would need high-quality third-party sources demonstrating that the Telegraph is consistently unreliable in this topic area. Sources simply portraying the Telegraph as biased is not sufficient. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, to be clear, I said "certain" British papers are unreliable on trans issues because I meant only certain British papers. The Telegraph is by far the most egregious and I'd also probably include the Times, but not the BBC or the Guardian (and that's even though I do think they're still both to the right of most American papers on trans issues). Loki (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The important question here is whether the Telegraph reported at any point that the school had denied any pupil identified as a cat. If they did report this denial, then I don't think there is a problem here. If they have covered this up, then I would suggest there is a serious problem, a new RfC is warranted, and I would reconsider my previous opposition to downgrading the source on trans issues. Given paywall issues, I can't check it myself...Boynamedsue (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It seems you put significant emphasis on later retractions. In my view, an outlet's later retraction is simply insufficient for the example's total removal from consideration for reasons that seem obvious: temporary errors are still errors that existed in print, and a frequent pattern of retraction calls into question the de facto editorial policy prior to publishing. It seems altogether too cute to treat the pattern of publishing one article saying one thing, and another later that includes a vital, previously ignored dimension as anything but retraction in a different format. The question is whether we can treat individual articles from the Telegraph as reliable to support claims: those are incomplete like this as less reliable, full stop. Remsense诉 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've misinterpreted the cat stories - the focus of those stories doesn't appear to be that the student identified as a cat, but that a teacher defended their right to identify as a cat - and there is a tape supporting the claim that a teacher defended that right. I don't think that at any point does the Telegraph say that a girl at Rye College did identify as a cat in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think that it is very important that, once the school clarified that nobody was actually identifying as a cat, the paper clearly states this.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They do; The school now says that no children at Rye College identify as a cat or any other animal. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the very next sentence: However, the girls and their parents claimed it was their understanding that one did.

In context this is clearly not actually a retraction or correction by the Telegraph but an attempt to defend their original reporting even as it's clear that it's false.

Also, I think that the "focus" is also clear from them feeling the need to say this. Loki (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As BilledMammal pointed out, the Telegraph did point out the school's denial of the incident. They did so again in this article ("The school said, five days after the row broke, that no child identified as a cat or any other animal...) And, in this article I linked to above, they included the inspector's report that there were "no concerns" over the school's handling of the issue (plus they include a lengthly statement from a spokesperson of the school). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense:The article is factual though, the recording is pretty clear. The questions are whether the school was contacted for comment and whether its denial was published.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I seem to have misread the first and second articles linked, apologies. Remsense诉 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• By way of comment on the discussion as it's developing, my view is that 'giving the impression of circulating a transnationally debunked hoax by prominently featuring it but technically refraining from expressing it directly in editorial voice' is a low bar to set for reliability, especially for a topic considered contentious. (In any case, the Rye College matter is just one of the examples; there are also the obfuscations/misrepresentations of Esses/Thoughtful Therapists and TACTT and related, as well as the evidence in the userpage list.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong disagree. This is another example of confusing bias with reliability. A good case is made for bias, but not for unreliability. Detailed rationale follows:
  • The cat story issue has been covered by others. In short, it appears that they reported a reasonable interpretation of a recording, focused on the teacher's behaviour more than the cat claim, and then later reported the school's denial. One of the cited examples is about other cases of pupils identifying as other animals[114]. It's unclear whether the accuracy of this has been questioned or not.
  • Quoting someone who isn't a therapist isn't a factual error. It's worth noting that the "anti-trans sentiments" for which James Essess was kicked out of his programme are essentially the same position that the recent Cass review (a WP:MEDRS of the highest quality) has concluded, i.e. that affirmation is not necessarily the only answer. This suggests that the Telegraph is not publishing unreliable information, rather that it is publishing a POV (other POVs are available).
  • On TACTT. You say they describe TACTT as "trans activists" - but they are, and their own website[115] is clear on this: TACTT is an activist group, rather than a learning space.. Looking at TACTT's complaints, they seem to relate to statements made by Dr Christian Buckland, not statements made by The Telegraph in editorial voice. In this respect, The Telegraph is reliably reporting them. Regarding a report on the dangers of gender ideology, this is a strongly opinionated but not strictly unfactual description, since the report does directly criticise ideological behaviour as detrimental to the interests of children.
  • I looked at some of the examples in the "tons more" link. They're long on bias, short on factual errors.
  • I looked at the Joseph Mengele claim. It's an opinion piece, not The Telegraph's editorial voice. And you say it's a wild claim, but it appears to be factual, based on the testimony of holocaust survivor Eva Kor[116]: Cross transfusions were carried out in an attempt to "make boys into girls and girls into boys"..
  • The IPSO rulings are put forward as evidence of unreliability, but they demonstrate that corrections were made promptly and in duly prominent positions. This is exactly what we ask of a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG.
  • In short, The Telegraph projects a strong POV due to its strong bias, but we don't exclude sources for bias, and it would be a violation of NPOV to do so. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Things like the cat box incident demonstrate that the bias of the Telegraph is so severe that it deleteriously affects the paper's accuracy. We should not be using it as a source for establishing notability of a given incident, should attribute any statements it makes explicitly and should seriously consider whether statements of the Telegraph are WP:DUE prior to inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  gender ideology was a term coined by the Catholic church and then borrowed by the GC movement which RS all agree is a meaningless buzzword.

  Thoughtful Therapists is a WP:FRINGE group that opposes conversion therapy bans and recommends organizations known for promoting conversion therapy [117]. Here's a statement[118] where he makes such claims as Schools should never socially affirm a pupil or enable them to socially transition, Self-ID should never become law (self-id is considered a right by the UN), hospitals shouldn't have pride flags, it should be ok to misgender schoolchildren, etc. His FAQ[119] says conversion therapy only applies to gay people, not trans people. He was removed from Childline because he kept publicly complaining about respecting trans kids and why conversion therapy shouldn't be banned.[120][121]

  This man's positions are ridiculously fringe and it reflects very poorly on the Telegraph they went they to him for anything - it's like using the Flat Earth Society as a source for astrophysics news. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty common for newspapers to get quotes from activists/ non-experts (see here). Does that mean that the newspaper is fundamentally unreliable? No. Does that mean WP is required to quote these activists/ non-experts as well? Also, no. News organizations aren't required to follow polices like DUE--but we are. So if someone tries to quote some random activist using the Telegraph as a source, just direct them to this: WP:UNDUE. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay but the problem isn't that they cite activists, the problem is that they cite activists and fail to mention it. Nobody here is going to be mad at a newspaper for citing activists. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  So what I’m hearing is that the only issue is that the Telegraph didn’t use the word “activist” when introducing James Essess. It’s true, using proper descriptors is good journalistic practice but this has almost nothing to do with reliability. Should we also admonish Forbes for failing to label Essess as an activist? [122] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  the forbes article you cite describes his organisation as "an organization campaigning against “the impact of gender identity ideology on children”", which I think does a good job of delivering that information. I also don't recall ever saying that this was the only issue. Could you link me to where I said anything like that so I can correct the record? --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well you said: "Okay but the problem isn't that they cite activists, the problem is that they cite activists and fail to mention it." So I took that to mean you're fine if they quote Essess but you want the Telegraph to be explicitly clear that he be labeled as an activist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and the forbes quote satisfies that requirement, while the telegraph one doesn't. Forbes also does a better job of separating him from the therapists he claims to represent, where the telegraph lumps those two together, thus implying by omission that he is a therapist, which he very much is not. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  So if omitting the word “therapist” is enough for you to deprecate the Telegraph, how do you feel about the very anti-trans Washington Blade referring to him as a “British Therapist”? [123] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Technically they say contradictory things, that he's a therapist, and that he was expelled from his training institute. So one is confused over his status. Also one offs from random publications does nothing to the fact that the telegraph repeatedly refused to label him appropriately LunaHasArrived (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't like that phrasing very much but in context they make his actual credentials very clear. And it's also only one article. The Telegraph repeatedly lets the reader assume he's an expert without clarifying either way. Loki (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if you linked to this article yet, Loki, but the most comprehensive article I found on Esses from the Telegraph is this. It puts his expulsion right at top. Do you think that article is an accurate representation of him? (also other Telegraph articles label him as a “writer and commentator”[124] and as a “social campaigner [125].) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is one expected to read every article from the telegraph to know his full story for accuracy. Either way if anything the fact that the telegraph continues to mislabel him after doing that peice means it can't even claim ignorance. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also the fact that the telegraph has opinion peices written by him should be of note here as well (4 in the last 10 months) LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, regarding that article you linked:

A breakdown of issues in it, partly through comparison to the daily mail, who broke the story in a more non-partisan way months before the Telegraph re-hashed it poorly

It was the second article on him in a major paper, the first being the dealy mail a few months ago about the same story[126] Somehow, the daily mail is actually better reporting in some ways[127]... The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were, the daily mail at least admits he says he noticed an 'increase in the number of young people coming through who said they were in the wrong body. The youngest was about ten or 11. and He said he became increasingly convinced that 'exploration' of their problems was a better way to help. 'I spent hours with them exploring the underlying causes and other ways of looking at things. The Telegraph mentions conversion therapy once to say legislation banning conversion therapy will not extend to gender identity, the daily mail somehow has the decency to use the real definition He was further motivated after learning that the Government was planning to ban conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person's sexual orientation and gender identity. While the telegraph saves most of his employer's rebuttals at the end, the daily mail interweaves them more and gives more statements about the opportunities he was given to not get fired for this. The Telegraph says Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears that young children expressing discomfort in their bodies were being actively encouraged to transition; weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds. Now, much further down it notes Four weeks before his expulsion via email, he had petitioned the Government to “safeguard evidence-based therapy for children struggling with gender dysphoria”, which received more than 10,000 signatures. Esses had also set up Thoughtful Therapists, a collective of clinicians who are “deeply concerned” about the current stranglehold on public discourse. (The petition was calling for the government not to criminalize gender exploratory therapy in its conversion therapy ban, TT are, as we covered above, conversion therapy advocates) It also notes He spoke with senior management, yet nothing changed. As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there. In July, Esses received a call dismissing him with immediate effect. Please note, he was expelled from the psychotherapy program for publicly campaigning against a ban on conversion therapy, with the institution dropping a not so subtle parting note[128]. Childline dismissed him because he refused to stop identifying himself as a childline member when campaigning for conversion therapy and told not to, and offered the opportunity to come back on assurances anyways. The Telegraph hides and distorts these reasons as openly discussing his fears that young children expressing discomfort in their bodies were being actively encouraged to transition for the former, and on the same grounds for the latter. The telegraph makes claims about this in it's voice that showcase it's fringe It seems mind-boggling that someone could be ejected from much-needed counselling work and therapy training for questioning how best to help vulnerable children; - is it mind-boggling that somebody publicly campaigned for conversion therapy, says QUACKy stuff all the time, and his first job found that bigoted and the second gave him the opportunity to stay if he just stopped publicly saying he worked for them as he advocated conversion therapy? And he didn't "question" anything, questions are open-ended, he asked why trans kids are affirmed by childline instead of being made to "explore". For adults who have exhausted all the options, namely exploratory therapy to get to the root cause of their discomfort, he believes gender reassignment surgery can be a reasonable last resort - this is an option that is known not to work and to be harmful (denying transition care at all until adulthood). It's a little unclear to what extent this is the telegraphs voice or Esses' - I think that's a feature not a bug. Imagine if they interviewed a anti-vaxxer and said for adults who have exhausted all the options, namely healing crystals and homeopathy, he believes vaccines can be a reasonable last resort in an article where it's clear the paper thinks he's being treated unfairly.

• Summarizing the above in short, that article is an UNDUE and fringe platforming puff piece derived from the fact someone at the telegraph thought "this dude was fired for campaigning for conversion therapy a few months ago - let's interview him to talk about how oppressed he is and how conversion therapy is actually a normal practice" and wrote an article on it that somehow 1) omits more details than the daily mails reporting on the topic, 2) presents a more partisan stance on conversion therapy than the daily mail, 3) somehow mentions his campaigning wrt conversion therapy less than the daily mail, 4) sanitizes his FRINGE statements through their own voice, 5) misrepresent why he was fired and 6) is literally just re-sensationalizing the case of a dude fired for being a bigoted quack that had been old news when it was written. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're moving a bit fast there, friend. In my main comment here below I explicitly ruled out deprecation, and instead said: I don't think this needs deprecation or anything, but I do think there are some major risks to using this paper uncritically on LGBT issues.. In other words, had this been an RFC I would have probably voted "additional considerations apply" based on this evidence. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it is, but not to platform WP:FRINGE activists that heavily. If almost everything they publish on trans issues is undue because they almost only quote quacks and often get stuff wrong, at some point we should acknowledge the paper is the issue and not have to discuss the due-ness for every quack they quote. If a newspaper had for 40 years the clear POV the earth is flat, and was publishing hundreds of articles a year claiming the earth is flat and quoting the flat earth society and questioning what the shadow lobby at NASA is hiding from everybody about the earth's topology, I think we'd all quickly recognize how unreliable that makes them (at least, for the subject of the earth's topology). When they do it for trans people, somehow perpetually churning out FRINGE nonsense (and attacking a minority) becomes a different POV.

  Here's an article targeting a transgender teen (and misgendering them) while fearmongering about how awful it is the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to. [129] They constantly use the term gender ideology in their own voice all the time[130], which our own article explains is a moral panic. If almost everything they publish on trans issues is undue, we should mention that somewhere. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  “Targeting”? “Fear mongering”? What you may consider targeting and fear mongering is leaps and bounds away from what I—and many other editors—would consider targeting and fear mongering. The Telegraph simply reported on the incident. They quoted the child’s mother. They quoted the school and they quoted the LGBT charity the school works with. It’s actually a pretty balanced news story, more-or-less. The Telegraph even did the smart thing by not naming to “protect the young person’s identity”. It’s a difficult position to argue you’re being “targeted” by a newspaper when the newspaper doesn’t even name you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a school with approximately 2400 students (by looking at their website) anyone at the school or who knows people at the school could probably have a good guess at who the student is given that they would have left recently and would other obvious details (not including possible social media OSINT). If the telegraph had named them I think it would have been far far worse. Also one has to dig very far into the article to know that the school never got any actual confirmation about the supposed clinical advice. And the fear mongering is obvious, it's an extremely common tactic for people to say that schools are taking kids away from parents and even that some schools "trans" kids behind the parents back. This article plays into all of these beliefs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, when you consider the cat articles were about a specific living person it gets even worse. It doesn't matter how identifiable they are, the claims in these articles would be an obvious WP:BLP violation. Loki (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is all starting to sound like “this article is bad because the Telegraph reported on it, and I don’t like their reporting.” I don’t actually see any evidence of falsity. This is not some hoax incident—these are real events that transpired and a major national newspaper reported on it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, read the paragraph by yfns beneath for a much more information but in general one can lie by omission or suggest an idea without lying. Either way I was just supporting the idea that they were targeting and fear mongering. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sentence 1: A leading private school in Scotland had parents investigated by social workers after they fought teachers’ attempts to “affirm” their daughter’s transgender identity.

  • scare quotes around "affirm", which is a red flag considering affirming a trans kids identity is a pretty straightforward thing for a school to do - just don't misgender and deadname them. They do this multiple times in the article.
  • A quote from later in the article: The child later said she identified as male, and the school adopted male pronouns in a move the mother said was kept from her.

  In the very first sentence, they've misgendered a teenager (the first of many times) and questioned through quotes the school's respect for him as nefarious (the first of many times). How is it not targeting and fearmongering to write an essay about a teenager just trying to live their life framing the parents who are bigoted towards their own child as the victims and endorsing their bigotry?

