Talk:Press TV/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Michele Renouf

Obviously, this is not acceptable in the light of Causteau's consistent disparaging of a certain type of media. Anybody agrees? RCS (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be sensible for Causteau and others to desist from further deletions of citations to the Jewish Chronicle until this point is resolved... LeContexte (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think that this Causteau's edit was correct, although it was probably by accident (because the Causteau's edit summary is not convincing at all). I will start a thread at

Talk:Michele Renouf. --Hans Adler (talk

) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited to avoid misunderstandings. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to agree with RCS if you wish cause he is once again completely wrong. The truth is, I was specifically asked by a fair and upstanding administrator to rid the

single-purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) that only yesterday were disrupting this very article (though yesterday's events pale in comparison to today's). As for the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece, I won't even need to delete it once administrators get wind of just what exact sort "sources" are being introduced into the Press TV article. Causteau (talk

) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you seem to be quite confused, but in this case I am afraid I caused it by not being absolutely clear. I have edited my post to make it clearer that I agree with your edit (although I don't agree with your rationale). That's something you could have found out by reading

Talk:Michele Renouf#Involvement with Press TV. --Hans Adler (talk

) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Renouf (whoever she is) doesn't talk about Holocaust in that video, and videos are not acceptable sources anyways. We don't report what a video says, or make assertions based on it. Doing so, is original research. --

talk

) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you move this comment to

Talk:Michele Renouf. This has almost nothing to do with the present article, so it shouldn't be discussed here. --Hans Adler (talk

) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I would make the point that I'm sure video can be a source. For example David Cameron does his own webcasts. If he revealed something in that which was of interest to the article on him I see no reason why it could not be included in an article. And that's even assuming Sina was referring only to internet video. If Sina's saying that no video anywhere, regardless of professional quality can be cited for any reason... well, that would be daft. Documentaries reveal things of use to Wikipedia editors all the time. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

This nonsense has now spread to the

Jerusalem Post. A few more eyes there can't hurt, I suppose. --Hans Adler (talk

) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely, this is ridiculous? since when do you have to pin point the precise ideologies of a source? --Ari (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The JP is not exactly a "conservative" newspaper. No other WP article consistently describes the ideological affiliation of every source it quotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gilligan

The article says Andrew Gilligan "is known for his investigative work; he worked on programs that uncovered the 9/11 operation". This needs a citation. (I'm not even sure what it refers to. The link that has been there [1] does not even mention Gilligan! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --

talk

) 17:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better.BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

Why don't those wishing to document the holocaust denial material simply stop at the assertion that "Press TV hosts material by the holocaust denier [whatever his name is]" then provide a link to that material? Surely that is incontrovertible, easily referenced and makes the point? Removal of such a sentence would easily be regarded as unfair when this goes to arbitration (as it looks like this must). --bodnotbod (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that because that would constitute

WP:RS

:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Instead, we need to find a reliable source that mentions this fact and then quote from that. Causteau (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I really don't see why the fact that the Jerusalem Post is a conservative, nationalistic (Zionism is a brand of nationalism) newspaper makes it unreliable. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Le Figaro and The Daily Telegraph are reliable, right? Nobody denies that they are close to, respectively, the CDU, the UMP and the Tories, right? So what exactly makes being close to the Likud (the equivalent of the three parties above) being unreliable? --RCS (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RCS is correct - it is indefensible to claim that the Jewish Chronicle or the Jerusalem Post are not reliable sources as that term is used in Wikipedia. Both are widely published newspapers with a significant circulation. Both may be biased, but (obviously) so are all publications. Both may carry articles expressing opinions rather than reporting facts but (obviously) the same is true of most newspapers. The claim that it is not appropriate to cite politically aligned newspapers and/or opinion articles in newspapers in Wikipedia is a novel one. Where an issue is controversial and alternative points of view exist, a neutral point of view is obtained by citing contrasting viewpoints, not by discarding points of view. LeContexte (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have not been reading the discussion. The Jewish Chronicle is an opinion piece, not a proper article. Besides the many disparaging value judgements it contains, we know it's an opinion piece because its author admitted as much in this [http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/17/press-tv-trying-to-hide-wikipedia-holocaust-denial-allegations/ blog entry] he wrote on another website! Note that in that blog entry, he urged his readers to edit this Wikipedia page, and even provided them with the pre-selected Wiki code they ought to implement -- outrageous, to say the least. As for the Jerusalem Post, I've already addressed that ad nauseam above as to why it's a questionable source. Here's more, reprinted from my previous post:

