Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RFC: The Anti-Defamation League

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

Part 1: Israel/Palestine

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

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

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

Survey (ADL:I/P)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) One by one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Iskandar323

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, because, as the article itself points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 3 generally no expertise, whatever narrow expertise it might have is to take one side. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Jewish Currents describes editorial bias from higher-ups to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, to focus on anti-Zionism, especially after October 7. The Intercept has also reported that ceasefire protests have been incorrectly marked as antisemitic. It doesn't appear that the ADL should have a positive reliability rating when it's strong support of Israel overrules fact-checking. SWinxy (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 as it pertains to I/P, per various editors who put it far better than I could myself above, including Nableezy and Levivich. I could only see used as a source for its own point of view, or perhaps general Zionist outlooks on the conflict. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. ADL is an explicitly biased pro-Israel advocacy group and its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. I'd support deprecating this source if some editor can demonstrate that this group promotes zionist or republican/neo-con conspiracy theories. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 preferred, will be ok with Option 4. ADL by definition is a campaign organisation, and thus cannot be sourced for objective facts. If the information sought falls close to their campaign themes, their bias becomes extreme. Conseqeuntly, ADL should not be used as a source for any information related to Israel other than what's allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, an advocacy source whose purpose often leads them to bias their reporting of the facts to such a degree that they are not useful as a source for an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Having read the sources presented above (especially by user Levivich), unambiguously Option 3 and Option 4 would not be out of the question. No way an organization with such bias in this topic area could be presented as an RS for an encyclopedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, per Nishidani. Snokalok (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, very clearly a strongly pro-Israel biased organization, shouldn't be used as a source.--Staberinde (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Levivich and Nableezy clearly unrealiable—blindlynx 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 Seems unreliable and should be attributed, especially after their turn towards New antisemitism instead of actual antisemitism User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 A source having a bias does not make that source automatically unreliable. However, when that bias becomes so pervasive to the point that it directly impacts the factuality of the source is when a source becomes unreliable, which is what has happened here. Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, weakly leaning Option 2. They will of course be biased by the nature of the cause they support. I don't see them as making things up, so seem to be reliable but with a lean one way or the other. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is frequently cited by many reliable sources which, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Marginally reliable but completely bias and attribution should always be required. Given the ADL are staunchly pro-Israeli, I can also understand why it could also be considered generally unreliable, as have seen an increasing amount of claims that any criticsm of Israel is inherently anti-semitic, which blends into Part 2 of this discussion. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, bordering on option 4 per the numerous examples presented of it being a pro-Israel/pro-Isaeli government advocacy group that doesn't trouble itself with sticking to the facts. There may be occasions when it's appropriate to quote the ADL's point of view, but this must always be done with attribution and never presented as fact without independent supporting evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Part 2: antisemitism

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

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

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

Survey (ADL:antisemitism)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  From the ADL:

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

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

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

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

  Example argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @NightHeron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt adamantly claimed in March 6 2024:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4, an advocacy source that has long since ceased bothering to maintain even the barest patina of objectivity; conflating separate concepts, lying, and misdirection have become their norm. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 after having read the above, and particularly swayed by users Chetsford, Hydrangeans, and Levivich, the ADL has sadly lost their way on being an encyclopedic RS for this topic area. Ultimately, at a commonsense level, when I see how extreme they have become on the Palestinian issue (above), it is not surprising. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, an advocacy organization should have a fairly spotless and uncontroversial record to qualify as a source on its own. As has been demonstrated above, ADL doesn't really qualify. Also, I don't really see special qualifications in style "unreliable when related to Israel" usable. Whether their standards of reporting antisemitism are reputable is very much a "yes or no" question, "sometimes" simply means "no".--Staberinde (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 morphing defnitions to serve an aganeda is clarly unrealiable—blindlynx 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Seems reliable for antisemitism definitions if its not about Israel/Palestine. Anything Israel-Palestine adjacent, ADL has problematic issues User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 For topics unrelated to Israel and Zionism, option 3 for topics related to Israel and Zionism. The ADL still seems to be reliable for general antisemitism. However, with topics related to Israel and Zionism, my comments in set 1 above still apply: pervasiveness of bias directly impacting the factuality of the source makes a source unreliable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is frequently cited by many reliable sources which, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for anti-Semitism not relating to I/P, otherwise per above, it's Option 2 or 3. ADL remains bias towards their interpretation of antisemitism, as you would expect from any advocacy group, so requires attribution, but I don't believe it's generally unreliable or should be depreciated. Their research centres have correctly labeled neo-Nazis and others as antisemites, when other RS were too lazy to do the research themselves, so their use as a source remains very necessary. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (always use attribution and seek corroboration from other sources where possible) for antisemitism unrelated to Israel, broadly interpreted. Option 3 or 4 for antisemitism in the context of Israel, broadly interperted. It's clear form the evidence presented in this discussion that they will happily label black as white if it benefits (in their view) the cause of the Israeli government. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Part 3: hate symbol database