  One paragraph down: the parents, acting on advice from psychologists who had assessed their child, asked for the school to adopt a “watchful waiting” approach. ... “Watchful waiting” is an approach in which a child’s view of their gender is closely observed but without social or medical intervention. Evidence suggests that many children with gender issues will revert to identifying as a member of their biological sex as they become older.

  • "watchful waiting" was invented by a FRINGE activist known for practicing conversion therapy, Kenneth Zucker, and involved refusing to allow children to socially transition until puberty[131]. without social or medical intervention is doublespeak - it has always involved active intervention to deny transgender identity until a set age.
  • Evidence suggests that many children with gender issues will revert to identifying as a member of their biological sex as they become older is based on long debunked studies from Zucker. He saw kids who were gender noncomforming in any way without identifying as trans, he actively tried to discourage them all from being gender noncomforming anyways just in case, and when the kids continued to not identify as trans he passed it off as saying most grow out of being trans.

  In the first three paragraphs, they've misgendered the teenager and questioned the school supporting him, they've tried to appeal to authority (the psychiatrist, unnamed) to recommend disrespecting him, whitewashed the form of conversion therapy they recommended for him, and presented misleading information about how many trans kids "desist". These are factual inaccuracies and promotion, in their own voice, of FRINGE nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know this a contentious topic, and I’m not trying to engage in any meta-debates about this, but does misgendering equate to source unreliability? The way a newspaper decides to use gendered pronouns is more of a matter of editorial preference/style. When Chelsea Manning announced their transition, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, and the Washington Post all used different pronouns to refer to Manning [132]. And if we’re going to deprecate the Telegraph for misgendering, we would need to do the same for the Associated Press [133], NY Times [134], and CNN [135]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Considering that those article about the AP, NYT, and CNN are all about them issuing corrections for incorrect pronouns, I think your example undermines your own point.

  Like, I don't think this is the strongest point here either, which is why I didn't lead with it, but the reality of trans people is enough of a fact that we were able to form a clearly sourced consensus around the first line of trans woman, A trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. That it's politically controversial in some circles doesn't mean that reliable sources have no opinion on the issue: the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is also politically controversial in some circles but we don't tip-toe around that. Loki (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just used those examples because they were really easy to find. The reality is misgendering in the media is quite common (see) and I doubt most outlets issue corrections. I don’t think I disagree with your last two points? Sources make political claims all the time. But the effectiveness of the Covid vaccine is purely a medically-based claim (even if some political partisan sources disagree with consensus). However, to say something like “transgender people deserve X” or “transgender people don’t deserve X” are purely political claims that we are allowed to insert (with proper attribution) into WP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  However, to say something like “transgender people deserve X” or “transgender people don’t deserve X” are purely political claims that we are allowed to insert (with proper attribution) into WP.

  There is an overwhelming medical consensus that conversion therapy does not work and is harmful. Whether or not it works is not a political claim, it is a medical one. Same for the claim "the majority of trans kids grow out of it" - FRINGE.

  The Telegraph discussing a type of conversion therapy, framing it as neutral while not accurately describing how it works, and presenting debunked statistics to make it look like the majority of transgender people detransition is flat out medical misinformation, not a purely political claim.

  Even if we ignore the fact that the Telegraph, through misgendering, consistently shows hostility and an open lack of respect for a demographic - the FRINGE misinformation remains. It's as if they consistently said the earth is flat in their own voice while interviewing members of the flat earth society and introducing them only as scientists Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn’t making a reference to conversion therapy at all. That is absolutely a medical claim. Before you were saying that Thoughtful Therapists were the ones pro-conversion therapy. Now the Telegraph is explicitly pro-conversion therapy? Regardless, if the Telegraph is pro- or anti-conversion therapy that wouldn’t be relevant for us per MEDRS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, you want evidence that this RS is unreliable. They are completely whitewashing conversion therapy with the "watchful waiting" angle and going against medical consensus. Whilst we would never use the telegraph for medical claims per MedRS that doesn't mean a source going against medical consensus isn't notable. What would you think of this was instead promoting antivax theories. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes to both, though the telegraph is a little more discreet - here I laid out Thoughtful Therapists' ties to conversion therapy and FRINGE lobbying. In the above comments, I was referring to an article in the Telegraph where they present a form of conversion therapy as a neutral therapy, give a false definition, and present debunked statistics (ie, the majority of trans kids "desist") to support its efficacy.

  Regardless, if the Telegraph is pro- or anti-conversion therapy that wouldn’t be relevant for us per MEDRS. - Yes and no. If a paper routinely targets a minority and often (but not always) uses pseudoscience to do so, and publishes hundreds of articles a day on the topic, there is a clear reliability issue in general.

  What is the goalpost for unreliability, or even an acknowledgement of bias? If it's not enough they've been known to target a minority population for over 40 years, if it's not enough they still openly fearmonger about the minority, if it's not enough they routinely turn to groups known for attacking that minority with pseudoscience and in the courts for quotes and present them as neutral, and it's not enough they present medical misinformation about the minority on a regular basis - how far do they have to go before we acknowledge they are unreliable on the issue (or, at the barest euphemistic minimum, biased) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever your opinion about misgendering and source reliability here, one has to admit that factual inaccuracies and promoting fringe theories about conversion therapy has to count towards source unreliability. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• A past discussion can be found here (from late 2022/early 2023). That outcome was pretty clear, but it wasn’t a great RfC either. Do you think that it is probable that reopening it could plausibly change the outcome? FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Just as a note, even the Telegraph's defenders concede that it's strongly biased - but per WP:BIASED, when citing a biased source we must make its bias clear, ie. if we're in agreement that the Telegraph has an anti-trans bias (one that is not obvious from its name), then we must at a bare minimum require that it be given inline attribution that specifically makes that bias clear. People IMHO often forget about this aspect of WP:BIASED; but we cannot present them as a neutral source of information. Given how frequently and aggressively it tends to get cited in this topic area, it might be worth coming up with a standard attribution (though, also, WP:BIASED sources of course shouldn't be used in a lopsided manner, per WP:BALANCE; if we're in agreement that it's biased then that means we ought to avoid sections or articles cited overwhelmingly to them or to sources that share their bias, something that I don't think we're doing currently.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just noting that I’m not convinced it is biased, rather than just having a different POV from some other sources.

  I also think you misread WP:BIASED; it says inline attribution may be required, not that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Does the word bias have some other distinct meaning for you here? Remsense诉 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  If we’re going to interpret "having a POV" as "having a bias", and attribute inline on that basis, then we’re going to have to consider virtually every source on this topic as biased and attribute inline. I don’t think that would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Every source is biased. I'm not convinced myself that the Telegraph is biased to the degree to require attribution in all cases. Remsense诉 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  1) It's not policy (or even guidance) that we must attribute information from a biased source. We can use common sense and editorial judgement to extract wikivoice-grade factual information even from biased sources. I refer to my comment in the RFE/RL thread about how bias works in practice: not (usually) through publishing outright fabrications, but by being selective about what is reported. We need to be careful when handling biased sources, but all sources are biased in contentious topics (none moreso than this one), and we have to work with that.

  2) Is this actually a real problem on enwiki? Sections or articles on trans topics cited overwhelmingly to The Telegraph? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real problem. Mermaids (charity), for instance, still has an entire section devoted to a piece from the Telegraph and a response to it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't look problematic at all. The Telegraph instigated an investigation into Mermaids which led to an investigation by the Charity Commission (thus demonstrating that it wasn't just some fabricated nonsense), and as the following sections demonstrate, this was widely reported on in many sources including the Guardian, the BBC, The Times, and Pink News. We use multiple sources in those sections and we seem to have had no trouble extracting factual statements and quotes from these sources, despite The Telegraph's bias and despite Pink News's equal and opposite bias. This is how it's meant to work. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• From loki's records, I don't get the impression that it's just bias that is the problem. Consistently misrepresenting a guy with no medical background as some kind of expert witness seems like it goes beyond bias to me, as does failing to do due diligence on what is very obviously a hoax story. Correcting the record when you make a mistake is obviously fine and even a sign of a good editorial process that cares about getting things right. Correcting the record because you failed to verify your story before hitting post, however, does not qualify for that kind of understanding. If a news source posts stories without verifying what the people involved in those stories have to say about it, that news organisation is acting as a glorified content mill, and we don't treat content mills as reliable. That aside, I don't see how an obvious bias isn't an issue for a "paper of record". I don't think this needs deprecation or anything, but I do think there are some major risks to using this paper uncritically on LGBT issues. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Telegraph is a news source that has long shown its unreliability in this topic area, purposefully putting out misinformation and false claims and rarely retracting them. And even their retractions are more in the line of "group said this isn't true, but..." with always the indication that the false thing could still be true. It's the same sort of nonsense that the Daily Mail has long pulled with their misinformation. It's just that, in this case, rather than doing that to anything political like the Daily Mail does, we have The Telegraph doing that specifically to LGBT topics and having done so for decades. They are one of the definitive UK pieces of misinformation media when it comes to LGBT subject matter and are willfully misinformative on the topic to suit their agenda. (And, as usual, the defenders of this anti-LGBT media show up relatively quickly, much like the defenders of sources like Fox News and Breitbart did when those were up for consideration.) Silverseren^C 15:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, the Telegraph has major form for printing stuff like this which is aimed at transphobes (I know we're supposed to call them "gender-critical" these days, but we don't call racists "skin colour critical", so sod that). Now, if it was just biased reporting, that's one thing, but there is genuine misinformation here, much like the issue that the paper has with climate change. Repeating obvious nonsense is misinformation, even if you do a Daily Mail and print a correction in 8pt font at the bottom of Page 25 three weeks later. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree entirely. And there is the question of WP:DUE. The only reason we would ever need the Telegraph as a source is to reflect the increasingly fringe opinions of transphobes. Why bother? Transphobic opinions are not worth including in a neutral encyclopedia except as a description of transphobic views. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is also a strong point. WP:BESTSOURCES should guide us away from a biased newspaper and toward citing academic sources that represent medical/sociological/historical/etc. consensuses. I am aware some editors have said The Telegraph simply has a 'different POV'. But I would hazard that if this 'different POV' entails The Telegraph frequently framing coverage of trans topics in an alarmist way that stokes opposition to the mainstream academic consensus on the legitimacy of trans experience and healthcare, then The Telegraph is not the best source for the topic and its coverage will often be undue. And I think that in the case of The Telegraph, the matter has gotten to the point that it so muddles fact and fiction it is more useful to the project to consider the source generally unreliable for the topic area. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do think a lot of this thread is indicative of the contempt many Wikipedia editors have for humanities and social sciences as academic disciplines. Like, sure, there's an evident and obvious academic consensus among sociologists, psychologists and academic social workers about issues like gender affirming care, sure, transphobic academics in the space, like Jordan Peterson, have career trajectories very similar to other WP:PROFRINGE academics like parapsychologists, but, have you considered that a newspaper thinks this is alarming? Totally worthy of use as a counter-balance source. Just like we need to cite Uri Gellar as an expert in telekinesis. Simonm223 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm very reluctant to state any source is unreliable on the basis of our independent analysis of the accuracy or inaccuracy of its stories, as opposed to the analysis of RS on the accuracy of inaccuracy of its stories. Content analysis is a methodical activity that requires adequate sampling (generally, a stratified sample of two constructed weeks for every six months of content is considered a best practice for daily newspapers) and a process of independent coding. That type of research is outside the capability of a Wikipedia noticeboard discussion. In a previous comment Dr. Swag Lord explained that, since the Telegraph is a newspaper of record, we need high quality sources affirming it's not a RS, a position with which I'd tend to agree. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Remember:original research done to determine source reliability is very explicitly the exemption to WP:OR, we can in fact as users do our own research as part of determining whether a source is reliable, that research is even required! It's part of your due diligence as an editor under WP:RS. The relevant sections for this discussion are WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, which states that source reliability can vary depending on topic and a bunch of other factors. Neither "paper of record" nor "quality press" are qualifications that get special treatment in Wikipedia policy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"original research done to determine source reliability is very explicitly the exemption to WP:OR, we can in fact as users do our own research" I'm well aware. And, similarly, there's also no proscription on an editor expecting a second editor engaged in source evaluative OR to meet some minimal standard of research quality. And convenience sampling articles for a cross-source lexical comparison is the shoddiest kind of research. Chetsford (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We're a collaborative volunteer project, so if you feel the amount of research done is unsatisfactory, and you have something to contribute in that regard, you should absolutely feel free to. That said, I think it's also a bit unfair for you to expect one guy to do an entire PhD in Telegraphonics when that is well beyond the amount of effort this board normally operates on. And judging by your comments to loki below, I'm not even exaggerating about the PhD part. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"if you feel the amount of research done is unsatisfactory, and you have something to contribute in that regard, you should absolutely feel free to" It's not my responsibility to prove your position. "I think it's also a bit unfair for you to expect one guy to do an entire PhD in Telegraphonics" Simple solution is point to what RS say. If no RS support your position and you want me to rely exclusively on internet user "Lick Rocks" original research then, yes, I will expect it meets a reasonable quality standard. Sorry! Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole "paper of record" argument is no more valid here than it would be to argue that this article would be an appropriate source for an astronomy page. 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have already been provided, though. And again, "what RS say" is not the only standard applicable here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have already been provided" ... and most don't say what they're being alleged to say. They're framing studies, not inquiries into the Telegraph's accuracy on baseline facts. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• As documented here, we do have significant secondary coverage of the Telegraph making errors, including a few scholarly sources which examine the whole British media. And plenty of other reliable news sources documenting particular mistakes.

  But also, this has never been how WP:RSN has worked before. In other cases, even for major newsorgs like Fox, simple aggregation of mistakes was enough. It's very rare that scholarship will call out a newsorg like this, so the fact that we do have some sources doing it is somewhat exceptional all by itself. Loki (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I read the first two studies which are fairly rote, paint-by-numbers, comparative analyses of second order agenda setting in media outlets; the kind that every media studies PhD grad produces as their first journal article. I have no basis on which to doubt their accuracy, however, neither of them make the conclusion the Telegraph is inaccurate or unreliable. Rather, they merely count and compare the presence of specific frame packages which is a different question entirely. As deductive framing studies, they both are disciplinarily grounded in the constructed nature of social reality which posits the total absence of objective reality. To use framing studies to try to categorize outlets at RSN would then require we make an original conclusion that there is objective reality. And, once we do that, we've invalidated the usability of the very studies we're trying to source. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• As Chetsford explained, the linked academic studies do not question the general reliability of the Telegraph and other British media. I have also looked at the articles you have listed under “Secondary Coverage”. Practically are all PinkNews articles getting comments from pro-trans people about how awful a Telegraph article is—does that seem a wee bit familiar to you? So is it fine when PinkNews does it but not the Telegraph??
• Also re: It's very rare that scholarship will call out a newsorg like this —it’s really not. Look over Breitbart News, The Grayzone, Natural News, Palmer Report, InfoWars, OpIndia, etc. Do you notice the depth of ultra-strong academic studies calling out those sources—in clear terms—for their utter nonsense? Could you provide a similar compilation of academic sources for the Telegraph?