What makes the Jerusalem Post -- which BTW openly admits to being "a staunchly

WP:SOAP

:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

# Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[1]

# Opinion pieces on

neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Causteau (talk

) 14:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been quoting this "staunchly Zionist" phrase at least ten times on this page now. What exactly is the problem with being "staunchly zionist"? As i said, nationalism, even staunch, is not a problematic matter in itself. And unless being proven otherwise, i maintain and many will agree that Zionism is above all a brand of nationalism, nothing else. RCS (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please try not to use the

I didn't hear that debating technique. It tends to get on people's nerves, and at Wikipedia it's generally ineffective. (Unless your aim is to get blocked.) --Hans Adler (talk

) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's your response? That I have quoted multiple times the fact that the Jerusalem Post openly admits to being "a staunchly

Zionist newspaper" as supposedly reliable sources, what really baffles me is the fact that not one editor here has expressed even so much as an iota of concern over the fact that this article has coincidentally been targeted on this very busy day by some outside [http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/17/press-tv-trying-to-hide-wikipedia-holocaust-denial-allegations/ blogger/propagandist] and his minions. Worse, this blogger/propagandist's own opinion piece is now cited in the article. I've clearly explained all of this above, and even included a link for further inspection. Where, I ask, is the concern for neutrality and reliable sourcing now? Causteau (talk

) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't say anything, except that you seem to be very, very prejudiced against the idea of a sovereign Jewish State. The United Nations in the 1970ies were dominated by an alliance of Soviet Union controlled or influenced countries and pan-Arabist nations. The majority imposed its point of view, but it was not that "right" or "true" as you want us to admit. --RCS (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It indeed says everything; it tells us from what exact perspective the Jersulem Post really writes from, as does this article from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (which describes the Jerusalem Post as "pro-

WP:PA). Causteau (talk

) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am really baffled by why anyone needs to argue over the definition of Zionism on this talk page. As long as we make clear who is making these allegations I really don't think we need to discuss anything else --Ari (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we need to argue about that because

Jerusalem Post, a primary source here, with the one and only argument that it defines itself as "staunchly zionist".--RCS (talk

) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe there is a discussion over whether JP is a reliable source for Wikipedia. By Causteau's logic, no American newspaper would be a RS either, because Iran is a "sworn enemy" of America. There seems to me a clear consensus in the discussion that this is valid.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Note that Causteau has another argument: that it is not appropriate to cite opinion pieces from newspapers. LeContexte (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't quote me out of context, LeContexte. It is not my argument that opinion pieces -- such as the Jewish Chronicle article and this blog entry which were both added to the article -- are questionable sources. It is Wiki policy, and for good reason. From

WP:QS

, with the salient points bolded:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Causteau (talk

I did not mean to take you out of context. I'm trying to understand your argument. Which of the cases of "questionable sources" do you believe is relevant here?

• Poor reputation for fact checking - doesn't seem particularly applicable
• Relying heavily on rumors/opinions - that refers to the publication itself, not the article within the publication (as otherwise op-eds would never be cited, which is clearly not the case)
• express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist - I note you believe these are Zionist publications and that Zionism is an extreme ideology; however I'd hope you would accept that this is not "widely acknowledged".

It would also be helpful if you could clarify whether you are saying that it is always inappropriate to cite the Jerusalem Post and/or the Jewish Chronicle, that it is inappropriate to cite opinion articles in these papers, that it is inappropriate to cite opinion articles generally, or that there is a specific issue when the ethos of a newspaper is opposed to the subject matter of an article.