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

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

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

Survey (ADL:hate symbols)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2. A database is a database. Certainly, inclusion criteria may be biased, and this must always be considered (especially in case of a campaign organisation), but I'd be okay with careful sourcing of actual hate symbols, whenever required, to ADFL if worded cautiously or accompanied by a disclaimer. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per kashmiri, if we ever have occasion to document a symbol (obviously this alone is no basis for a dedicated article on any symbol, nor does this mean it will necessarily be due in contexts where the issue is not symbology), yes, we should say, with attribution, what others say about its use; it's often the case that symbols (for example gang symbols) are inscrutable to many in multiple ways, except those who watch such things (or have been in the meliue). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, per kasmiri and in the way described by Loki. RS source the database for basic facts so we can do that with attribution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 realistically there's no point citing it, if we can't find better sources for a given symbol it's wp:undue—blindlynx 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems most of the entries can be antisemitic dog-whistles in certain contexts, though context must matter. Could be used to identify a possible dog whistle, though it shouldn't be used to accuse randomly anyone of antisemitism without considering context or a pattern of behavior (I still recall pro-Israeli groups getting mad at Greta Thunberg because her favorite plushie was an octopus. If a known anti-semite/neo-Nazi was publishing cartoons with an octopus over the world or something like that, seems like that would be real antisemitism.) User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Questionable inclusion criteria may lead to some entries being overblown and thus undue, but generally no reason to question reliability or factuality. Curbon7 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the lack of reliability, the absence of references, and the total lack of authorship information. These are serious issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is frequently cited by many reliable sources which, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be struck out. You're accusing others who highlight the total lack of reliability or authorship information about this database of being "agenda-driven". That is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That was not my intention but have edited this per a ping on my talk page. Not wanting to get drawn into what is clearly a time sink here, I will be walking away from this topic. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Most of it appears accurate and correct, but some of it is "off the mark", ie not widely accepted as a hate symbol by any other RS which raises many questions on it's reliability. I understand this is somewhat the point of the database, as it's never going to be 100% accurate, which is this makes it MREL and not GREL with attribution required. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

  1. The source is generally unreliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is IHRA, sorry for being vague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Reliable sources using ADL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR

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

2024:

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

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

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

2023:

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

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

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

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

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

2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2021:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the proper citation as you like it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The references to the ADL there are in footnote 73:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS having to revise articles based on ADL data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should be discerned from this RFC?

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, at first glance based on votes (without weighing them), Part 1 looks like about 2-3, and ranging widely between 1 to 4. Part 2 could potentially be 1-2 if you were to overlook all the comments based on I/P coverage that in my opinion shouldn't be applicable to that part of the RfC. Part 3 looks like it averages around 2. There could easily be three different outcomes. Ideally there would be three of more uninvolved experienced users who would close this by now since the comments and discussion have died down, maybe taking a part each, as it's too much for one user. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But seriously, what should be discerned from this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It makes it very clear that the ADL is unreliable for applying the label antisemitic. It does not even correspond with what most young American Jews would describe as antisemitic. Their use of the term is not one we can use in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)]

