Talk:Press TV

Serious problems on Criticism section

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 WP:SELFPUBLISHED policy against the use of blogs and other similarly subjective sources. Nothing "strange" about that, I'm afraid. Nobody, moreover, is "randomly" deleting whole sections because we "want to keep any of the criticism of Press TV from the public record". Far from it. It's your way of going about proving your point that's the problem, as other editors and I have already very clearly explained in our edit summaries. Besides the liberal use of self-published sources, you've also repeatedly attempted to insert material that makes an effort to connect point A with point B (i.e. synthesis) to advance a position rather than support your argument through legitimate means by citing sources that directly and explicitly support your point. Your edit employs 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)

Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources

There have been of late a series of single-purpose accounts that have been attempting to insert (e.g. 1, 2) the same rather lengthy bit of original research into the Press TV article:

• 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 synthesis and editorializing, both of which are against Wiki policies. The WP:SPAs don't exactly inspire confidence either. Causteau (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Beside the obvious policy violations, this article is about the TV channel, not their website. --Sina111 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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 not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. It is our job to relay facts from reliable sources that directly and explicitly support our assertions. From 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 single-purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) -- all of which have been created within the past few days -- have attempted to insert into the Press TV article does not do that. I've clearly demonstrated this in my analysis above, and two other long-time editors have likewise already confirmed this in their edit summaries. Instead, the edit pieces together information from different sources to arrive at a conclusion which the sources themselves do not reach. From 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. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Also note that the Press TV article has a history of being targeted by confirmed sockpuppets, so these instances of original research added by the aforementioned 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 [1]) 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 [2]. 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 [3].
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? " --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to quote for me the Laws against Holocaust denial (how exactly is that relevant to our talk page discussion?). At any rate, here's regarding the rest of your post: We cannot reference the Jewish Chronicle article because, again, it is an opinion piece. I've amply demonstrated this in my latest post above. Michele Renouf also asserts on her website that the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece was based on a post by one "David T" on his own blog. If you follow the link through to that post on his blog, it's not hard to see that she is probably telling the truth since said post by "David T", which was contributed on May 22nd, 2008, is virtually identical to the Jewish Chronicle article posted by "David Toube" only seven days later on May 29th, 2008 (aside from the fact that David T/David Toube is a lot less restrained on his own website). As for the Jerusalem Post, it's not me that you should decide whether or not to believe; it's the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its description of the Jerusalem Post as "pro-Likud". Also note that, according to the Historical Jewish Press, the Jerusalem Post used to be known as the Palestine Post, was "established in Jerusalem in 1932 as part of a Zionist-Jewish initiative", and "Zionist institutions considered the newspaper one of the most effective means of exerting influence on the British authorities". In short, the Jewish Chronicle and Jerusalem Post articles are unreliable, questionable sources and therefore unusable. Per 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 extremist or 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 extremist or 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 Zionist newspaper." So yes, the Jerusalem Post article most certainly is a questionable source, no different than the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece and is likewise subject to Wiki's 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:NPOV, WP:RS, and especially its 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 Zionist newspaper" and since it also publishes the "pro-Israel" Campus Post student newspaper, the Jerusalem Post is very much a questionable source per Wiki policies i.e. it is a reliable source only insofar as its reporting on itself is concerned. Again, from 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 extremist or 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)

(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 extremist or pseudoscience." (You do remember just having quoted that to me, right?) You never suggested that the first sentence applies. You might try to argue that the Jerusalem Post is "widely acknowledged as extremist", although you probably don't have a very strong case for that. (From Jerusalem Post#Political orientation: "Currently the newspaper is viewed as having a moderate conservative^{[citation needed]} slant on news coverage, although left-wing columns are often featured on the editorial pages.") Even if it was a borderline case (it isn't), the combination of the two sentences makes it clear that the JP is not a questionable source as long as it has rigorous fact checking in place.

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 WP:SOAP, I counter that with WP:KETTLE.

I asked for additional input at WP:POVN#Press TV. If you still have doubts about the suitability of the Jerusalem Post as a reliable source, I suggest that you ask at WP:RSN. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound callous, but quite literally all of your links above are for naught since not one of them in any way invalidates the Jerusalem Post's own bald-faced declaration that it is "a staunchly Zionist newspaper." I'm afraid that that alone more than qualifies it as a questionable source per Wiki policies. Again, from 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 extremist or 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)