Can we also please focus on the JP and JC for the moment - citing a blog on the New Statesman website raises different issues which we can perhaps discuss separately.

LeContexte (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed over and over. The Jewish Chronicle point I've just addressed in the post above. The Jerusalem Post I've discussed in what seems like every other post if not every post (search the page for "You can personally interpret" for starters). Zionism is indeed also widely acknowledged as extremist. A Google search for the terms "Zionist" "extremist" returned 325,000 hits; 297,000 hits came back for "Zionism" "extremist". There are also, of course, all those Youtube videos. And then there's United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Causteau (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't established that Zionism is extremist. Google searches prove nothing. Searching for Zionism not extremist, for example, produces nearly a million hits. Also United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was revoked by a far more comprehensive resolution in 1991. You cannot use it to support a position you are holding in 2008. --Cherry blossom tree 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this specific point to wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau you seem to be holding two contradictory positions. You first stated that reporting Press TV's hosing of the content in question would be original research. However you then quote the policy saying "Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves" (your bolding). On that basis it seems to me perfectly clear that we can quote material from Press TV's site to substantiate the claim that it hosts the material.

Since nobody is questioning (are they?) that the site hosts the material I really see any attempt to block any mention (in any form) of this as doomed to failure.

Aside from that this may help: mid way through the 4th paragraph here The Guardian reports the site as saying the holocaust is "scientifically impossible". It is not an opinion piece and the source is beyond reproach. So perhaps one of the editors who has been inserting the holocaust denial claims would like to put it back in using that as the reference? Then I can go back to editing art articles... --bodnotbod (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not state that "Press TV's hosing of the content in question would be original research". I quite clearly wrote that we couldn't do as you suggested "because that would constitute

WP:RS

, which makes this plain:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

That quote to the effect that "questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves" refers to questionable sources (it was taken from

WP:RS

) by contrast refers specifically to primary sources.

Still, unlike the some of the other editors here, you actually respected Wikipedia's policies and searched (and found!) a

single-purpose accounts first inserted them. Causteau (talk

) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just included that reference, many thanks! --RCS (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Weblogs and advocacy websites of any kind are not acceptable sources, read

WP:SYNTH

.

But are the sources in question are "weblogs and advocacy websites"? (1) Martin Bright's "blog"[2]. Yes, this is technically a blog, but it is hosted by a reputable newspaper, The New Statesman, of which Bright is an editor, not a personal anonymous weblog. I think its status is no different from an opinion piece in the New Statesman, and thus subject to the same rules, as per

WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." In other words, Bright's piece, attributed in text, is a good source for criticism of Press TV, even if not a good source for a fact about Press TV. (2) The Jewish Chronicle[3]: again, a grey area as a RS for a fact, but as good a source as Nick Cohen for the existence of criticism of Press TV. (3) Searchlight (magazine)[4] is not an "advocacy website". It is a magazine with a wide circulation published for some 30+ years, which regularly works closely with mainstream media teams like the Panorama documentary producers.BobFromBrockley (talk

) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PAGE IS CURRENTLY BLOCKED TO SORT OUT EDITING DISPUTES - BUT NO ONE IS TALKING! Please keep the discussion going. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, User 80.253.150.11 added what seem to be his/her

It- although being different from other news channels- is also very biased and holds views primarily held by the Iranian Government. For example: They name Israel's capital as Tel Aviv, when it's actually Jerusalem. This term is used by the Government. Almost all of their female journalists wear headscarves, be it any country and the journalsits be of any religion. All the journalists defend the government or try to change the subject when asked about matters concerning iran. (text added in article in this edit by User 80.253.150.11, copied here for convenience only. Boud (talk)