I agree that we should not use their definition in wikivoice… HOWEVER, they are prominent enough that I think we should mention their definition with in text attribution. Their opinion on what is (and is not) antisemitic matters. The ADL is hardly fringe. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that there are currently more Christian Zionists in the world than Jewish Zionists, the notion that anti-Zionism can even conflated with antisemitism is really quite risible. It only even arises to the level of discussion because misguided individuals and irresponsible organisations profer the notion up and need to be dismissed. That the ADL has gone down this track is the ultimate hallmark that it has gone full pro-Israeli lobby group, with Greenblatt apparently willing to drag the entire enterprise through the mud in order to tar political opponents of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether the Earth is flat is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Whether vaccines cause autism is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Just because somebody disputes something doesn't make it subjective. Don't forget that "Zionism" does not mean "Jewish self-determination." Nobody would think that being anti-Hamas would constitute being anti-Palestinian, and that is also objective. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Zionism does generally refer to some idea of a Jewish homeland through which they exercise the right to self determination [1], including according to the ADL ADL FortunateSons (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no, not "some idea," a very specific idea. Why would you cite Britannica or the ADL for this? Look at the Wikipedia article, and sources cited therein. "is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, particularly in Palestine." Zionism, especially modern Zionism, is a political, nationalist movement for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. That last part being extremely important.

Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism. It is not antisemitic.

This boils down to an old question: can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? If it's Jewish -- if it gives rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then it's not democratic. If it's democratic, then it won't be Jewish (indeed, due to demographics, Jews may not even be a majority in a potential one-state solution). The majority of Israelis, and Jews around the world, think (according to polling) that Israel should be Jewish, even if that means it's less democratic. A minority of Israelis/Jews think that Israeli should be democratic, even if that makes it less Jewish (like not majority-Jewish). This minority opinion is, objectively, not antisemitic. The ADL says it is antisemitic. This is the problem. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but we are going in circles here, so I’ll just reiterate my invitation from the other comment as not to clutter this up with the same discussions we all fruitlessly had above. I hope others agree as well, continuing this will just make the close harder. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk, claim->rebuttal seems like a straight line to me, not a circle. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let’s start simply: cite a place where the ADL explicitly says that advocacy for an OSS by a Jewish person is per se antisemitism? Because that was discussed above, and there wasn’t one.

Secondly, the definition of Zionism vary, particularly in the modern context, and there just isn’t a mainstream agreement on exact scope, even if you discount all that are as close to objectively wrong as a political definition can be FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism.

Not really true: see Reuven Rivlin, who believes in a one-state solution that does not give special rights to Jews, but who is still a Zionist and who still staunchly believes in a Jewish state in Palestine. He just thinks that Jewish state should include full voting and civil rights for the Palestinians. But it wouldn't, symbolically, be their state.

(And as far as I can tell, when one-state solutions show up in Israeli politics they tend to look like this. Something similar was also advocated by older forms of Zionism that supported a bi-national state.) Loki (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not a one state solution, that's a "version of a one state solution," without Gaza. Levivich (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this discussion. @Levivich, When you look at all the Arab states and the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, it seems quite likely that a "one state solution" where the Jews will be a minority, wouldn't be a fully democratic state and the Jews would likely be persecuted there to some degree. But even if miraculously it will turn out to be the first fully democratic Arab state and Jews could live there safely and enjoy full equality, it would still not be a fulfillment of the Jewish right of self-determination. For example, the Czechs, Polish, and Hungarians were all enjoying safety and equal rights in the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the 20^th century and yet at the end of WW1 it was internationally accepted that the right of self-determination means that they should all be given independent states. If someone said then that these nations should stay under the Austrian rule and be satisfied with their equal rights there, then such a position would rightly be considered anti-Polish, anti-Czech and anti-Hungarian.

Dronebogus this was comment 3 out of 3. From now on I shall keep forever silent in this discussion... Vegan416 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Another thing to remember: if anti-Zionism were antisemitic, then a Jewish person who is against Zionism would, according to this "logic," hate Jews, which means they'd be a "self-hating Jew." The idea that anti-Zionist Jews are self-hating Jews, or that they hate Jews, or that they're antisemitic... all of that is, well, antisemitic. And demonstrably wrong. Not a reasonable opinion to hold. It's objectively true, at least in my opinion, that Jews who are against Zionism do not hate themselves or other Jews. It's not a matter where reasonable people can disagree. And this is why the ADL's recent AZ=AS stance is making so many people upset. It must be remembered that AZ=AS is not a reasonable opinion, no more than saying that being against Intifada is Islamophobic. This is just patent nonsense. In my opinion :-P Levivich (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally, there are about as many Jewish people who deeply hate

every actively antizionist Jews as there are such Jews, but if you ask me, neither group is antisemitic, just often misguided (and occasionally malicious). And just to be clear, you can definitely be biased against your own group, no serious person would argue that a gay person can’t be homophobic.