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't see how 4/8 sources being from pink news counts as "almost all". The other sources are: ipso, CNN, the guardian and vox. As for point 2, perhaps make comparison to other large news corporations older than 25 years for an alt comparison. Also remember UK libel law could be influenceful here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

CNN, the guardian, and Vox all relate to the Times—not the telegraph (if we’re going to deprecate the Times too we would really need a separate discussion for that). I guess more comparable examples would be Fox News, daily mail, and Sputnik. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This paper outlines selective quotations and dubious press standards in how they handled Kathleen Stock, arguing they helped spread misinformation[136], here's one on how they were providing "evidence" used to support section 28[137], here's a thesis that extensively covers the Telegraph's promotion of negative stereotypes and myths about trans people[138], here's a paper on IPSO's standards for discrimination being lax when applied to demographics instead of individuals[139], here's another noting how the telegraph frames trans people in negative terms[140], here's another (in italian) comparing independent media to papers such as the Telegraph which push negative stereotypes about trans people[141], here's another commenting on their stereotyping of trans people[142]

These were found from the first two pages of google scholar results for "transgender" AND "daily telegraph" and are varyingly weighty. There are about 1,800 results, from sampling a few pages it seems to be 1/3 about their bias/misinformation/negative stereotyping of trans people, 1/3 about them doing that to LGBT people in general, and 1/3 just happening to cite or mention the Telegraph. IE, in not acknowledging the Telegraph's unreliability (or at least, open bias against a demographic), we are actively ignoring the majority of scholarly sources on the topic. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I just read the Liverpool thesis. As with the other studies presented, it never makes the case of the Telegraph publishing erroneous information, it merely notes frame packages and ruminates on the frame effects of those packages. Outlets aren't unreliable because they produce different frame packages from the social consensus. They're unreliable because they propagate erroneous baseline facts. The arguments against the Telegraph here seem to be mixing up the two. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing new sources to look at. I looked at a couple of them and I'm afraid you either misinterpreted the study or it has nothing to do with the topic of reliability

1. This study: This has nothing to with reliability. All it's saying is the phrase "trans activist" may be used in a negative context when referring to trans people. The study uses this Telegraph opinion piece as an example. That's it.

2. This study: So a footnote in this study states that a Telegraph headline was inaccurate about Allison Bailey "winning" her case (it turns out she did not). You can find more information from the IPSO complaint. But as the IPSO complaint notes, the Telegraph "identified the headline error within 30 minutes and amended it promptly prior to any complaint being received...the Committee appreciated that the publication had recognised the error almost immediately...The correction which was published – and the subsequent proposal to publish a homepage reference to the correction – clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence". So 1) we don't consider headlines accurate anyways and 2) the Telegraph fixed their mistake within 30 minutes. People, news sources engaging in basic error-correction is a hallmark of a reliable source.

3.This Master's thesis: This quotes Labor MP Allan Roberts (politician) saying Conservative Members used papers like the Telegraph and Evening Standard to support the clause. If this is true or not is not relevant. The media will frequently announce their support or disproval of various laws, bills, parties, and candidates. This does not make the source unreliable--even if the proposed law is abhorrent (see: Presentism (historical analysis).

4. Liverpool Thesis. It seems like Chetsford has already disputed this source.

5. This article. Please note that this is actually an opinion piece--hence "Viewpoint" on the top--but no matter. It doesn't actually state the Telegraph spread misinformation. It says: I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure for a trans-hostile media, and discuss the way her case has been used to spread misinformation around universities, and trans people". Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would that be "outside the capability of a Wikipedia noticeboard discussion"? Such discussion originally determined that The Telegraph is generally reliable, and they can likewise determine that this is no longer the case. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like looking at the "There's more" really gives a far more comprehensive view of the issue than just what's posted here. I believe the Telegraph should be deprecated on GENSEX topics. Snokalok (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's so much more that I felt it would be not as impactful to list everything, so I tried to only list the handful of strongest examples. That may have been a mistake. Loki (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I do not see any compelling evidence to remove The Telegraph as WP:RS generally or for transgender related topics as per the last RfC [143]. It is longstanding reliable newspaper and a newspaper of record in the UK. Yes it is biased, but that is completely allowed per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. The three specific things highlighted in the start of the discussion do not indicate factual reliablity, but bias. In the first case, Tele reported on the leaked audio / video and months later a report came out by ofsted saying the culture of the school was fine. In the second case, regarding James Esses it seems they just say he is the co-founder of the organisation. In the third case, it just appears to be simply bias. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is this going to be an RfC at some point? I don't think RSP is going to change without one, and honestly I'd probably save my energy looking into it unless and until there is one. I would also suggest to OP that only one outlet be considered at a time (since the userpage you link refers to two), since if both are done together, I think there will be a lot of confusion, and realistically one is probably worse than the other. Also, more generally about the discussion above, any criticisms of the form "they covered X topic in a slanted way" and not squarely about false facts are best left out since (1) one biased source's facts can be combined with other biased sources' facts for a well-rounded article and (2) this argument usually takes up a lot of space and convinces few. If the bias extends to stating outright falsehoods, then it's a serious problem and we should be squarely focused on that. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think that the suggestion here is in any way outlandish. The Telegraph has clearly gone far beyond simply being a biased source in the normal, legitimate, sense. A Tory broadsheet paper would traditionally be biased towards the concerns and opinions of the Conservative Party while remaining firmly grounded in truth when covering factual matters. The Telegraph has lost that grounding on this subject. It has printed many stories about trans people, and related issues, that turned out to be substantially untrue. It has done this enough times that this, at best, shows a complete lack of interest in whether those stories were correct. It opens a very reasonable suspicion that they might well have been printed knowing them to be false.

For me, the "litterbox" stories look like evidence of bad faith. How does a national newspaper print stories that could have been debunked as obvious meme based hoaxes with as little as a 20 second Google search? I'm just a private individual and I've done more research before pressing the Retweet button! They have staff employed to check this stuff! Sure, reliable Sources can be hoaxed. The fake Hitler Diaries prove that. These are rare events typically leading to a tightening of fact checking procedures to prevent further embarrassment. They are not day-to-day happenings, yet the Telegraph keep on printing this stuff and not retracting it. There is credulity and there is reckless indifference to truth. I detect the latter in the Telegraph's recent behaviour.

I don't see how we can continue to consider them reliable on LGBT or gender issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as sufficient to make the source unreliable for the topic in general. It seems at least some of the pushback comes from sources that have taken claims out of context. It may be valid to say a specific story is not reliable but to say the paper as a whole is unreliable on the topic as a whole hasn't been sufficiently supported. Springee (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here makes it clear that The Telegraph should be considered unreliable for transgender-related topics. Skyshiftertalk 13:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that it has gone beyond bias in this topic and in to unreliable. Most notably whencer they talk about children they seem to promote fringe medical ideas about what's happening, including whitewash conversion therapy or claims about the Cass review that I would get laughed at for putting in the article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Loki is correct here - I wasn't aware of the Telegraph being reliable or unreliable on this topic, but looking through their exhaustive research has convinced me. As another editor said, it goes beyond opinion and bias, because there's a lot of flat-out misinformation there. The Telegraph should be considered unreliable on any transgender-related topics, broadly construed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Most of the evidence indicates bias rather than reliability (like calling someone trans activists or "rarely mak[ing] it clear that James Esses is not and has never been a therapist." If we're going to have an RfC I'd recommend the initiator to focus on the examples that clearly demonstrate the unreliability. I've re-read the paragraph about the cat girl twice and did not understand what exactly the newspaper said that turned out to be false. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, the complaint that I was a bit vague about what they said appears to be fair considering you weren't the only person who was confused. Does this list of quotes where they directly claim a student identified as a cat make it more clear? Or are you instead not satisfied that this claim was sufficiently proven false? Loki (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Was the Telegraph’s initial reporting really that different from the rest of the media?:

  • A 13-year-old girl was reportedly called "despicable" by her own teacher on Friday after she began questioning how her classmate could identify as a cat at a Church of England school. [144]
  • The conversation, secretly recorded and posted on TikTok, appears to show a teacher defending a pupil’s right to self-identify as a cat, while two other pupils vehemently disagree with her. [145]
  • A teacher at an East Sussex school called a student’s opinion ‘despicable’ in a discussion about a classmate’s claim that she ‘identifies as a cat’. [146]

  The Telegraph later did make it clear that according to the school, no student identified as a feline (quotes are up above somewhere). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first one is clearly relying on the Telegraph's reporting. The second and third one both make it clear that they're not saying the student identifies as a cat in their publication's own voice. All three are minor local publications that reported this story once.

  Compare to other big name publications:

  • The Guardian's earliest article on the topic puts the denial front and center.
  • Tbe BBC barely reported on the controversy at all. The only mention of it I can find is this review of what other papers are reporting on, where they make it clear that it's the Telegraph that's saying a pupil identified as a cat.
  • Even the Times, no stranger to anti-trans bias itself, reported the denial in clear terms in their second article on the subject. (Though their first was admittedly not great, it's still better than any of the Telegraph's five articles on the same subject.)

  Again, the Telegraph reported this fake story five times, hasn't corrected or retracted any of the articles, and even attempted to contradict the school's denial. Loki (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing the quotes. I think that your version of the events ("a student compared another student identifying as trans to identifying as a cat to score a rhetorical point") is likely to be true. I wouldn't say that the it's "proven", since essentially we have the school's statement versus anonymous "girls and their parents" with whom the Telegraph supposedly spoke.

  Having listened to the recording, I guess one could have interpreted it the way they did it, but as a major newspaper they should've investigated the story properly rather than rushing to print a sensationalised story.

  One more question, has the Telegraph's coverage of this particular incident been used on Wikipedia? I'm asking since the deprecation would only be necessary if the normal mechanisms and the editorial discretion have been insufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How many angels can meow on the head of a pin? I really don't think the precise number matters -- it's preposterous to imagine that we have only two options here, with one being "they're biased which means that their claims are factually incorrect" and the other being "their claims are factually correct which means they aren't biased". Neither of these claims really make any sense. Can't we just put up a post-it note somewhere saying that they're somewhat biased on the issue and move on with our lives?

Parenthetically, it may be noted for the record that there is a Wikipediocracy topic about this thread. jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of proposing an amendment to its WP:RSP entry to read something like: Some editors believe The Telegraph is biased or opinionated for matters relating to transgender rights and LGBT topics. Statements may need attribution and considered for WP:DUEWEIGHT. We could also include another sentence to remind editors that the Telegraph shouldn’t be used for anything remotely relating to medical claims, as per MEDRS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's good to acknowledge their bias on the issue but I also separately think their bias is so extreme they often report clear falsehoods about trans topics. I've already listed what I think is a clear example of them breathlessly reporting a falsehood every day for five straight days without ever doing basic fact-checking like asking the school if it's true. And also while apparently making up other related falsehoods in the process with zero evidence.

And this is very much not the only example, only the most egregious. there's several cases in the evidence page I linked where they say things that are either clearly false or very dubious, and many more cases where they solicit clear falsehoods from an anti-trans activist they frame as some sort of expert.

Like, if this was just about bias, I could have gone with a lot of other papers. The reason this is only about the Telegraph is that it was clear after even a relatively small amount of background research that the Telegraph specifically is way worse on this than even other papers with a similar bias. Loki (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to have the Telegraph regarded as generally unreliable on trans issues. The paper has totally lost the plot on this matter. There's a great inverview with Jon Ronson, in the Guardian which says this:

His remedy may sound a bit old-fashioned to some, but it involves reasserting the importance of some reportorial values that are under threat. “The fact that ideology-led nonfiction storytelling is happening everywhere feels worrying, because a society that stops caring about facts is a society where anything can happen. I think the way out of it is to treat people as complicated grey areas, rather than magnificent heroes or sickening villains. And to stick to the nuanced truth, rather than flattening it to make ideological points.”

He’s quick to add a qualification: “That doesn’t mean I’m against activist journalism – it’s obviously done a lot of good. But the old rules of journalism – evidence, fairness – still need to apply.”

I don't think that on trans issues, the Telegraph demonstrates any of the reportorial values of evidence, fairness and fact checking that we require of a "reliable source". For us editors dealing with a complex multi-faceted report like the Cass Review, we need sources that "stick to the nuanced truth".

More generally, I think Wikipedia has a problem when newspapers are used to determine WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. We get a bunch of dubious stories published by an extreme press (think, the WPATH eunuch story, or the cat litter story above, or the scare about breast binders being child abuse) while more neutral press simply don't report these nonsense stories at all. We can't weigh shit on one side of the scale and thin air on the other side of the scale and claim we're being neutral. If anyone has ideas for a solution, let me know, but I think there's a danger Wikipedia ends up pushing misinformation and being non-neutral because we haven't figured out how to balance this kind of problem journalism. -- Colin°^Talk 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad we're actually discussing this properly instead of the thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it always has been". As has been pointed out, the Telegraph has had a reputation for bias so strong as to call into question its reliability for, well, half a century. Given the issue has now been a matter of actual academic analysis, I'd go so far as to put the majority of British traditional broadsheet media as "additional considerations apply" when it comes to GENSEX — that's what that category is there for, after all – but as far as the Telegraph goes, it's plainly unreliable in this topic area. Sceptre (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think the threshold for a note of deprication for the telegraph as a reliable source on trans issues has been more than exceeded, and this discussion shows a lack of respect for the social sciences. Transgender care is largely a settled science, especially for adults. If the telegraph was doing this for vaccinations, we'd swiftly deprecate it. I would support a motion to deprecate. However - I would note that the telegraph is generally reliable on all other coverage. Carlp941 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reading through the examples and sources in this discussion, I come to the conclusion that the source is not reliable for the topic area. At the very least, it's biased to the point that its coverage would be undue in most instances, i.e. it covers incidents and minor controversies that other reputable publications do not. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• The evidence presented is convicing - The Telegraph is uneliable on trans issues, appears to have a lack of editorial oversight, either through negligence or deliberately, and presents fringe voices as authorative. I support marking The Telegraph as unreliable regarding trans topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• From what I've seen I would support "no consensus on reliability" or "extra considerations apply" or something like that for the Telegraph's coverage of this topic area. I think some of their reporting on this topic is already not reliable according to WP:MEDRS. Excluding that, their reporting on this topic area seems questionable but maybe sometimes usable. --Tristario (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In order for you to see that we would require a properly formatted RfC, which this isn't. You can't vote "no consensus", it is a summary of users' consensus. The last time this happened, there was a clear consensus for "Reliable".Boynamedsue (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

this is WP:RFCBEFORE, so it makes sense to discuss what a desired or expected outcome would be. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a contentious topic that requires the best quality sources, and its most technical aspects should be covered by WP:MEDRS. While I think that the Telegraph is on the whole a generally reliable source (stronger on international issues, weaker on UK politics), I think we would lose absolutely nothing by avoiding ever using it as a source on trans-related issues, or indeed on gender and sexuality issues more broadly, per the evidence presented here by Loki and the arguments of Hydrangeans and others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think this evidence is strong enough to justify downgrading The Telegraph on trans topics. Colin also makes a great point about WP:WEIGHT, though I don't really see any realistic solution to that, beyond exercising our editorial judgment and arguing things out on talk pages. DFlhb (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd agree. Hell, they're currently going on a bender over David Campanale trying to define his homophobia as Christian values, and then putting out desperate warnings about how "Christians are now the most despised minority in Britain". They're downright tabloid in their coverage of LGBT issues. This is a clear case of "reliable on most subjects, not on certain specific ones", though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• It seems odd anyone serious would consult a newspaper on "trans issues", at all. Surely, there is a body of academic literature on "trans issues", even the politics around it, per WP:CONTEXT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is BIAS, not RS. While some publications may print fake stories to promoted their bias, the more typical way is in the choice of stories or which facts and opinions to report. Note also that headlines and opinion pieces cannot be used as rs. And when a source attributes a claim made, it is not making the claim itself, nor should Wikipedia articles.

Furthermore, news organizations are reliable sources for news only and not for analysis of news or social sciences. By its nature, news reporting will contain inaccuracies.