User Epw7889 has been reverting edits to make the article conform to Press TV propaganda, and to remove sourced information explaining Press TV programs or in any way critical of Press TV, including a September 4 article in the London Times identifying Press TV's chief editor (for three years!) as a contract killer wanted by the FBI. People who have been fired or who have quit the network in the wake of the election scandals are listed as current presenters. The article is now full of descriptive language such as "riveting," "not beholden to any commercial or government entity," "break the global stranglehold of western outlets," taken directly from network press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyedeye (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like one username (or one username using mulitiple IDs) is trying to delete sections that are critical of Press TV. The fact that Press TV is not independent source is obviously not disputed internationally but username Causteau has deleted all information that criticizes Press TV. What is the solution? --Gadaa 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How very disingenuous of Gadaa (talk · contribs)/Ethionet (talk · contribs)/Habeshawoman (talk · contribs)/Somali24 (talk · contribs). No one is "trying to delete" any properly referenced and NPOV section in the article. The Criticism section is, in fact, right there where it's always been. What is really going on is a quite transparent attempt on Gadaa/Ethionet/Habeshawoman/Somali24's part to try and turn the tables when it's he the sockpuppet with the pending case. It's he that keeps trying to insert self-published, POV blog sources in the article -- sources already complained about by other editors on this discussion page under the aptly-named heading "Propaganda in this article" -- and under different usernames. And it's he that just attempted to cover his tracks by deleting the sockpuppet warning on one of his many talk pages. It's all so very predictable. Causteau (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, i don't know what you are talking about and i am not the editor of all those international and African websites. If you think i control all the 4 or 5 website sources for the article, it is a very strange allegation. In any case, and in my opinion, you should not randomly delete whole sections because you want to keep any of the criticism of Press TV from the public record. I do respect your intention to defend Press TV but the best way will be to provide additional views in defense of the media. I will restore the large section and i do hope that you will make edits to improve the section instead of deleting the whole section. Thank you. --Gadaa 21:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You may or may not be the author of that POV blog article written by a guy with an Ethiopian name that you keep trying to insert into the text. That's beside the point. What matters is that it is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's

weasel words, ostensibly to try and make its contents sound as convincing as possible (e.g. The Iranian media's Somali reporters are widely believed to be Shabelle Media Network reporters whose license was revoked years ago by the Somalia government after the government accused them of reporting extreme bias in favor of the insurgents and the insurgent leadership based in Asmara, Eritrea). Most incredibly, however, is that almost your entire edit cites the very Press TV articles that it is criticizing as "proof" of its point. This is quite possibly the most obvious and patently silly instance of original research on the page. In short, there's nothing wrong with criticizing Press TV. It's a media outlet, and therefore beholden to the public so that's to be expected. What isn't acceptable, however, is the use of no sources, blog sources, Press TV articles themselves (!), weasel words, and synthesis to try and get one's point across. If you want to re-insert your material, you'll have to heavily edit it down beforehand to keep in line with Wiki policies. This means new, non-partisan, reliable sources, as well as a neutral point of view (no weasel words, fairness of tone, etc.). Causteau (talk

) 11:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The first attempt at drawing a link between Dr. Kollerstrom and Press TV goes: "Press TV controversially chose to promote coverage of
  Holocaust Denial, hosting a work from the disgraced former honorary research fellow". However, the source which is placed
  after that assertion does not once mention Press TV let alone its coverage.
• The second attempt at drawing a link between Press TV and Dr. Kollerstrom goes: "Subsequently, Press TV commissioned him to write an essay which began: "The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs"". A link labeled "Press TV commissions attested Holocaust denier" is cited as "supporting" this claim. However, the link turns out to be a misnomer, as it leads to an article titled "The Walls of Auschwitz" on Press TV's website. In other words, the article is a
  primary source
  , and according to Wikipedia, "to the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should... make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." And this article predictably does not accuse Press TV of ever having "commissioned" Kollerstrom to write anything -- it does not once mention Press TV vis-a-vis him.
• The final attempt at drawing a link between Press TV and other people references one Michele Renouf: "She is featured regularly on Press TV and also claims to have been instrumental to getting Dr. Kollerstrom hired by the station". The source cited as supposedly "supporting" this assertion is, incredibly, an article that was apparently written by Michele Renouf herself (yet another primary source)! However, when one follows up on the link in question, it's obvious that here too there is no mention of Kollerstrom having been "hired" or "commissioned" by Press TV much less with the help of Renouf.
• The remainder of the edit is about Dr. Kollerstrom and Renouf and is not in any way related to Press TV.