While this is very interesting, we are getting to for OT here, please feel cordially invited to my talk page if you would like to continue. FortunateSons (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

But seriously, new sections for involved parties to reiterate their arguments under the guise of "consensus" aren't helpful. Also, WP:USEBYOTHERS != "circular logic". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel quite bad for whichever poor admin gets tasked with closing this RfC. The Kip 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We need to figure out what we’re supposed to be getting out of this, otherwise it’s just an extremely long WP:NOTFORUM for people to argue about ADL and antisemitism. And I’m reading a consensus of “not reliable” in broad strokes that keeps getting drowned out by digression and contrarianism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not "we," an uninvolved closer. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I think an uninvolved closer should come along and close this because it’s getting ridiculously long and increasingly unproductive Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While you may see a consensus for unreliability (no surprising, given how you !voted), I see a very strong no consensus (no surprise, given how I !voted). An uninvolved closer is going to be essential here, and it's probably going to be a shitshow afterwords. Toa Nidhiki05 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah, easy close (sorry, closer). Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No consensus, tldr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment leaderboard

As best as I can tell, here are the comment counts across the above ADL sections:

• Vegan416: 73
• FortunateSons: 70
• Iskandar323: 67
• SelfStudier: 58
• BobFromBrockley: 37
• LokiTheLiar: 29
• Levivich: 27
• Toa Nidhiki05: 25
• Nableezy: 22
• BilledMammal: 17

Id suggest if you dont feel youve gotten your point across after 20 comments that comments 21-10000 will not be helpful, and at a certain point dominating a discussion like this is straightforward bludgeoning that should be reported as disruptive editing. This is not a partisan request, my own name is on that list, as are editors who have had similar positions of mine. But if you have made this many comments, trust that people know what your position is at this point, and please for the love of anything you hold dear stop adding to the count. nableezy - 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for taking the time to write it all down.

I think if no-one is opposed, all people listed should (if not completely) refrain for 48h and see if this discussion is even alive without them, otherwise we’re all beating a dead horse here. Is someone willing to join me? FortunateSons (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another unnecessary comment, lol. This one as well, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 47#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion weighs in at 1.9 tomats. Closing it is the work of reading two novellas, digesting and weighing the arguments, and then summarizing it. It's over three hours just to read, disregarding the necessary note taking and weighing to craft a close. This is why everyone needs to say their piece and leave shit alone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to reply to the idea lab discussion but its archived, anyway what I would have said is that well timed administrative interventions like the one you just made should be enough to keep things on track. My 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't think that a 500 or 1000 word limit down at the next dumpster currently catching fire would be helpful? Also, every time I've popped into a discussion to remind people that someone has to close it, and that prolonged exchanges between the same editors aren't productive, keep uninvolved parties from engaging, and make closing far more difficult no one actually stops the back and forths. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn you knew what discretionary sanctions meant. nableezy - 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Legal Insurrection

What is the reliability of Legal Insurrection for courtroom reporting of legal trials?

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

Mokadoshi (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Legal Insurrection)

This has been discussed previously but no clear consensus was reached: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC: Legal Insurrection. While its blog articles tend to be political opinions, the blog also features courtroom reporting of major trials. I have found this reporting quite helpful for presenting additional information about the legal strategies used by attorneys in Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College. For example, this article makes the following factual claims:

1. The plaintiff (Gibson's Bakery) hired an accountant to make a determination of financial damages using tax documents and other financial statements.
2. The accountant estimated the business would be impacted for 30 years.
3. The accountant calculated total projected damages to be $5.8 million.
4. The defense (Oberlin College) hired an expert witness which testified that the maximum damages possible could only be $35,000.