The way to deal with BIAS is to ensure that the facts and opinions presented in articles are done so in proportion to rs. A story that only appears in the Telegraph would therefore lack weight for inclusion in any major article.

TFD (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Speakingtree.in & LifePositive

Hi, I am posting here to solicit feedback & input on the reliability of two sources used in the Kalki Bhagwan wiki article. There is a discussion that was initially generated on the article's talk page; however, there wasn't a clean consensus on the reliability of these 2 sources.

The first source under question is an article from speakingtree.in [source link 1]. The second source under question is an article from Life Positive magazine [source link 2].

My thoughts are that both sources are unreliable because:

1] Source link 1 explicitly says that it is a "blog written by Seetharam Basani." According to WP:BLPSPS, self published blogs should be avoided for biographies of living persons.

2] Source link 2 is written almost as a journal/ diary entry and appears to be an opinion piece. According to WP:BLPSPS and WP:NOTOPINION, this would not be considered reliable.

3] WP:NOTPROMO: Both sources also appear promotional in nature.

I'd like to solicit thoughts from the community here on the reliability of these 2 sources.

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that speakingtrea source appears to be self-published, as the site doesn't appear to have any editorial control over what is published in the blogs. Lifepostive appears to self-help magazine, not something that appears to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). WP:BLP also states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", these sources don't seem to meet that bar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Whitestar12 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ClutchPoints as an WP:RS

The very recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436#ClutchPoints does not seem to have resulted in a determination of reliability. During the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scoot_Henderson, ClutchPoints was deemed a clickbait to be ignored by User:Morbidthoughts. Is it an RS or not? Should it be on WP:RSP?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Context of the discussion is whether sources are appropriate for WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am still trying to understand if it is a RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

In my personal experience - ClutchPoints isn't outright unreliable, but they're certainly a bit clickbait-y, and almost all of what they report can be found in more reputable sources. I'd shy away from using them for most items. The Kip 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hachette Livre

I am facilitating a Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion. @Louis P. Boog wish to use "Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World" by Mark Sedgwick.

Published by: Hachette Livre. (Title page informs that the book was first published by Intercultural Press a Nicholas Brealey Publishing Company.)

Author brief @ Google books: ".. Mark (Mark Sedgwick) studied history at Oxford University, did a PhD on Sufism at the University of Bergen in Norway, and taught for 20 years at the American University in Cairo. He now teaches at Aarhus University in Denmark, where he is Coordinator of the Arab and Islamic Studies Unit. .."

Sourced and proposed text
Proposed text is presently shown @ User:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024 In contemporary Islam, only a "small minority" believe that jinn in the Quran should be interpreted allegorically rather than literally. May be paraphrased as: In present-day Islam, only a "small number" believes that jinn in the Quran should be understood symbolically instead of literally.

@ Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC following concern is raised by @VenusFeuerFalle saying

".. Taking a greater look at the source I furthermore doubt that this (Hachette Livre | Hachette Livre is the world’s third-largest trade publisher | Hachette.com) is a reliable publisher. .."

Should this source be considered reliable enough for the given purpose? Bookku (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Worldcat and Stanford University library which owns a copy also report Intercultural Press, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, for the 2006 publication. Hachette bought Brealey in 2015. So the question is the reliability of Intercultural Press, the author, and the book. A second check at Stanford University Library shows they own 60 or so titles put out by Intercultural Press and Harvard University owns about 80 titles from the same press. According to Open Library, Intercultural Press published around 213 books during the time it existed (some of these might be multiple editions of the same title). I would say Intercultural Press is reliable given that two major universities own a sizable percentage of their output. Both libraries also own multiple books by the author and the author has a respected academic posting in the subject area (professor Aarhus University, https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/mjrs%40cas.au.dk). I couldn't find much in the way of academic reviews of the book though I might not have access or looking in the wrong places. I would say the book is reliable though I would change the reference to refer to the original publisher. Erp (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A review in Contemporary Islam, a journal published by the academic press Springer provides a positive appraisal of Islam & Muslims and ends by recommending it as a book that makes the how-do-you-do [...] genre appealing, its benefits enduring. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:NEWSORGINDIA

I'd to see the discussions that occurred when implementing WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I attempted to find it but couldn't locate any. @CNMall41:—Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger, any idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It was add in August 2023 here by @UtherSRG and appears to be based on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#Three sources from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryen Suresh Kute. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. Community discussion affirmed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It was recently discussed at the WikiProject Film Indian cinema task force here and implemented at WP:ICTFSOURCES. I would have to search RSN but believe it was discussed around company Wikipedia pages and those trying to game the system. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, What do you mean by company Wikipedia pages? The issue at hand is that on several Pakistani-related AfDs, some editors are simply dismissing WP:NEWSORGINDIA, just because this guideline doesn't mentions any Pakistani sources or Pakistan itself. So I was thinking it might be beneficial to consider updating NEWSORGINDIA to explicitly include Pakistan. It seems like some folks are hesitant to apply common sense in these situations. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the issue at hand. In fact, I keep getting pinged into it (please stop). You asked about a discussion at RSN and I am trying to point out where you may find it. So again, I believe it may have been part of discussions with company related pages but I do not recall exactly when it took place. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because it's written specifically about India doesn't mean the general principle doesn't apply elsewhere. It's been discussed in regard to Nigerian sources, and I'm sure there are similar issue with some sources regardless of the country of origin. It's also true that they are not necessarily unreliable for everything, a source that states 'is the most fantastic, charitable, awe inspiring, handsome, weathly, actor of his generation or any others' could still be reliable for the less contentious 'is an actor'. It's more that such sources use language that isn't encyclopedic and hang on details that are likely to minor to add to the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

cppreference.com

WP:UGC source (wiki) widely used in WP:C/C++ articles (note that the site also has a C reference despite the name). Examples are too many so I won't be comprehensive here but C string handling is one of the worst cases that I know of. The reason I bring it here instead of just removing everything by myself is that this site is considered the best/most up to date C++ reference in existence and in my experience that is the case. I just don't think this is enough to warrant an exception to UGC. Nickps (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Very cleary a user editable wiki, and so WP:UGC, it's not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really user editable. The entire wiki is currently under protection, and we can currently only make suggestions on a dedicated talk page. However, I'm not sure how the group people who can directly edit is determined nor whether that makes them reliable, and the wiki was editable once anyways.

It's funny how the best documentation on C/C++ out there is an unreferenced wiki running on software that EOL'd in 2014 with unmaintained extensions, and everyone seems to trust it, and it's actually trustworthy. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So it can be edited by anyone, we don't know who the group of editors are. If it is trusted is there any use by others? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Besides the plethora of love from user-generated sites like stackoverflow and reddit, we also have learncpp, a very trusted tutorial site that's... self-published... and also very widely-used in online circles... uhh and uh this reddit thread has many people who claim to have C++ Paper (basically a part of the standard) authorship and who claim to sit on the C++ committee yeah

As expected, there aren't news sources covering this geek information. Some less reliable citations include Phoronix (basically a really prominent blog), MakeUseOf (slightly worse than the likes of ScreenRant), and the LA Times... published a High School student's opinion piece b "std::map vs std::unordered_map" which links it prominently, even calls it "C++ Standard Reference", and provides no opinion except a summary of what these two classes do.

Man, all of this would be so fucking easier if cppreference.com just cited the relevant papers that state the claims. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It really would Stackoverflow, Reddit, self-published sources, and blogs are not making the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the group people who can directly edit is determined The group is literally just autoconfirmed editors. As far as I'm aware, that's the only restriction imposed. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it's weird that their user rights logs don't log autoconfirmation. Thanks.

Looking at the recent changes, it's just two to three (unreliable) editors editing. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it weird? Our logs don't seem to include that either. There is another thing though. Autoconfirm is configurable. What if they disabled it entirely so only manually confirmed people can edit? (Is that even possible to do?) That would make them a closed wiki, at least for now. Not that it would matter too much since every user that was autoconfirmed before the lockdown would still be able to edit. Nickps (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nickps and Aaron Liu: Most of what the site does is summarize information from the ISO C++ specs as well as some compiler documentation. The reason why people think it's authoritative is because the actual standards cost money. Most libraries don't have them online to my knowledge.

open-std.org [147] [148] hosts many of the draft standards and proposals, but these are not authoritative. You could easily replace almost all refs to cppreference with refs to the draft standards based on skimming the pages in question.

Ideally, we could have a cite C/C++ specification template that would reference the ISO version and link the draft standard, while clarifying the difference. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a pre-existing {{Cite ISO standard}} template, the URL to the draft could always be added after the cite but within the closing ref tag. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot clearly navigate open-std.org. Yes, cppreference summarizes (which is what all encyclopedias do), but how can we take their word that it's in the standard? I know from experience that it is right, but it's actually unsubstantiated. Like I said, this would all be much easier if cppreference just cited sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Pakistani Sources

Hey, please guide if sources from the following sites be considered WP: Reliable Sources;

1. People Magazine, Used in Fatima Feng
2. The odd one Magazine, Used in Fatima Feng
3. We News, Used in Tumhare Husn Ke Naam
4. FHM Pakistan, Used in Tumhare Husn Ke Naam
5. Parrot Analytics, Used in Tumhare Husn Ke Naam

Looping in Saqib. Sameeerrr (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sameeerrr, IMO, no. Clearly unreliable. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What may be pertinent is a link to the deletion discussion on film related sources from the Pakistani film project. Do you still have that list?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, This one? Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Pakistani sources —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The discussion here. Do you still have a list of the references listed there? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, I don't keep junk. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for asking. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, No need to sorry, pal. Can you ask for its undeletion and move it in my NS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, you would need to do so yourself if you want it. Please do not ping me here. I have given my comments so don't want to be dragged back into it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to at least some of these. The People Magazine reference stands out as a WP:FAKEREF to me as it is a Wordpress blog (note the site icon) that stole the People Magazine logo and pawned it off as if it's associated with the main People (magazine). Anyone who claims that NEWSORGINDIA only applies to specific publications within India need to look no further than this. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a WordPress based. What about other sites? Sameeerrr (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sameeerrr, Use WP:COMMONSENSE. They're all CLEARLY WP:SPAM sources, just internet business sites masquerading as magazines or news outlets. In reality, they have nothing to do with journalism. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See this article about peoplemagazine.com.pk, fhmpakistan.com and FHM Pakistan Pulblications. Like CNMall states above, they are WP:FAKEREF, with peoplemagazine.com.pk faking as if it is affiliated with People Magazine (but note the logo is not the same as the real People; it's a poor rip-off) and fhmpakistan.com faking as if it is affiliated with now defunct FHM. For the others, The odd one Magazine is a blog and Parrot Analytics is a commercial site offering their products and services (Contact us now to deploy demand-driven marketing, the only empirical earned media measure of your marketing spend.) We News might be reliable a secondary source if it is written by a journalist but this is press release with a role by-line of Web Desk so is a primary source. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, Thank you for the response! Sameeerrr (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can [well-known] 4chan archives (i.e 4plebs) be used as a primary source?

Hi there, wondering if 4chan archives such as 4plebs.org can be used as primary sources in certain situations, such as citing a post related to an incident (ex. the votehillary.com incident) with another source (in this case, a government document linking to said post) backing it up? It may seem tight, but I think having a consensus on it could be valuable.

I'm requesting these auto-archiving services to have a consensus because the original archive page, containing archives to many, many, 4chan posts was excluded around 2015.

Thanks, LOLHWAT (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WHy would RS not cover something? Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just asking for consensus on these specific situatuons; that's all. LOLHWAT (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I would say a blanket no, as there is no way of judging how accurate such are, ar they wp:sps for example? Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

When there's a reference to a secondary source, I consider it good practice to also reference the primary source, and that's what I usually do. That is to say

According to the Scowmpka Argus-Picayune, Billy Bob made a post on his blog, www.BillyIsTehEpicSmexeh.com, confessing to being the Streetlamp Crapper of summer '89 and asking where he could go apologize. Mayor Haskins met with Billy Bob later that week, and they agreed that Billy would go around on Sundays and help change lightbulbs.

This is how I'd cite this: citation 1 would be the Argus-Picayune article, and citation 2 would be the post on BillyIsTehEpicSmexeh.com, which is obviously not a reliable source, but it's the actual post that this paragraph is talking about, so why not link people to it so they can go read it? It's WP:ABOUTSELF.

I think that if there's some relevant a link to foolz or archive.moe or fuuka or whatever would be justified if we have a RS saying "the thing was posted on 4chan in a thread saying blah blah blah". jp×g🗯️ 17:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well said. LOLHWAT (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

4plebs is used in a number of academic sources [149] [150] [151] [152], so seems to be a fine primary source in the limited cases where including one would be appropriate Tristario (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree. WP:PRIMARY is clear that primary sources used in this manner must be "reliably published", which 4chan is not; using it in this manner would be WP:OR. Academic sources are permitted to perform OR; we are not, and can therefore only cover things posted on 4chan, at all, in circumstances where actually reliable sources have noted it. Cases where 4chan is cited as the sole source to establish that something was said on 4chan should be removed on sight. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting 4chan be used as a sole source, the kind of context I was thinking of was where it's been noted by a reliable source, as given in the example above. Tristario (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Dege31 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is lacking in context, to the point where we can't really answer it without knowing what that context is. If the claim is about a living person, then a self-published sourced and a court document likely aren't sufficient. If it's simply that the votehillary.com incident happened? Maybe, but like Slatersteven, I have to wonder why there aren't better reliable, secondary, independent sources?