In short, the entire edit is a pretty obvious attempt at

Sorry? The official website of a television chain promotes Holocaust denial (note that this silly fringe theory is illegal in the country where it originates), and we are not allowed to report it because "this article is about the TV channel, not their website"? That's nonsense.

The arguments about synthesis or original research make more sense. But we do have a link to a newspaper article that makes the connection. I am not familiar with the Jewish Chronicle, but I am under the impression that it is a reliable source. If there are any remaining policy violations I am sure they can be resolved without removing the material altogether. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to "report" anything. Wikipedia is

WP:RS

:

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This edit that not one, not two, but three separate

WP:SYNTH

:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.^[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.^[2]

Also note that the Press TV article has a history of being targeted by

single-purpose accounts are not to be taken lightly. Causteau (talk

) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am bemused by this uncited sentence "In the UK disagreement with and ridicule of religious beliefs is not prohibited. Dr. Kollerstrom has not been punished by the state for his articles advocating Holocaust Denial." In fact there is a blasphemy law in the UK, but it only covers Christianity (its a relic from the past). It's true that it cannot be used to convict for acts of mere "disagreement with and ridicule", but it could be used for extreme and deliberate offensiveness. However Holocaust denial is not illegal, but incitement to racial and religious hatred is. If Kollerstrom incited hatred of Jews by invoking theories of holocaust denial then he could be prosecuted for inciting hatred, but not for denial as such. In fact his fellowship at University College London was revoked, which is, as the article says, not "punishment by the state", but it's nothing to do with with religious belief either, since the holocaust is not a religious belief. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's make this clear. It appears to me that there are at least three issues here:

1. Sockpuppets are active at this article (trying to paint this TV chain as antisemitic).
2. There are allegations by the Jewish Chronicle, a reliable source (in an article that appeared online, but which, according to the note "From The Jewish Chronicle" presumably appeared in print as well [5]) publishes holocaust denial material. This claim is easily corroborated using the chain's official website as a primary source: A holocaust denying article (from 11 days before the Jewish Chronicle article) is right there [6]. This information is obviously important for evaluating the quality of this TV chain as a news source, and it is a priori encyclopedic. It was also reported by the Jerusalem Post [7].
3. The way in which the sockpuppets are adding this information is inappropriate.

Since 1 and 3 are being taken care of by others, I am most interested in 2. I am not very happy about this at a time where the US president seems to have a strong interest in starting a war with Iran. But in my opinion this information, if presented correctly, belongs in this article. I am not familiar with the regular editors of this article; I hope that the strong resistance against the inclusion of this information is a natural reaction to POV pushing by sockpuppets, rather than the expression of an extreme opposite POV. Now that the sockpuppets are blocked, I am looking forward to your cooperation to find a formulation that is in line with our policies (or a clear explanation why such a solution is not possible or appropriate). --Hans Adler (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither the Jewish Chronicle nor the Jerusalem Post articles are

reliable sources. For one thing, the Israel-based Jerusalem Post has been labeled as "pro-Likud" by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

, effectively rendering its neutral status moot. The article on the Jewish Chronicle website, in turn, is an opinion piece. This is obvious given the article's many disparaging value judgements:

• You might not know it, but the British National Party has a television station. Actually, that’s a rather grand way of describing what amounts to little more than a YouTube channel and a website selling DVDs.
• You’re unlikely to have seen its programmes, and to be honest, you’re not missing much.
• PressTV’s editorial team is anxious to let its audience know that it stands full square behind the man they call a “distinguished academic”.
• PressTV is desperate to shake its image as a source of propaganda for a vicious authoritarian regime; so desperate that it once tried to hire the son of the Secretary of State of the Environment, Hilary Benn, to front a “youth” show.
• The unsurprising discovery that the station has an enthusiasm for the British extreme right will have made that task rather more difficult. However much time and effort they expend on creating a false façade of respectability, racists and bigots just cannot camouflage their true nature.

