Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 438

Archive 435

Archive 436

Archive 437

Archive 438

Archive 439

Archive 440

→

Archive 445

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.”[1] 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)

  Can you provide a link to the article or articles you are referencing and explain how it is "extreme right-wing fringe nonsense conspiracy theorizing"? Partofthemachine (talk) 00:57, 21 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,[2][3] 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)

@Chess, Zionism is a Jewish socio-political movement which has several factions.

Zionist outlets are biased political sources. When their reporting becomes overtly filled with crude propaganda, conspiracy theories, communal hatred and outright lies; they are considered unreliable by wikipedia. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The same thing can of course be said, mutatis mutandis, about outlets that support Palestinian independence. Vegan416 (talk) 04:33, 20 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. [4]
• 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.” [5]

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)

I know that Pappe is a (controversial) historian specializing in the history of the IPC. But as far as I saw the article that Selfstudier brought didn't speak about the history of the IPC, but rather accused the JC of being Islamophobic, especially towards students in the UK. What makes him an authority on that? Vegan416 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't bring it, read more carefully. He does say "This campaign [By JC] included a particularly vicious assault on our students and staff at the University of Exeter, which has relatively a large number of Palestinian students." "Our" because he is a professor there so I think he is qualified to comment on that (and the referenced JC article is a typical hit piece from there, why they are considered unreliable on the topic). Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the misattribution. I seem to recall that you brought it too. Anyway, of course he has the right to comment on what happens in Exeter U, but since he is a side in this controversy why should we adopt his opinion on this "Exeter controversy" rather than that of the JC? Vegan416 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Because JC is already negative at RSP (and imo should just be considered unreliable) for this sort of matter (Muslims, Palestinians). Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's PC's latest opinion piece (which is labelled as an article) on how to de-Zionize society:[6]

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)

the entire context of this discussion is that JC has taken a lurch towards the loony bin That's not my position, I merely want the RSP entry clarified that JC is unreliable (rather than no consensus) for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians and that seems clearly to be the case. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 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