I see that the editor has courtesy vanished, so I don't anticipate an answer to this—but adding my own $0.02 in case someone points to this thread later on. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, for several reasons. WP:PRIMARY does not exempt a source from WP:RS; as PRIMARY says, only primary sources that have been reputably published can be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, 4chan archives can't be used as a primary source to say eg. "X was posted on 4Chan"; that would be textbook unacceptable WP:OR. And none of the exceptions to RS in this case can apply; WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB require that there be no reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of the author, but 4chan doesn't provide any sort of verification (or, normally, accounts), so even if someone is claiming to be a particular person talking solely about themselves or a subject-matter expert, that wouldn't be enough. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here is an example. Miles Routledge, who famously posted through the fall of Kabul, has a sentence in his article like this: Routledge said in an August 14 4chan post that "the intelligence agencies show that the capital may be taken over in 30 days; however not in a few days [...] Also if I get proven wrong and die, edit a laughing soundtrack over my posts. It'll be funny I think." This is currently cited to this Daily Dot article -- here I think it is obviously fine to link to an archive of the post. jp×g🗯️ 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, linking to an archive of a post in situations like that seems fair Tristario (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Declassified UK

It is extremely biased. Far left, anti israel, anti britain, anti military. The MoD has blacklisted it as they do not consider it a reliable source of news. https://www.declassifieduk.org/raf-bombing-yemen-as-british-as-afternoon-tea/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-military-support-for-israels-genocide-was-pre-planned/ https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-reported-israels-fake-news-as-fact/ here they state the British military has 145 overseas bases yet is including defence attaches at british overseas consulates as a "base" same with small numbers of RAF pilots being in pakistan to teach students is apparently a "overseas military base" it's fake news. https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-the-uk-militarys-overseas-base-network-involves-145-sites-in-42-countries/ DrWatlingWarfare (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Bias is not unreliability and I don’t think it’s “far left”. The issue here is a lack of accuracy and this is a typically misleading post from this outlet. I agree it’s not a reliable source. It’s a conspiracy theory site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do say it is a conspiracy theory site? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that term was excessive. This is a less well-established news outlet (per WP:NEWSORG) so would need evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to consider it usable. I can find no example of use by other RSs, apart from this mention of an interview with Jeremy Corbyn. It has some serious advisors and board members and reputable funders, but one red flag is that one of its advisors is Lowkey, who is a purveyor of antisemitism and conspiracy theories for MintPress and PressTV.[153][154][155][156]

• Some of its worst reporting is by John McEvoy, who went to Declassified from TheCanary. For example, one of McEvoy's most widely circulated reports claims that "Some 41 of Labour’s 197 sitting MPs have accepted money from the Israel lobby", but the overwhelming majority of this comes from a single donor, Trevor Chinn, a lifelong Labour supporter who also funds anti-occupation groups such as the New Israel Fund and Yachad, so calling him "the Israel lobby" is disinformation, adding two and two to make five, which is their standard modus operandi.
• This Medium post by an academic anthropologist specialising in Latin America describes how its reports are used by authoritarian states: The conspiracy theory of the “lithium coup” was invented by outside observers who sought to justify the “coup” narrative in favor of Morales. It was first created in 2019, from the American news site Common Dreams, then in 2020 with reactions to a sarcastic tweet from Telsa’s Elon Musk, and now in 2021 with a report from Great Britain from the website of low-prestige Declassified UK. Each new conspiratorial explanation of a supposed “lithium coup” is incoherent with respect to the previous one, but what is consistent is total ignorance about local lithium politics in the Salar de Uyuni. The Declassified UK report by Matt Kennard, which does not mention the contract signed by Evo Morales with the German company ACI Systems to exploit lithium deposits of Uyuni for 70 years, nor the protests and demands of the local Civic Committee of Potosí about said agreement, maintains that the British embassy participated in the “coup” citing some initiatives of Britain concerning Bolivian lithium, but they do not mention that the initiatives actually began in 2015, during the government of Evo Morales. While the Declassified UK report is founded on ignorance and speculation, its political uses are evident. Misión Verdad, a news agency of the Venezuelan government, took the time to translate and disseminate the report in the region. In January 2021, another conspiratorial report by Declassified UK [by Kennard and McEvoy] was used by the government of Nicolás Maduro to censor journalists in the country as alleged agents of imperialism. The Armed Forces directly threatened journalists through Twitter, in a country condemned by the United Nations for the use of torture and forced disappearances against opponents.
• Its reports are heavily used by generally unreliable and deprecated sites such as GlobalResearch,[157] Sputnik,[158] MintPress,[159][160] The Cradle,[161] RT.[162][163] Grayzone.[164] (That last example was noted in a GMF report as being circulated by the Kremlin's disinfo network.[165])
• In turn, it cites deprecated and unreliable sources. E.g. it praises the Grayzone's Palestine reporting.[166] In fact, it shares writers with such sources. Matt Kennard has written for Grayzone.[167] Jonathan Cook writes for MintPress, Grayzone and Declassified for example.[168][169] Kit Klarenberg appears to write for it as well as Grayzone.[170][171]

These issues might not put it in the "generally unreliable" category, but should make it clear that this is not the sort of source we should be using without extreme caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

McEvoy is an independent journalist that writes for them. He also wrote Who funds Labour Friends of Israel – and why won’t it say? so sure, he has a thing for LFI and the lobby, but can just attribute him.

Are any of their reports, regardless of who is using them, actually incorrect or wrong? A lot of what you are writing there is more innuendo than hard evidence. It's a bit rich citing an opinion piece from an unreliable source (Medium) to back up your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On review, as I say "conspiracy theory" might be excessive and no I don't see examples of factual incorrectness as such, but I'm seeing examples of misleading reporting, as that "lobby" piece shows. Their approach is basically joining the dots between unconnected facts in order to give the appearance of a bigger picture, or adding two and two together make five.

Re Medium: obviously I wouldn't cite it in a mainspace article, but to be clear it's not an unreliable source; it's a self-published source (in this case by a subject matter expert). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone still yet to obtain their doctorate isn't a subject-matter expert. If and when they do get it, obtain an academic position, get published in some serious journals, they'll be an expert in anthropology, not British foreign policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point still a PhD student. Has some peer reviewed articles, eg https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=devin+beaulieu+bolivia&oq=devin+beaulieu#d=gs_qabs&t=1715889721225&u=%23p%3DWg6qg49pQY4J Subjext matter is not anthropology but extactivism in Bolivia, the topic of MvEvoy’s article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a subject matter expert, has not published anything other than a couple of co-authored reviews. If the medium article was published, then it would carry some weight. But it isn't, so it carries zero weight. Use by others cannot be counted against a source. This is weak stuff.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Selfstudier. These look like attempts to discredit a source through "guilt" by association. That's not a serious or credible way to evaluate a source. None of it is evidence of incorrect reporting. The source has no control over what other websites or news organisations give secondary reporting on their content. Similarly, that a journalist also does freelance work for other outlets does not "contaminate" Declassified's reporting. Unreliability of a source means it cannot always be relied upon to impartially and correctly report facts, not that everything printed by them is lies and that those associated must also be guilty.

As to the silly notion of "conspiracy", the Centre for Investigative Journalism invited their lead reporter, Matt Kennard, to speak at a conference on conspiracy theories and journalism. Hardly likely if they or other investigative journalists consider Kennard a conspiracist himself. They describe Kennard as an investigative journalist and Declassfied as a news outlet covering British national security issues.

Use by others is relevant, of course, and the widespread citation of Declassified UK in academic literature indicates it is taken seriously and used by numerous scholars. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Some of those academic sources give some credibility to Declassified UK, although it's important to look at the context in which it's cited. this source cites it for this sentence "While there are some campaigners who have raised concerns about the UK developing ‘killer robots’ unrestrained". Then says that seems "alarmist hyperbole given that the UK has shown clear disinclination to develop truly autonomous weaponry (at least, anytime soon)".

I'm still concerned by the lack of its reporting being referenced by more established reliable sources. I'm not sure if I find some passing citations in a limited number of academic sources that convincing. You could also find that for many unreliable sources. Tristario (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you're characterising a citation as "passing". That would make all academic citations "passing". Journals such as Media, War & Conflict, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, The International History Review, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, and academic publishers such as Routledge and the University of Birmingham are established reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Simply being cited for something fairly inconsequential or for a passing mention of something in an academic paper often isn't strong indicator of reliability. If it's actually discussed in the paper or if it's cited in a way that implies more credibility then I'd consider that to be more noteworthy. Tristario (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Tristario. CIJ endorsement and some or the cits add weight but some of them are weak. The first I clicked clicked on at random is a report of some private think tank that has more Wikipedia entries in its bibliography, and doesn’t actually cite Declassified in the text, even though it lists them in the references. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The above Medium blog post by a non-expert holds no weight. I really don't see evidence of factual reporting errors and they seem to be cited by numerous academic/media sources. While some of their contributors write for other unreliable outlets (e.g., Grayzone, etc.), that doesn't mean this source is unreliable too (although, certain authors may be regarded as unreliable). I can see how this source can be regarded as biased in certain topic areas. A minor cause of concern is that they state they "do not collaborate with the UK’s ‘mainstream’ media, but challenge their narrative "[172]. I'm typically not a fan of these 'alternative outlets' but Declassified UK seems robust in their reporting. So, I would recommend some extra eyes on DUEWEIGHT be applied when attempting to cite them in WP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What reliable media sources cite them? They are cited often by poor quality and questionable media outlets (including deprecated ones like Al Mayadeen and Mintpress News), but the only citation in a generally reliable (but biased) media outlet I've found so far is this one. Tristario (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Y'know I think you're right. Human Rights Watch cites them once [173], but I guess they're more of an advocacy group. They still have a fair number of cites in academic books/journals. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source with a credible board and run by an experienced historian and an ex-FT reporter. OP is misleading: can't see any indication the cause of the brief but now withdrawn refusal to communicate by the MOD was that they did not consider it a reliable source. That claim has no apparent basis. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Curtis is a historian in that he has written popular history books published by trade publishers, but for clarity he is not an academic historian. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Being left wing / criticising the military ≠ unreliable. Of course the UK Ministry of Defence isn't a fan of theirs—the main focus of their journalism is exposing them—but why should that affect what we do? – Joe (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen anything wrong with its reporting. Its reports are generally quite detailed and include verifying links. The GCHQ did blacklist the site in 2020 because GCHQ was embarrassed by Declassified's reporting on the GCHQ's programme in British schools. The MoD temporarily blacklisted the site, possibly in reponse to "its reporting on Britain’s role in training senior spies from some of the world’s most repressive dictatorships on a UK military course". The blacklisting resulted in the Council of Europe issuing a Level 2 "media freedom alert" and Ben Wallace ordering an independent review into Declassified’s blacklisting. Neither blacklisting was due to inaccurate reporting. It would be nice if some of the more established outlets did some investigative journalism that prompted these types of responses. Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with this source, but the articles linked seem fine. Is there any reliable evidence of uncorrected false information being published here?Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Source looks reliable Its "about us" is quite clear about its editorial and journalistic staff, advisory board looks strong. Is there a documented history of false reporting without corrections? Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Generally reliable from what I can see, and no case has been made why that wouldn't be the case. Cortador (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Never heard of this source in my life but it looks fine. Its editorial board is filled with many respected journalists and some academics. I did a quick search and found no obvious instances of misinformation/major factual errors.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• It's a strongly biased source but I see no clear evidence of factual inaccuracy.
  • The "145 base sites" article goes into some detail about exactly what makes up that number, so it's not obviously wrong of them to define a "base site" that way.
  • Sharing writers with an unreliable source doesn't imply they are unreliable.
  • Being associated with someone bad doesn't imply their published articles are unreliable.
  • Being cited by someone bad doesn't imply their published articles are unreliable.
  • Even praising someone bad doesn't imply their published articles are unreliable.
  • Medium isn't a reliable source for determining source reliability.
  • As a general point, we as editors must distinguish clearly between the facts in a source, and the overall impression that a source gives. Biased sources by their nature will tend to give a skewed perspective of the world. Biased sources will leave the reader with a certain impression. They can do all of this using only completely factual statements! Imagine a biased source dedicated to vilifying a politician by publishing details of 27 bad things he did while never mentioning the 874 good things he did - a misleading impression built out of facts. But we don't build Wikipedia articles out of impressions, we build them out of factual statements. We have to see past whatever impression the source gives us and focus solely on mining the source for facts. Biased sources also tend to sprinkle in opinions amongst the facts. This is sometimes a job for editorial judgement and talk page consensus as to which elements are opinions and which are facts. We also mustn't use a biased source to assign undue weight to a perspective. But it is absolutely possible that a biased source (even a very strongly biased source) can be a source of usable factual material. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Biased but reliable. Declassified UK wikipedia entry has no info about any major scandals. Apparently, they got Ministry of Defense to apologize when they were antagonistic towards the journalists in 2021? Sidenote, the wikipedia article cites a lot from the newssite itself. Matt Kennard (journalist), who is a cofounder, seems to have a lot of journalism experience as per his wikipedia page.

User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Svenska Fans (svenskafans.com)

While working as a New Pages Reviewer and checking out the AFC queue I've noticed a lot of newly created Swedish football biographies use svenskafans.com as a source. As far as I can tell from my interpretation of their About page and this post asking for new writers writers are unpaid volunteers, while some articles like this one from the Hampus Skoglund article seem to be written by employed staff, without any obvious differentiation. Since the site is being used in a lot of new biographies I wanted to get some input on how we should treat it as a source. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@AlexandraAVX:, from what I can see it seems to be an accurate site but the self-published nature could be a problem. I would say it’s okay to use but try to find an alternative source or at least one to back it up if possible. Others may say different but that’s my take on it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear if it could be counted as self-published, they do have a team of paid editors including a head editor which are obviously not self-published, but I can't find any good explanation of their setup. If they do have an editorial process for their volunteer writers then I don't think it's significantly different from a regular newspaper source. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oxford Islamic Studies Online

I plan to nominate Pakistan for featured status in the near future, so please reply from that perspective as well. I'm not questioning the reliability of the source; I trust its credibility. However, I perceive it as online material primarily designed for teaching Islamic Studies to students. I'm unsure if it's appropriate to use it as a source in an article. Additionally, I'm interested in understanding its position on the scholarly spectrum. Would this source be regarded as scholarly, comparable to a book authored by a scholar, or would it be deemed inferior in quality compared to such books?

It's currently being utilized as follows in the Pakistan article:

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a respected Deobandi alim (scholar) who held the position of Shaykh al-Islam in Pakistan in 1949, and Maulana Mawdudi of Jamaat-i-Islami played key roles in advocating for an Islamic constitution. Mawdudi insisted that the Constituent Assembly declare the "supreme sovereignty of God" and the supremacy of the shariah in Pakistan.

Would the following be deemed more scholarly, even though it may not align with the content as accurately as the Oxford reference?

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a respected Deobandi alim (scholar) who held the position of Shaykh al-Islam in Pakistan in 1949, and Maulana Mawdudi of Jamaat-i-Islami played key roles in advocating for an Islamic constitution. Mawdudi insisted that the Constituent Assembly declare the "supreme sovereignty of God" and the supremacy of the shariah in Pakistan.

References

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of your texts appear identical. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OIS is a RS. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent The sources differ, and I'm seeking an evaluation of the quality of each to determine which one is more scholarly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Both sources are reliable. It is not a question of one source over another. Both can be cited with due weight and WP:ATTRIBUTE may be used if needed. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Go with number 2. nableezy - 13:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Citing a YouTube channel

I noticed on the Point Horror article, the list was incomplete. Now, there is a YouTuber i watch that goes by “Libary Macarbe” who has a Near complete collection. He has been colllecting The book for over 20 years, so i’d say he’s a professional. Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsumVwZwFVY Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a no from me. "Probably knows his stuff" and "reliable source" are not the same in my book, but others' opinions may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have to suggest that if we need to resort to YouTube channels by amateur collectors for sourcing, we probably shouldn't have a list like that in the first place. The Point Horror series as a whole seems to have attracted some (mostly negative) coverage in WP:RS, but I don't see how that would justify trying to document every single publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Libary Macarbe" would need to be an expert in the field who had previously been published by other reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Otherwise self published videos on YouTube aren't reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In other words, if they are an expert, then other reliable sources will have cited them for their expertise. And if not... Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem is, with topics as miniscule as this, there really is no such thing as a “certifed Expert” Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Blackmamba31248, that is a feature not a bug. If reliable sources do not discuss something, then that "something" does not belong on Wikipedia. That general principle is the source of Wikipedia's credibility. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No. YouTube is generally not acceptable as a source and some rando’s channel definitely isn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Blavity

There has been some contention recently on the PinkPantheress article over whether her birth date is April 18 or 19. The source used for April 18 is this [174] article from Blavity. However, I'm concerned about the site's use on BLP articles due to their use of UGC.

• December 2017: "Roughly 60 percent of the articles and videos on the site are submitted by readers, then edited by Blavity’s staff."[175]

• October 2020: "Around 40 percent of the site’s content is user-generated"[176]

• December 2023: "A significant portion of the content we showcase on our social platforms is user-generated."[177]

The source used for April 19 is this tweet [178].

I think her birth date should not be included in the article until a more reliable source can be found.