Michele Renouf on her website also had this among other things to say about the article and its author:

Though he poses as a liberal leftist, "David T" is a pseudonym for David S. Toube, who used his real name for an article based on his blog that appeared in the 30th May issue of the Jewish Chronicle (though now only on the above Google cache link).

If this story is indeed newsworthy, then it shouldn't be difficult to find neutral, reliable mainstream sources covering it rather than biased sources or opinion pieces.

Lastly, I don't see how my commonsensical analysis above could ever qualify as "an expression of an extreme opposite POV", especially considering the fact that it rings true with at least two other editors (1, 2) as well as an administrator. Causteau (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't agree but it sounds very reasonable. Perhaps the fact that I am German makes me biased. (We do have a law specifically against denying the holocaust, and for good reason. See

Laws against Holocaust denial

: "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type [killing a member of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group with the intent of destroying the group], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.") If Press TV had published the Kollerstrom article in German, the fact would be reported in all major German and Austrian newspapers, so it's hard for me to accept that some people may simply not care about this at all. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I am not familiar with the Jerusalem Post, but I am prepared to accept what you say about it. It is also blatantly obvious that the Jewish Chronicle article is far from neutral, to put it mildly. I think some (I hope all, but I am not sure) of your arguments are only applicable to the sockpuppets' editorialising edits. It seems to me that the information is relevant to this article because it seriously undermines the credibility of this news source. So the question (for me) is only whether any of our policy safeguards against fringe editing prevent us from doing the right thing here. Where do you see the main obstacle against a sentence that is functionally equivalent to the following? "The Jewish Chronicle and the Jerusalem post have attacked Press TV for the publication (on its official website) of an article which they characterise as an instance of 'holocaust-denial'. [link to Kollerstrom, JC and JP articles]" --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[NOTE: I inadvertently deleted the last sentence when replying to Causteau's response below. Reinstating it again. Hans Adler (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)]

Not sure why you felt the need to quote for me the

WP:QS

:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below

. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

The rest of the edit I've already addressed in my initial analysis. Causteau (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the extensive quotation – I merely wanted to explain where I am coming from, but now I see how this can be understood in a way I did not intend.

I don't understand your point about the Jewish Chronicle article. Do you think that because it is an opinion piece we can't attribute it to the newspaper where it appeared? I wasn't familiar with such a rule (just found it in

WP:RS

: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors"), but if that's the problem I am sure it can be rectified by tweaking the formulation. Or do you think that because it's an opinion piece, or because it first appeared in the author's blog, it's automatically unreliable and must therefore be dismissed? I don't think that's correct.

As to the Jerusalem Post, I was relying on your information; I did not doubt it, I only wanted to make it clear that I didn't look up the source you cited because I trusted you. Now, on closer inspection, it turns out that our article

Jerusalem Post

mentions an important change of direction after a change of ownership in 2004, and your source is from 2000 and therefore obsolete. We are currently describing the newspaper as "centrist". While there is no citation for this, I have strong doubts that the JP can be dismissed as an extremist source.

I don't see how any of your remaining arguments preclude a sentence such as the following: "The Jerusalem Post [footnote with link to JP article] and others [footnote with link to JC article; possibly also footnote with link to a notable blog or similar source] have attacked Press TV for publishing, on its official website, an article [link to Kollerstrom article] which they characterise as an instance of 'holocaust-denial'. [footnotes with links to Kollerstrom, JP and JC articles]" If any of the arguments in your "initial analysis" applies to this sentence (or indeed the sentence I proposed before) I am unable to find it. Do you have any further objections? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The point about the Jewish Chronicle article is that Wikipedia does not publish material from questionable sources, which it most certainly qualifies as since it is an opinion piece. Here again is Wikipedia's

WP:QS

policy, this time with the salient points bolded:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below

. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

As for the Jerusalem Post, it only experienced a change in editor-in-chief in 2004 -- not in direction. Proof of this is found in many places, such as this article on the StandWithUs website. StandWithUs, in its own words, is "an international education organization that ensures that Israel's side of the story is told in communities, campuses, libraries, the media and churches through brochures, speakers, conferences, missions to Israel, and thousands of pages of Internet resources." And according to that StandWithUs article dated September 15, 2008, StandWithUs and the Jerusalem Post produce "a new, monthly pro-Israel newspaper" called Campus Post. According to another article, this time a press release by Roz Rothstein (the executive director/CEO of StandWithUs) published on Reuters' website (date: September 9th, 2008), Campus Post will "be distributed for free at US and Canadian universities by StandWithUs Emerson Fellows, StandWithUs regional coordinators, and other students." The press release adds that Campus Post "includes articles about pro-Israel events, such as Israel@60, and articles about life in Israel and its many innovations." Also note this op-ed published on the Jerusalem Post's own website, which self-identifies the Jerusalem Post as "a staunchly

WP:QS policy cited above. Causteau (talk

) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia's NPOV and RS policies work. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source on what the Jerusalem Post reports. And NPOV means that we report (you don't seem to like the word, so think of it as "represent in our articles") all significant points of view. Do you doubt that the "Zionist" point of view (whatever that means nowadays) is significant? --Hans Adler (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I not only think but know that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's

WP:QS policies. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, for starters, only applies to reliable sources, which neither the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece nor the Jerusalem Post

's article qualify as:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post is not "a reliable source on what the Jerusalem Post reports" as you have written. Since the Jerusalem Post itself openly admits that it is "a staunchly

WP:QS

:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below

. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

And from WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or

extremist

should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.

In summary, please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but an encyclopedia governed by reliable sources. Causteau (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of synthesis: Hassam Abdulrahman was the founder of PressTV's web site? Silly... I read both articles referring to this false statement (the Lede quotes TimeOnline.co.uk; so there's actually one source only). The fact is he's been just ONE of the chief editors from the beginning. You can clearly see that on PressTV news items as each news piece is signed by the initials of the writer/chief editor/editor. 94.182.162.50 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post

a reliable source?

(unindent) You are continuing your cherry-picking from the policies while ignoring everything that contradicts your ideas. Such as "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

I don't believe I am infallible, so I looked for what other Wikipedians say about the Jerusalem Post. Here are some old threads that discuss its reliability, although it is not the main focus:

• WP:Notice board for Israel-related topics/Archive2#Yedioth Ahronoth a reliable source for BLPs?
• Talk:Hezbollah#Questioned edit

The Jerusalem Post called a "reliable source", and nobody contradicts:

• WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit#Jaakobou evidence
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Discussion about acceptability of an editorial, based on an implicit understanding that the Jerusalem Post is reputable:

• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Editorial in The Jerusalem Post

The Jerusalem Post on a list of "highest quality sources":

• WT:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit

Discussion about someone dismissing the Jerusalem Post as an "obscure newspaper":

• WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 11

I found all of them by looking through the first 20 hits for this Google search. The last one is the only one where there was any hint that any editor ever did not consider the Jerusalem Post a reliable source, and it was for a different reason than yours and was dismissed by the participants of the discussion. There seems to be clear consensus that the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, even about living people and Hezbollah.

As to

I asked for additional input at

Not to sound callous, but quite literally all of your Wiki links above are for naught since not one of them in any way invalidates (or indeed even mentions) the Jerusalem Post's own bald-faced declaration that it is "a staunchly

WP:QS

:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as

pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below

. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

And from WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or

extremist

should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.