मल्ल (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinkpantheress re-tweeted this[179] from MTV the day before, so I suspect the tweet from the 19th was saying she had the "best bday ever" (e.g. the day before).
The article at Blavity is by Hayley Hynes[180] who appears to be member of staff. So I don't think WP:UGC is a concern for this article, but it could still be for other articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That clears it up, thanks! मल्ल (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

the Straits Times

the Straits Times is generally reliable when reporting about non-Singapoure sources. I don't have any evidence of them not being WP:NPOV regarding non-Singapore articles. Considering how Al Jazeera of Qatar is state-owned and Qatar doesn't have better Human Rights record than Singapore, as per Freedom House, and considering how the Straits Times generally has not had much of a controversial incident, I feel it justifies being generally reliable, simply because there is no concrete evidence supporting otherwise. Josethewikier (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Straits Times appear on the Perennial sources list, where it's consider generally reliable other than for Singapore politics. Are you trying to contest that part about Singapore politics? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm contesting how it should be in green (generally reliable) rather than yellow (neither generally reliable not generally unreliable). Josethewikier (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this an issue for the RSP talk page rather than this noticeboard, if there's no challenge to the consensus just to how it's represented on the list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I do apologize to have added this in the incorrect spot. Josethewikier (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The colour for the Strait Times comes from the close of this RFC. The issue of Al Jazeera and Qatar has been brought up previously, but no consensus has been found on it. Ultimately the matter is bureaucratic, the difference between General Reliable and Additional Consideration Apply is very limited. In the case of the Strait Times it's only in regard to Singapore politics and any editor objecting to the Strait Times just "because it's yellow!" should be ignored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not proposing such a change, merely wondering why it is what it is (not being considered generally reliable). I'm not sure I'm able to prove the unreliability of the straits times anyway, because I haven't heard of any major incidents for their bias. If the consensus is that the above source is considered "neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable" by the eyes of most editors, I shall respect that and not challenge any changes. Josethewikier (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes the reason it's that way is because of the weight of editors comments in the RFC I've linked. Consensus can change but I would suggest reading the RFC first if you want to change it.
To try and be clear the Strait Times is consider generally reliable, it's only in regard to Singaporean politics that there is any question of it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources used in Tamil genocide

I am trying to establish if both primary and secondary sources can be used in the Tamil genocide. Sources used have been listed here in Talk:Tamil_genocide#Audit_of_quoted_sources. Kalanishashika (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Suissa and Sullivan

Hi, RSN! Please help us resolve a content dispute.

• The disputed source is this one: Suissa, Judith and Sullivan, Alice: The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Education, in the Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2021.
• The disputed article is J. K. Rowling, a featured article.
• The source says at page 69: The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020).
• The claim I'd like to make is: Rowling received insults and threats. (The threats part is supported by a different source.)

I'm being asked not to use the source because it's variously said to be partisan, generally unreliable, or unsuitable for use in a BLP, leading to the discussion here (permalink). Your thoughts, please?—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The core of the dispute is that it is a WP:PROFRINGE source. The authors did not do anything even resembling due diligence regarding their research to the point where the press had to issue a post-publication correction for errors of fact. Beyond these straight-forward errors of fact the authors regularly make bold assertions, for example, We will argue that current conflicts around sex and gender are not about trans rights per se, which we fully support, and which are already protected under current UK legislation,1 but about the imposition of ontological claims underlying a particular ideological position. Often associated with the intellectual traditions of postmodernism and queer theory, this position entails denying the material reality and political salience of sex as a category, and rejecting the rights of women as a sex class (Jones and Mackenzie, 2020). Disallowing discussion on these points is a feature of and, as we will argue, fundamental to a prominent strand of activism associated with this position, which we will refer to here as the gender identity ideology and movement. Is dipping into fringe territory with the claims that:

1. There is a postmodernism and queer theory-derived ontological position that denies the material reality of sex as a category.
2. That said ontological position "rejects the rights of women"
3. That discussion of these points is disallowed

These are fringe positions. They're frankly farcical if you have even a passing familiarity with queer theory or the major ontological works of "postmodernism".

Suissa and Sullivan say, For gender identity campaigners, simply asserting that sex exists as a meaningful category, distinct from people’s self-declared ‘gender identity’, is deemed transphobic. Lobby groups such as Stonewall demand affirmation of the mantra ‘Trans Women Are Women’, with explicit and repeated calls for ‘No debate’. The statement ‘Trans Women Are Women’ could be assumed to be a polite fiction. Which is both deeply inaccurate, deliberately disingenuous with its interpretation of what "trans women are women" means.

This is not the factual claim the press later required a correction of: In practice, the kinds of statements that routinely lead to people (overwhelmingly women) being denounced as transphobes include: but Suissa and Sullivan provide no evidence that women are "overwhelmingly" the subjects of transphobia accusations.

Over and over Suissa and Sullivan make the claim, unsupported by evidence, that the ideology of Stonewall and another trans rights charity erases, eliminates or obviates sex as a protected category. This is a factually inaccurate statement and is, frankly, a WP:FRINGE view within politics, social sciences and philosophy regarding the relationship between sex and gender and how trans rights advocacy goes about protecting the rights of trans people.

For this reason it was suggested that this source should not be used when better sources for the same claim are readily available. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I also want to call out that the source only supports "insults" and not "threats" and other sources support "insults" - it is not required to support the statement it currently supports. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If the statement it's supporting is already widely supported by other better sources there seems to be no reason to include this one at all. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in the other discussion, we should not be citing anything in a BLP to a bad source. (I think the source is bad for basically the same reasons that Simonm223 does: it appears to have a strong and very much non-mainstream POV.) We don't even need it to source the statement at issue, so I don't understand why people are fighting for it. Loki (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to believe that there aren't other sources supporting the statement, is there a particular reason to use this one? If a less controversial source can be used to support the same statement it could lead to less arguements in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of a silly thing to get into a big argument about; the source is being used as a reference for a fairly minor point, one which probably has lots of other possible sources that could be used, so it's not particularly necessary. Still, I'm worried that if the objections to the source go unchallenged, this will be used as precedent from now until the indefinite future to ensure the sources deemed reliable for gender-related articles are all from a monoculture of support for the position of trans activists, just the sort of thing Suissa and Sullivan wrote their paper to speak out against. So I have to object to declaring a source out of bounds because it holds a dissenting view. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, from what it seems it's less the entire viewpoint and the fact that the text is proven unreliable (a post publication statement had to be put out correcting various points), and that instead of getting into the nitty gritty about the viewpoint, one just simply uses a better source for this singular statement. If an argument about the viewpoint comes up it comes up later, but let's not waste everyone's time here and now and instead remove it and use the clearly more reliable sources. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lots going on here:

• First a point of order: a source is not necessarily disqualified because it advocates a fringe theory in it, if it has non-fringe material too. For example, The Emperor's New Mind contains a fringe theory about consciousness, but contains a great deal of other material besides and thus is a suitable source for supporting statements about that material. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• It's relatively easy to identify fringe theories in the physical sciences, where scientific consensus is widely discussed and results are widely believed to converge on an objective truth. It's far harder in academic philosophy, where ideas diverge and proliferate and different schools of thought emerge. This is not in any way to besmirch philosophy as non-rigorous. It is simply rare to find complete consensus on complex philosophical issues. Robust disagreement comes with the territory. Does that mean fringe theories can't exist in philosophy? No, there is pseudophilosophy and pseudo-scholarship, and people tweeting their personal incohera on a daily basis. That's what fringe looks like in this context. A highly cited paper in a respectable academic journal really doesn't come close.
• The given objections to this paper are weak. The cited statements seem to be based on a mixture of interpreting theorists like Judith Butler, and argumentation about the consequences of regarding sex as performative and socially constructed. Maybe you disagree. I'm sure many do. That doesn't make this paper fringe.
• Is the paper unreliable? Possibly because a correction was published? Well, the correction was to a minor point that didn't change the conclusion, and publishing corrections is usually a good signal that accuracy is taken seriously. Another signal of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS. I see 45 citations on Google Scholar. I haven't checked them all but at a glance they seem to be routine citations without comment. If the paper was as unreliable as claimed, we would surely expect it to either be ignored, or subject to scathing refutations and retraction.
• Is the paper a good source to support the phrase "insults and threats"? Certainly for "insults", and it's not far off "threats" either, given that it's not unreasonable to think that a woman might find extreme sexualized violent insults threatening.
• Since the paper is neither fringe nor unreliable, and supports the content, and none of the controversial elements of the source are imported into the article, removing it merely acts to cleanse Wikipedia of a disfavoured POV, which is not exactly in the spirit of WP:NPOV. It's ironic that the article was about suppression of ideas. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Emperor's New Mind is a reliable, and excellent, source for its maths and physics content. It's clear and well-written. It's not a reliable source for philosophy or cognitive science. Because Roger Penrose is a superb, world class mathematical physicist, and he's got exactly no qualifications at all in cognitive science or philosophy.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that wether a source is reliable depends on what we are using it for (although interesting to note that for its claim it cites a sps and Rowling, not the best in the world). On the nature of it's ability to check facts there's the uncited claim about most people being called transphobic are women, and various comments about policy capture and groups (including Stonewall) trying to get rid of Sex as a thing whatsoever (as in not in law, not in general discussion and beyond). The first of these isn't inherintly true and the second is just blatantly false and nearing into conspiracy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely unreliable about the authors, source (Journal of Philosophy of Education/Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain), or the publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). They all seem like pretty mainstream academic sources to me. As Barnards.tar.gz pointed out, correcting minor errors post-publication is a sign of reliable source. Have there been peer-reviewed articles attacking the source's claims? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So given that no other sources are disputing the factuality of the article--and the article has even been cited numerous times in other quality sources--what's the issue? The source clearly verifies the cited content. Are editors simply objecting to the article's thesis? If yes, that's not a matter of RS at all. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well to be fair to the objectors, that's not quite what they're saying? Their views are best read in their own words, above.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, there are one or two sources commenting, but this is a low impact journal Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.philosophy-of-education.org/enabling-free-inquiry-together-a-response-to-suissa-and-sullivan/ is a response to a very similar article by the same authors, for instance. So the authors are disreputable Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that people disagree with them makes them disreputable?—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You explicitly said there were no sources disputing the factuality of the article. This is a source disputing that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Where does this source dispute the factuality of the article I'm citing?—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of the main argument, but, "We feel it is a misreading to suggest that

the material realities of sex are erased within queer theory" is a good start. It's written in polite, academic language, but it's all about how Suissa and Sullivan's core assumption is false. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is only one citation to Butler in the Suissa & Sullivan paper. It misinterprets them pretty severely. Particularly, they are using a particularly vulgar read of "categorical fiction" that shows the very sort of naturalized ontology Butler is criticizing throughout the pages surrounding that brief citation. They're clearly talking about how variation within categories destabilizes the sex category, not that it should necessarily be abolished.

And this is what I mean that this is a fringe paper. It is reading conspiracy theories into single-line statements in much larger works and then suggesting that everybody is lock-step, within queer theory, with that one line from that one book.

And this doesn't even touch on the idea of treating Gender Trouble as a key "postmodern" ontological text. I suppose Discourse, Figure wouldn't have served their thesis such as it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If the text this source was supporting could only be sourced to it, then it would make some sense to go back and forth over whether it's too fringe to be reliable (in general or for a specific statement), since the question of whether or not to include the text would hinge partly on that ... but since there's no shortage of better sources for the only text this source is being used to support (namely, Rowling received insults and threats, although this source only verifies the first half), and indeed some of those better sources are already being used, it's hard to see what the basis for also citing a lower-quality, biased/fringe source (as discussed on talk and somewhat above) is: it's better to use the better sources. (What's the noticeboard for discussing that, I wonder? It's not exactly a question of reliability in absolute 'is X reliable' terms, it's more like: if we have several academic biographies saying Cicero was born in Arpinum, and then also a Washington Examiner article saying it, what's the venue for discussing 'why should or shouldn't we cite the Washington Examiner if we're already citing biographies?'?) -sche (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just on that last point, the articles' talk page is probably most appropriate for discussing which sources to use in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It was being discussed there, then the talk page section got closed and moved here because S. Marshall seems to be desperate to continue using this source as a "teaching moment" of how to use a questionable source in an article.

This really feels like the use of Suissa and Sullivan is classic disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It doesn't even source the whole statement it's being used for, and the whole statement is trivially sourced to better sources. Maybe this is more a situation for WP:TROUT. Let's review:

• The source is, at the least, actively questioned. Many people think it's a bad source.
• No-one says it sources everything it's used to source in the single sentence clause it's used for. The other half of the clause is currently unsourced, so another source needs found whether it stays or goes.

+It's relatively trivially replaced.

• S Marshall, who's in charge of writing the draft, has literally upped the discussion to a noticeboard before even doing basic things like, you know, sourcing the other half of the clause.
• Wikipedia articles are regularly used to find sources on subjects by people. It's almost a meme that one uses the sources on Wikipedia when writing essays in high school/university. As such, including a questionable, definitely transphobic article is a problem, as we're giving it substantially more prominence. "Suissa Sullivan Rowling" only returns 45 google hits, many of them not on the paper, so this would probably be its most prominent use.

So, is there actually any positive argument for including it, other than "it was already used"? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not removing an academic source just because some people think it's ideologically unsound. I do take seriously the claim that it's generally unreliable, though. That's a matter for this venue.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's factually unsound. This isn't simply a matter of ideological unsoundness but of shoddy research principally consisting of misread books and unsourced grand claims. For instance my complaint with their claim that the "overwhelming" targets of critique for transphobia are cis-women is that it's uncited, unverifiable, opinion being masqueraded as academic work. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I rather disagree this isn't relevant. That there's oddities around the request for it to be reviewed here calls for a higher level of scrutiny of the source. That it doesn't even source the whole sentence clause it supposedly cited, that it is trivially replaced - all relevant, especially when S Marshall shut down the discussion on the talk page to move all discussion of the source here. If S Marshall hadn't shut down the discussion on the talk page, then maybe such things would be irrelevant, but they are insisting the entire discussion has to happen here. Talk:J._K._Rowling#Suissa and Sullivan. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also note that my collapsed comment was explicitly about the reliability of the text and not about the comportment of any editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Again if you believe S Marshall shutting down the conversation at the article talk page was inappropriate you need to discuss it elsewhere. If you wish to discuss should reliable source 'x' or reliable source 'y' be used in the article the appropriate place to discuss it is the articles talk page.
This is specifically a forum for discussing the reliability of sources, per the noticeboard header This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. My hatting of the above thread was only an attempt to keep discussion to the nature of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've un-hatted it. I know you meant that helpfully, ActivelyDisinterested, but when we get discussions about a hatting, the hatting's not serving its intended purpose.

I didn't shut down discussion on the talk page. I moved it here, because it's, yanno, a dispute about the reliability of a source. Moving a topic here doesn't shut anyone down. It just invites previously uninvolved people to opine.

Adam, let's remember that Hava Mendelle is publishing actual magazine articles about Talk:J. K. Rowling. Mendelle has an angle about Wikipedia and an axe to grind about "editors with activist agendas", which means me (because I want to call Rowling gender-critical in Wikivoice) and I suspect it might mean you too. Let's not give Mendelle too much fuel for her next Spectator Australia article.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I won't undue what you've done, but I will remind everyone again to discuss the source not each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the end, I do think the context is important for determining whether it should be used. Even if it was determined reliable for this fact - though see below for why I dont think it is - there are other reasons that come into the debate of whether it should be used, so we're in the weird situation where, if we only consider reliability and it's somehow determined to be reliable on this one point, but we've shut down all discussion on the other issues, it wouldn't settle anything because those other issues wouldn't disappear. If anything, it'd make things worse, because people would be pointing here, and saying "It's a settled issue!" and the other side would be saying "All those other points were explicitly excluded there! It settles nothing!" and that seems like something no-one wants. In the end, there's going to be a strong case of WP:NPOV's admonition that "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements" hovering over this: Whether it technically is good enough to cite this specific fact or not, it's not the best respected, nor the most authoritative source for what should be a fairly trivial fact to prove. It also requires a certain degree of interpretation to get from its claims (quoting what is presumably a specific rude tweet without characterising it) to ours (she received insults). I'm not saying that's the most egregious interpretation, but it isn't quite what the source said. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A simple statement of problems with the source itself

Let's step back. I don't think this source is reliable in the first case, not even for Rowling receiving insults, because I have now checked Suissa and Sullivan's sources for that bit of their text - which, as I explain below, is literally "random person from the internet's blog".

ETA: It's worth saying that there are literally only three sentences on Rowling in the entire source. That's it. It uses a kind of scattershot writing style, where it's listing related topics and doesn't draw connections between them, so, per WP:SYNTH's rules on using different parts of a source to draw connections not exxplicitly found in the source, this is the entirety of the text on Rowling found in Suissa and Sullivan:

• Page 66, "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read" (Nothing before or after this connects it with anything else discussed)

• Page 69 "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."

Now, after that quote on page 69, it does list several women that it says were harrassed, but it very explicitly doesn't say that they were the women that prompted Rowling, nor does it use any source connected with Rowling for them. (The sentence in question is "Prominent legal cases like those of Maya Forstater (Kirkup, 2019), Allison Bailey (Filia, 2020) and Sonia Appleby (Barnes and Cohen, 2020) represent the tip of the iceberg." - and this is part of a transitional section moving from the brief discussion of Rowling towards a discussion of their complaints about the Labour movement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the source doesn't cite half of what it's meant to be used for. There is no mention in it of Rowling receiving threats. No-one is really disagreeing with this.

Second, it's a Fringe source. For 99% of statements in Suissa and Sullivan, trying to bring them to the Rowling article would immediately raise problems. As such it's only being used to cite a very minor point for which dozens of other sources exist.

Third, the text meant to be used to source the insults - as explicitly said by S Marshall in the first post in this thread, is, "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar..." That's hyperbolic in its wording, which isn't ideal: one would prefer a source where you can cite the fact without having to reinterpret hyperbole.

But it gets much worse: it has two citations. Rowling 2020 - which does not include any such language (feel free to confirm) - and Leng 2020. Leng 2020, the clear source of Suissa and Sullivan's "fact" since it's the one that uses such language, is this Medium article. Medium is an open blog with no apparent editorial controls; Mary Leng has two articles on it, and no profile meaning the source works out to "some random person from the internet said it, and Suissa and Sullivan repeated it."

We wouldn't cite Leng's blog. I don't see how it becomes reliable because it passes through Suissa and Sullivan with slightly more sensatonalism (the "tidal wave") added.

I really don't see why this source is being defended at all. It's basically sourcewashing some woman's random blog. Even if we ignore everything else in Suissa and Sullivan, I think there's strong reasons to doubt the text used to cite the "fact".

I don't know how how defending this source even got to this stage in the first place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the full sentence from Suissa & Sullivan, page 69: The treatment of J.K. Rowling, sub- jected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). The footnotes refer to the "essay", which indeed is on Rowling's blog. Victoria (tk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Basically this essay is so bad on so many levels that it honestly is somewhat embarrassing that the Journal of Philosophy of Education ever published it to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if it was even just Rowling reporting it, we could discuss whether we should be using her characterisation of her critics, but it'd probably pass muster with at most a "Rowling said". but Rowling's blog doesn't quote the text Suissa and Sullivan use; the actual quote is from some random person's blog, and said blog lacks even a profile, so, while we do have an article on a Mary Leng, it's probably a BLP violation to presume they're the one who wrote a transphobic blog post without evidence of such. And of course, even if it is the same person, it's still a blog post, not an academic article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, the footnote is simply pointing to the essay itself, not to the words as Wikipedia must. As for Mary Leng, yes, that is the philosopher Mary Leng, [181], who is not just some random woman on the internet. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Still, that the statement in question is sourced to two blogs isn't really helping its reliability. It's pretty much universally agreed Suissa and Sullivan has problems, but the argument is over whether it's reliable enough to use for this single statement. That that statement is sourced to two blogs with no editorial oversight, and the direct quoting of an uncited fact from one of them is the exact part being used as the only text in Suissa and Sullivan that supports the Wikipedia text... Well... I think at this point I can rest my case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Suissa & Sullivan is a secondary source. The insult is mentioned by Mary Leng (primary) and probably also on Twitter (primary). That's how it works. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems dubious; that'd basically make it impossible for any secondary source to be rejected. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As with most fringe scholarship this is ultimately a question of WP:DUE - yes this article is a secondary source. But it's not a good or reliable one. It has obvious errors of fact. It has many more claims that are unsupported by evidence. Its thesis seems to rest upon, apparently, a weak reading of a single line of Gender Trouble and the subsequent assumption that Stonewall (charity) exists to reify that specific mis-read of Judith Butler however it engages so poorly with said material that it ends up just looking like someone trawling blogs for vaguely philosophical defenses of Rowling. As such the question of whether it is citing blogs is more an indicator of the low quality of the essay rather than something apropos to Wikipedia policy on primary and secondary sources.

I would note that I honestly think "Rowling got insults" is a WP:SKYBLUE statement while "Rowling got threats" is unsupported by this source. As such my personal preferred outcome would be to retain "Rowling got threats" in the article and to simply remove this source, which is a bad source that Wikipedia should not be using for anything. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Someone being insulted on the internet is... not really news. As for the death threats... I'd like to see a bit better sourcing than "Rowling said she received threats", but let's leave discussion of that for after the statement is actually sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The commentary here has made some decent points about how the source is being used to document a claim that is fairly peripheral to the source's own points, can be sourced many other places, and is not really very well sourced factually in that source which is more of an opinion piece than a research study. Unfortunately, several commentators have been unable to restrain themselves from going beyond such reasonable criticism and getting into much more inflammatory territory by labeling it "fringe" and "transphobic" (and such things), thus compelling people of dissenting viewpoints in this contentious area to mount an unnecessary defense of the source (similarly to how in another thread further up this page they are forced to defend articles about a silly urban legend of litter boxes in schools). Sticking to the facts instead of pushing ideologies would make for a better discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anybody to defend the litter box urban legend. Any editor doing so could just go, "yeah that was all pretty silly and we should stop," and then stop. And here's where I have to bring up the actual factual correction the journal required: you can read it here but, specifically, they changed the way they cited their source to refer to trans women as "males who identify as women", called it a systematic study when it was a literature review, and tried to convert bottom surgery rates from the figure of 5-13% provided in the source to 0.1% "annually".

This is really egregious and it's egregious in an openly bigoted way. I'm sorry if me calling this bigoted offends anyone. But it's true. They focused on surgery rates (already a red flag if you've ever actually spoken to trans people about the challenges of getting gender confirmation surgery assuming they want it), then they misrepresented the nature of the study they were citing to make it seem more authoritative than it was, then they doctored the numbers to make it seem like no trans women actually want gender confirming surgery anyway. If you can't recognize how that's bad then you probably need to step away from discussing sources in social sciences and humanities academia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"These details have been corrected only in this correction notice to preserve the published version of record." Wow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot, their claim about trans women mostly not taking hormones was incorrectly sourced to the citation involved in the correction and was, actually, just a whole-cloth invention. Like calling this WP:FRINGE might almost be too kind for this sort of blatant academic dishonesty. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• This "simple statement" now runs to 1,500 words and has never been edited by anyone uninvolved. Can you see how those two facts are connected?—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  The source has a lot of problems. It took that long to unpack them all. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this in the source?

In the latest proposed draft, Suissa and Sullivan is additionally used to cite "As her thoughts on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny", which is cited to pages 68-9. Rowling isn't mentioned on page 68, and I'm not seeing text that even begins to cite that on page 69. Can someone provide the quote from Suissa and Sullivan meant to source this as a first step? Because if it's not in the article, it's a pretty easy issue to deal with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• You're right and it's not in the source. I copy/pasted that from the text that's currently in the article because I mistakenly assumed that a featured article would be well-sourced. I'll fix that in the next draft, once we've decided whether Suissa and Sullivan can be used at all.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not and never was pages 68 to 69; it was and is cited to pages 66 to 69. The entire section is about the legal status of transgender people, concluding on page 69 with the "choke on a bag of dicks" aimed at JKR (which is a bit more than scrutiny). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The entirety of commentary on Rowling is two sentences in page 66 to 69 inclusive: Page 66 states "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read", and Page 69 states ". The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired." That is literally the entirety of the framing of Rowling in Suissa and Sullivan, in pages 66 to 69 inclusive. Neither of those talk about her "thoughts on the legal status of transgender people" in any way, shape, or form. SandyGeorgia, I really think you should step back, because that fact is patently not in Suissa and Sullivan, unless you have the wrong page numbers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reference to her essay is an obvious reference to her views, and that reference to her views concludes an entire section discussing the legal status of transgender people. The content is clearly supported by the source. As Barnards, Victoria, S Marshall and several others have patiently explained above, the reliable source is adequate for the text it is citing. You're bludgeoning the discussion, and this last example appears as if it's a struggle to find a valid reason to discard the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm been passively reading goings-on regarding the article and these discussions for a while now. Didn't really want to get pulled in to all this. But, that's a quote from a reference that's supposed to be an academic source? Wow, that sounds immensely biased and terrible of a source. It sounds like it should be an opinion piece in some right wing rag. Basically straight out of the Daily Mail. Silverseren^C 02:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have not been following closely the preceding discussion, so I will likely need to review, for example, the 45 citations on google scholar later, but it seems like a reasonable disagreement to want a source that's a little more explicit if we are to say that the scrutiny (or more than scrutiny, as it may be) of JKR arises from thoughts on the legal status of transgender people. As it seems like a reasonable contention, having the disagreement patiently explained to Adam seems a little condescending. I apologise if I have missed something that is on the article talk page and not here at this noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I really don't get how Sandy thinks that reading four pages of text - three sentences of which are about Rowling, the rest on other people - and then making interpretations about Rowling based on the content that IS NOT about her (How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? How does that not fall afoul of "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source"?).... is a reasonable way to cite half of a sentence of trivial information in a Biography of a Living Person where standards of citation are particularly high. I asked her to quote the text she thinks supports it, and she's saying all four pages are necessary. I don't understand how this is a good faith argument. I'm not assuming it's a bad faith one; I just don't understand how a respected writer of featured articles, who has been through and passed many source reviews can seriously think that's a reasonable thing to argue. What am I missing? I'm genuinely confused here, because I don't believe she's acting in bad faith, but to argue what she's arguing for is madness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarize in simplistic terms: an attempt is being made to write a draft about Rowling's transgender views - a draft that will gain consensus. The draft needs to be written in summary style and has to include a number of points, including the context that Rowling's comments came about in response to UK's gender recoginition laws (and what those are for readers not familiar), that Rowling's stance is gender-critical (or in line with trans exclusionary feminism) and that she's drawn criticim & even insults. This source satisfies a number of these points by explaining that the laws triggered the debate (and Rowling's part in it), what the laws are, and reactions Rowling has received. These points are strewn across a number of pages. Whether or not the source is used can be worked out on the Rowling talk page. The only question here is whether those who aren't involved in the discussion on Rowling talk deem it reliable. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: Let's be clear on a key point: If you go to the PDF, and search for Rowling's name, the one sentence on page 66, and the two sentences on page 69 are the only things you will find. It's not a valuable source of information for most of what you're mentioning, because WP:SYNTH explicitly disallows "combin[ing] different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." This source never connects Rowling with gender recognition laws. It does not show that Rowling has commented on the laws. It does not show Rowling's point in the debate. And that's because it's really not about Rowling at all.

The entirety of Rowling's mention in the source is the three sentences I've mentioned. I'll repeat them again, because it's important to be very clear on the sum total of information about Rowling in this source:

Page 66, "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read", and Page 69 "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."

Page 66's reference is too scarce on details to use it, since it doesn't even name the novel in question. Page 69 doesn't connect it to UK laws, it connects the insults to her 2020 essay, and that's it. It very explicitly does not state which women that "face[d] campaigns of harrassment" inspired Rowling. Suissa and Sullivan are, again too vague to allow us to use them to make a point like that, because this article isn't about Rowling, and the authors of it do not provide sufficient detail to say much of anything about her. Literally the only thing this could be used for is her receiving insults in response to her 2020 essay - NOT gender recognition laws. The sentence on page 66 is not put in sufficient context to say anything on the back of it that would be useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Amendment of Mondoweiss closure

The closure of the recent RfC on Mondoweiss has been amended. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss for the amended closure and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss for the closure review. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Are these WP:RS ?

Can anyone verify the reliability of these sources?

• [182]
• [183]
• [184]
• [185]
• [186]

As I doubt the publishers as they don't seem genuine (excluding the first source). Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources are unreliable. It will purely depend on the concerning information when assessing the credibility of these sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I'll surely look forward to it until someone gives more info for these sources, thanks. Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason to ping me? I don't know that I have much to say about these sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

holocaust invention in modern arab news papers

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

---

hello, I was recently noticed vandalism in wikipedia, some editor keep referring to Warsaw ghetto uprising as intifada altho he has been told by multiple editor this is wrong, and altho he has been reverted twice by 2 different editors he keeps reinstating that content without consensus has been reached.

according to WP:APLECP

5) All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required restriction."

and in a bit more details: All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

my 2 questions:

1. dosethis source, meet the criteria of valid source? if yes,I kindly requested to please elaborate what makes it reliable source.

2.if it is in fact not a valid source per the policy, what can I do so that the policy is enforced and the unreliable source and will be removed until consensus is reached?

thank you. 109.64.78.25 (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Context would probably help.

Can you confirm that this question relates to the Intifada article and the Deutsche Welle article's repeated use of the word intifada in Arabic for uprising? For interest, that article for the 80th anniversary of the uprising may be a recycled/rewritten version of this DW article in English from the 70th anniversary. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The DW article is using the Arabic word for uprising. It would be wrong to call the Warsaw ghetto uprising as an Intifada as that word has taken a specific meaning in English beyond its simple translation from Arabic. The Intifada article already points this out somewhat but it could be made clearer that the Arabic sources, if translated, are just saying "uprising/rising". The DW article title translated is "On the 80th anniversary of the Uprising" and the Al Jazeera article to support the Easter Rising translates to "The Irish commemorate the Easter Rising". Neither source is making a comparison between the English usage of Intifada and these events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've slightly edited the Intifada article where it used these sources to make the point clearer. Is that better? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks an improvement to me. Like many loan words it's important not to mistake the original meaning for how it's used in English (garlic aioli anyone?). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

yes, confirming this is the Article without consensus whether its a reliable source I which I believe should be removed and that the policy regarding reliability of the source should applied to.

"no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard"

'

it is seams to me like its is an historical revisionisms that border at making this article WP:SOAPBOX.

in Yad Vashem they are referring to the uprising with the word "تمرد" which in English it something like "Tamrod".

https://www.yadvashem.org/ar/holocaust/about/third-stage-the-final-solution/warsaw-ghetto-fate.html

example of usage in context:

in arabic:"أصبح تمرّد غيتو وارسو رمزا لمقاومة اليهود للنازيين."

the arabic in english letters: 'asbah tmrrd ghitu warsu ramzan limuqawamat alyahud lilnaaziiyna.

in english it says "The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion became a symbol of Jewish resistance to the Nazis."

it is a manifestation of a trend that have have started in last decade by a minority of Arabic publishers with political intention to refer to historic events that were not called intifadas when they occurred intifadas.

the first media reference of this trend or "rebranding" of historical events I could find was in an article in VOX wrote by Natasha Lennard, where she interview Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University who have said:

"I urge that we think of intifadaas an uprising — a rising-up of an oppressed people, like what the Irish did, and the Indians, and the South Africans did against apartheid." Intifada is not, as the historian noted, some "peculiar violent ritual" reserved for Palestinians — it simply means "uprising," which is what oppressed Palestinians have no option but to do save for continuing to live under the yoke of 47 years of occupation."

here is a quote from fathomjournal to support my argument on whether this info should be removed.