Besides, like I asked you earlier, how hard is it to find a reliable source that covers the same story yet isn't for a change either an opinion piece or a self-described "staunchly Zionist newspaper"? Causteau (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that your dismissal of the Jerusalem Post is based on

WP:CONSENSUS

. The answer to your question is: Harder than I would have thought. I would have preferred a mainstream source from outside Israel, but apparently they are not sufficiently interested in this case.

Your one argument why the Jerusalem Post is extremist is based on a citation taken out of context (complete version: "As a staunchly Zionist newspaper, we want to see ever-increasing numbers of Jews making Israel their home."), on the assumption that (every shade of) Zionism is extremism (which at least in Israel is probably not the case), and the assumption that the newspaper's self-description in the editorial is correct, rather than politically motivated. That's pretty weak for going against a virtually unanimous consensus; and if you tried to put this into an article it would be an example of improper synthesis. It also makes the mistake of not interpreting the second sentence of

WP:QS in the light of the first sentence. ("Cherry-picking".) --Hans Adler (talk

) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can personally interpret the Jerusalem Post's own declaration that it is "a staunchly

Zionist newspapers". Causteau (talk

) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to comment your words. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why the fact that the Jerusalem Post is a conservative, nationalistic (Zionism is a brand of nationalism) newspaper makes it unreliable. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Le Figaro and The Daily Telegraph are reliable, right? Nobody denies that they are close to, respectively, the CDU, the UMP and the Tories, right? So what exactly makes being close to the Likud (the equivalent of the three parties above) being unreliable? RCS (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Jerusalem Post -- which BTW openly admits to being "a staunchly

WP:SOAP

:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.^[3]
2. Opinion pieces on
   neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews
   allows commentaries on its articles.

Causteau (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RCS is again correct. There is no rule that we cannot cite newspapers that have (or could be seen to have) a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Articles on Israel have multiple citations to the Jerusalem post (see, e.g., the article on

History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Articles on Lebanese/Israeli conflicts cite the Daily Star (see Position of Lebanon in the 2006 Lebanon War). This seems quite proper. There is relatively little citation of state run newspapers elsewhere in the Middle East, but that is not surprising given the restrictions under which they operate. LeContexte (talk

) 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, RCS is again incorrect as are you. I've noticed not one of the examples you cite above mention any self-described "staunchly Islamist newspapers" being quoted in Jewish/Israel-related Wikipedia articles (contrast that with the Jerusalem Post -- which "openly admits to being "a staunchly

WP:RS if you were to wake up tomorrow to find that a whole bunch of Jewish/Israel-related Wikipedia articles were to suddenly count "staunchly Islamist newspapers" and opinion pieces among their supposedly "reliable" sources (and if some Islamist blogger were to personally have written the opinion pieces to boot), then we really have nothing further to discuss. Causteau (talk

) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Zionism, Islamism is a religious and not a nationalistic ideology. Furthermore, if there was an islamist newspaper as serious and recognized as the JP, we'd gladly quote it too. You are making inane comparisons, i'm afraid to say. --RCS (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Inane", my foot. Zionism is not only a nationalistic idealogy, it was judged a form of outright racism in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Causteau (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 was revoked in 1991. --Cherry blossom tree 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still surprised by the claim that Wikipedia articles should not cite opinion pieces. If you would like more examples, the article on

Israel and the apartheid analogy refers to many opinion articles hostile to Israel (I'm not sure whether you would qualify the newspapers as "staunchly Islamic", but then I'm not sure which English language newspapers fall into that category). Citing blogs is not generally appropriate; citing an op-ed in a newspaper written by a blogger may be. LeContexte (talk

) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By Causteau's definition, there are probably no reliable sources, as all newspapers have some political perspective. Most Western newspapers, for example, are staunchly in support of parliamentary liberal democracy, for example, describing those who are not as "extremist". This sort of bias, e.g. being staunchly pro-Zionist, or staunchly pro-Tehran, does not make a source automatically unreliable, and it is clear that the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia editors agree with this. Surely continuing this debate is getting insane?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)