"the historian Deborah Lipstadt – author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and successful defendant in the libel suit brought against her and Penguin Books by the Holocaust denier David Irving – has used the term ‘soft-core denial’ to highlight the damage done by Holocaust inversion. The false equivalencing of Israel and the Nazis, she says, ‘elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did.’ And as Anthony Julius points out, the Zionist=Nazi trope not only says to the world that the ‘Zionists are to the Palestinians what Nazis were to the Jews’, but also that ‘the “Zionists” and Nazis share the same Fascist ideology’ and that ‘the “Zionists” were complicit with the Nazis in the Holocaust.’"

"By inverting reality and morality, and by recklessly spreading accusations of bad faith, Holocaust Inversion prevents us identifying the changing nature of contemporary antisemitism and is an obstacle to marshalling active resistance to it."

https://fathomjournal.org/holocaust-inversion-and-contemporary-antisemitism/ 109.64.78.25 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

BookTrib.com

During New Page Review I came across a page citing an unfamiliar source called BookTrib.com. It appears to be a paid platform for book marketing, with reviews and interviews coming as the result of payments (see here: https://booktrib.com/promote-your-book/). A few dozen pages cite BookTrib.com: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=booktrib&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=c4spsirjr7eoiq42m9gstwuel; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=%22book+trib%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1. I wanted to get this Noticeboard's take on whether there's any use case on the encyclopedia for this source; as paid placement it obviously can't go toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They're pretty blatant about it, no it's clearly not a reliable source but a shill website. Not even reliable or notable for reviews since they're being paid by the authors for the review. Canterbury Tail talk 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

SB Nation

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#SB_Nation-staffed_sports_editorial_blogs and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Is_it_appropriate_to_use_SBNation_as_a_reference? don't really make it clear whether SB Nation is or isn't an RS. So I am not sure if either of these is an RS. [187] [188]-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The thrust of those discussions was "it depends", a bright-line answer wasn't possible. It depends on what you want to use it for. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scoot_Henderson, I am trying to determine whether content should be in the article and if so, which sources to use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Are these books reliable

• Kuba, Adolf; Spremo, Milan (1989). Atlas našich automobilů 3: 1929–1936 (1 ed.). NADAS. ISBN 80-7030-049-3.
• Eliška Junková Foundation: Silná čtyřka. pp. 69–70. ISSN 1211-9555.
• Eliška Junková Foundation: Hurvínek a Express. pp. 69–70. ISSN 1211-9555.
• Kožíšek, Petr (2018). 1000 mil československých (1 ed.). National Technical Museum. ISBN 978-80-7037-308-8.

I translated this article from Czech and I am wondering are these books reliable. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The middle two are from the magazine "Automobil revue" which looks reliable, but I can't find any online archive of the magazine to check the details.
I can find little to nothing on the two books, I've asked the Czech project for help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Using Spiked Online regarding genocide of First Nations

On this dif a daily mail article was replaced as the source with the supposedly better spiked online article. The article in question is pretty much straightforward genocide denialism so I'm a bit concerned about it being treated reliably. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Meh… It may not be the best source possible, but it is a step in the right direction. Spiked is at least more reliable than the Daily Mail. That said, if something even more reliable can be found, feel free to upgrade yet again. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, "more reliable than the Daily Mail" is damning with faint praise. However, it's only sourcing the sentence that "no graves were discovered as of (date)". If that is the case, there must be an actual reliable source saying it, and if there isn't we should be leaving it out anyway. Indeed, I'm searching for a better one and all I see so far is the New York Post, which is (surprise surprise) totally unreliable as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)..

Mysterious are the ways of Google. Maybe you are on the wrong continent. Try the New York Times, CBC, APTN, Vancouver Sun, Globe and Mail or Washington Post. Just about any source from the middle of the article is reliable, actually, or should be. I sourced it, but a lot seems to have happened to it since. Some of them won't be familiar to you because they are local. Castanet is reliable and so are the Chilliwack and Hope newspapers. I asked for these articles to be protected at the time because people kept added scare quotes and cites to bogus US blogs like the Dorchester Review. Elinruby (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you in the right place, this discussion is not about all sources, it is about this Spiked article for some broad statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that, on many of the sites which we know there are, in fact, graves there's no interest in excavating them because they are interred remains. For instance it's part of the historical record that there were gravestones at Marieval and they were bulldozed by a priest during a conflict with the local First Nation. So, no, there's no need to excavate there to prove there are bodies. The main question is how many. They've actually had significant problems with denialists coming around with shovels to try and "prove" that there's no bodies. Because of articles like that one in Spiked. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Call me blind, but I’m having trouble seeing the ‘straightforward genocide denialism’. Riposte97 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing this resource which goes into some detail how the handling of the issue by some sectors of the media was driven by genocide denialism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

there has been persistent spamming of articles on residential schools based on hateful pundits insisting that people are making this up. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of graves have been discovered. The sole basis for claiming otherwise is that people are reluctant to dig up their relatives just to prove a genocide that nobody reputable denies. I tried to get the article on the Kamloops school protected at one point and was told that the volume wasn't high enough. Elinruby (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It is insufficient to claim that a source is unreliable because it makes a point you disagree with. This page is for discussions of the reliability of sources, not for continuing a content dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh no I have more general concerns with Spiked than this specific instance of genocide denial. It's an anti-vax rag, engages in conspiracy theories per George Monbiot, and it has Koch Brothers funding backing it. But, with that said, "engaged in genocide denial according to a definition provided by University of Manitoba's Center for Human Rights Research" is a pretty good starting point for "non-reliable" on this issue - quite more so than "a wikipedian didn't like their opinion". Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any RS which back your claim that Spiked has engaged in ‘genocide denial’? Riposte97 (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Already provided the definition I'm using via the University of Manitoba resource. And it applies to Spiked here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Riposte97 (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR includes an overt exception for talk page discussions that evaluate sources: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m aware of that, but this thread is essentially a content dispute, not a real discussion about Spiked. We are being invited to apply a definition in an academic article to analysis of another article, to determine whether an how the patter’s claims should appear in the article Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Sorry to be flippant before. That is why I believe this is essentially OR. Riposte97 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The article text says:

As of September 2023, excavations of purported gravesites have not found any bodies.

The source says:

This is just the latest in a series of excavations of alleged burial sites at one-time residential schools. They have been undertaken at the former Mohawk school in Brantford, the former Shubenacadie Indian Residential School in Nova Scotia, the Charles Camsell Hospital in Edmonton and the Kuper Island Residential School in British Columbia. And they have all failed to unearth a single unmarked grave.

Do we doubt this? Are there sources stating that those excavations did find some unmarked graves? What is the reason for thinking the source might be unreliable on this matter? The link to the University of Manitoba report doesn't mention Spiked. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Spiked is an opinion magazine so should never be used as a source for facts. If the article was by a subject matter expert, maybe that be in exceptional case for using it, but this author is a columnist with no expertise on the topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous source for this. Surely, there is actual sourcing if an official dig occurred. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the investigations used ground penetrating radar. There were dozens of investigations and there are hundreds of gold-standard RS sources, local, national and international. Elinruby (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not responsive to an analysis of this source for this statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would not use Spiked as a source for Wikipedia, because it is a polemical magazine, not a news publication. Usually, when it makes statements of fact, the facts are those reported by other publications. The Spiked article in question contains links to stories in other publications about the failure to discover mass graves. If those publications are considered reliable, they should be used as sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article body, it seems that excavations in three sites have been completed with no graves found. This is relevant enough to be summarized in the lead, and shouldn't really require adding any new sources presuming the existing sources used are reliable.--Staberinde (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2024 (UT

I worked on this article at the time -- I recognize the sourcing format and remember some of the wording. And have now checked the statistics. Somebody tacked on a lead that does not represent the body or the sources. And also the section full of of scare quotes you mention above. What you say about that section is true but I am just now looking at it, and "did not find any graves" is actually "yet" and "with the resources that were available" in the one source I have looked at so far. And of course nobody has updated the middle, and there are blatant POV problems like "Native American" and a refusal to use the actual odfficial indigenous names. That's what I have seen in the short time I have been looking.Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of Spiked. Riposte97 (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sooo let me make sure I understand this. You are saying it is OR to compare a denialist online tabloid with for example the report of a forensic anthropologist (as analyzed by some secondary source such as the CBC) and decide thay of the two maybe there the secondary reporting of the forensic anthropologists finds is more reliable for determining whether there are or are not human remains in a specific piece of dirt? Because it sure sounds to me like that is what you are saying . That's what your source seems to be saying, that it is, in fact, a vast conspiracy of forensic anthropologists and indigenous tribal nations to somehow something because that is obviously the case? Because Pierre Trudeau or something?

For the record it is a settled matter in Canada as to whether children were abused in these schools, and that some of them died. We had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and almost ten years ago it determined that this did happen, that it was deliberate and that it was genocide.This is a list of specific children whose deaths it was able to document with absolute certainty. Yes, it is a primary document. Here it is as explained in part by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a stellar RS, as to 25 specific schools in Alberta: 'A war on Aboriginal children': Alberta's 25 residential schools. Do the tribal nations know exactly where all of the bodies are buried, no. That is why they are looking. I realize that there are large parts of the world where nobody has ever heard of this. It is nonetheless extremely well documented and extravagantly covered in RS that these children died and thousands of others disappeared. The Canadian government held hearings about this for three years. I just do not understand in what way it can make sense to someone that an entire country would hallucinate a genocide and pay reparations so it could somehow ... my mind boggles. I am going to go update the article some more. Notably Riposte doesn't seem to mind that a bit. He just wants the statement that there are no bodies in the lead, sourced to Spike, and he wants that bad enough to revert it back in.

Incidentally... I should start by saying that I have not investigated responsibility nor am I making statements about it, but there was definitely been source integrity issues in the article, specifically with respect to the ontogogy of these bodies, which I flagged in a couple of edit summaries. Here is one of them [189] and here is another documenting a similar problem [190] and here is Riposte reverting back in his championed forensic expert, Spike [191]] and I will stop there because this is not ANI, where Riposte is "concerned" I might wind up per the tag-teaming on my talk page. LOL. Elinruby (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to leave aside some of the colourful insinuations above. Respectfully, @Elinruby, I’m going to suggest you read the source again more carefully. Firstly, it is called Spiked, not ‘Spike’. Secondly, there is nothing in the Spiked article which is factually inconsistent with the sources you have cited (although I note you appear to have posted the wrong CBC link). I don’t think anything above justifies impugning Spiked. That said, I will search tomorrow for other sources for the current dispute, which will be more productively litigated on the article talk page. Riposte97 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust much from Spiked, particularly anything controversial or exceptional. They're effectively an opinion site masquerading as news. If they cite a source for a claim, then I'd consider if that source is reliable instead. Woodroar (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spiked is the successor publication to Living Marxism which was shut down over its denial of the Bosnian genocide, and was also under fire for denial of the Rwandan genocide, as well as engaging in whataboutism on environmental issues. After it shut down its editor and most of its staff started Spiked. Its legacy of genocide denial is clearly intact given this article's clear genocide denial POV; it should not be used as a source for any information about anything described as a genocide, which Canada's residential schools have been.

Besides its inappropriate POV, its statement that "no bodies were found" refers to five specific residential schools where excavations/exhumations did not reveal bodies, but conveniently omits the one residential school where a child's remains were found (per [192]). The Spiked piece was published a full eight months after APTN's article; I wonder why they would have omitted it, if not just to push their "no mass murder" narrative? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's obviously an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim either way (since it purports to completely overturn all other coverage on the subject) which would require a higher-quality source than this. And the fact that it is being pushed into the lead is absurd; I'd say it would be WP:UNDUE for the body, but devoting an entire paragraph of the lead to an opinion by a non-expert writing in Spiked doesn't make any sense. This is a subject that has received massive coverage; if what they say is true then it should be trivial to cite to better sources. It also seems to directly contradict this source, already in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think that the citation wasn't entirely accurate. The article mentions four specific alleged burial sites and says that they have all failed to unearth a single unmarked grave. On the other hand the article reads As of September 2023, excavations of purported gravesites have not found any bodies. I have no idea why they chose to omit the Qu’Appelle find but there's no contradiction here, and thus no reason to doubt the reliability. The Spiked article also says Yet so far, no evidence has been found to support the claims of a ‘genocide’. This is clearly an opinion which should be attributed, if it's found to be DUE, which I doubt. Alaexis_¿question? 16:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• In the end, regardless of the inaccuracy of this particular article (and it does appear to be cherry-picking-facts inaccurate), if you're citing a contentious issues purely to Spiked, you might want to go and find a good source instead. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spiked is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy trash rag that also does frequent genocide denial as noted by others above. It's unreliable for pretty much anything and I consider it little different than the Daily Mail in the first place. Silverseren^C 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hindawi journals and paper mills

In May 2023 Hindawi announced they'd "closed four journals, which have been heavily compromised by paper mills. The four journals are Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, and Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience."[193] We have about 102 citations to those four.[194]

Yesterday The Register's report on Wiley closing 19 more Hindawi journals said "Over the past two years, a Wiley spokesperson told The Register, the publisher has retracted more than 11,300 papers from its Hindawi portfolio."[195]

Is any sort of action required on Wikipedia, such as noting closures in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or checking whether any cited papers have been withdrawn? NebY (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a broad problem at Hindawi, they don't have the staff they would need to have in order to do proper editorial due diligence so the compliance aspects are almost all post-publication (essentially playing whack-a-mole after the fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

thethings.com

The website thethings.com was being used to support information about living people (see diff here). This appears to be a gossip site to me, they don't cite sources for any of their content, and the related articles (which can be viewed in the web archive source above) give this site a very churnalistic feel. I can't possibly see this site as being acceptable for WP:BLP info. I would like to open this up to what others have to say, however. As for now, I have removed the info from the article since it is only supported by what appears to be an unreliable gossip source. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's owned by Valnet, which has seen some previous discussion here, and is also listed by WikiProject Video games (WP:VALNET). I would agree it is probably better to avoid it for BLPs. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I have gone and removed it from multiple articles, many of which are BLPs. I'll definitely keep my eye out for citations to any Valnet sites, particularly on BLP articles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree it looks like a poor source for BLPs. And a lot of the content would be discouraged under WP:BLPGOSSIP Tristario (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this Ph.D. by Magdel de Roux a reliable source for Lemba people

She is a professor in Biblical and Ancient Studies, University of South Africa which sounds good. I was happy with the PhD until I noticed that she wrote that " The bene Israel of western India (who probably came to Judaism via Islam".[196] I see nothing in Bene Israel backing that claim. The source appears to be this book publlished by Sangam Publications.[197], I can't find any qualifications for the author who seems to live in Bombay. That made me wonder.

Than I discovered that she uses Robert Gayre heavily, at least 35 times. There is no way that Gayre is a reliable source. She also uses a lot of private communications and in one case someone's personal notes, and a number of conference papers. I haven't had the time or energy to look at all of her sources. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

arent phds like technically usuallly Wikipedia:PRIMARYSOURCE?

im actually curious about this too, ive used research from papers in some articles too User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is relevant, PhDs can be reliable but that doesn't mean that all PhDs are reliable. As to whether this one is I think your analysis is enough to caste doubt on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)