The article was written by Daniel McGraw who was in attendance in the court room during the trial, and he has written for the NYT and some other publications that are also referenced in the Wikipedia article. Ohio Supreme Court documents confirm (1) and (2), but as far as I can tell, Legal Insurrection is the only available source for (3) and (4). Based on this information, I'm inclined to believe (3) and (4) are factually accurate. The Wikipedia article benefits from this information, particularly point (4), because without it the article is too strongly written in the plaintiff's point of view. I am trying to improve this article to GA status, and I believe it will be hard to achieve WP:NPOV without reporting of the defense's arguments in court. Not many news agencies provide this level of coverage. I have cited Legal Insurrection a few times in this article for similar reporting. As a blog, I think it's clear it cannot be considered "generally reliable." However, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about whether it could be considered reliable specifically for its court room reporting on arguments made by a legal team during a court trial. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

because without it the article is too strongly written in the plaintiff's point of view [...] I believe it will be hard to achieve WP:NPOV without reporting of the defense's arguments in court.

As a matter of policy, that is not how NPOV works. We do not pick a predetermined point of view that we think is neutral or balanced and then go out to find the sources that can support it. We survey all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and cover those views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to address the NPOV feedback given to me on the article's Talk page. Still, the NPOV issues aside, the question here is whether these types of articles can be considered subject matter experts as they are written by professional journalists that have written about the same court case for other newspapers. Mokadoshi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think journalists are considered subject matter experts generally speaking, and I would not consider just being a journalist to be a qualifier for EXPERTSPS. Also, I don't know if my interpretation is anywhere close to what voorts intended, but if the two issues identified are 1) POV and 2) marginal RS in support of that POV, the solution is not usually to add marginal RS in support of the opposite POV. My recommendation would be to first try and cut down the play-by-play to what is in your top secondary RS and consider what the overall thrust is like (you can do it in your head or just as a plan, it doesn't have to be written). Other sources can then be used to fill in the gaps, but you'd want to try and adhere to the proportion set by your top RS, and not let the rest of the sources dominate (which includes the mentioned RSOPINION, any primary sources like court documents even though there is usually no question about their reliability, etc). I would suggest extreme care using primary sources when DUE is implicated (not just first-party: Independent sources may not necessarily be secondary, and secondary sources not independent), primary sources are generally too narrow to properly assess DUE, and it's unlikely you'd be able to fix a DUE problem with them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My point was more about WP:RSBIAS, which is that we should be careful about the context in which we use biased RSes. I was not saying that the sources were per se unreliable, but that in context, non-biased sources should be preferred over biased ones when reporting on factual issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Mmm. Caution is to be applied to the ordinary reporting of biased sources, but the editorial and opinion pieces (even in otherwise excellent sources) are also covered under WP:RSOPINION. So in general those would be considered unreliable, for statements of fact, and especially for establishing due weight. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• On side note:Just fyi: MOS:LEGAL may have some guidelines, a guideline related talk page discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 and leaning 3. If the only source for the defense argument is a highly partisan blog we don't need to include that source to create a false balance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 and leaning 2 per above, it may well be OK for strictly reporting on that is said (it is an SPS, but by a subject expert), but interpretation may be more iffy. The issue here may well be more of an Undue than as RS one, is what they say really relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 just jumping on the bandwagon, apparently, and agree with Simonm223 and Slatersteven before me. I probably lean more 3. While bias certainly does not disqualify a source from being reliable, highly opinionated sources that are lacking in other indicia of reliability tend to jaundice my eye, so to speak. Were I emperor of Wikipedia, I would not use it, but if Slatersteven's view prevails, I won't quibble. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• At the very least, attribution needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Mokadoshi: I have re-added your signature immediately after the four options to make the RfC compliant with the "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short" requirement in WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Please feel free to adjust if needed, as long as the RfC statement meets this requirement. — Newslinger talk 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you; sorry about that. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• We need to be very careful to restrict any decision to courtroom reporting. A quick search of the website's front page reveals recent (non-courtroom reporting) articles that are obviously opinion pieces and not marked as such. First example Leslie Eastman's article on lab-grown meat: I might be more sensitive to that argument were it not for the electric vehicle mandates and the ban on gas stoves I have been battling for many years Second example Mary Chastain's article on pro-Palestine protests at an American university: What a bunch of spineless cowards. Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway agreed to eight of the ten demands given to him by the pro-Hamas mob [...] This one sickens me because these people are TOTES the victims here, not Jews and Israel Third example, Mike LaChance's commentary on links on transgender swimmer: Once again, Biden is putting the priorities of the far left over real problems the country is facing. All he cares about is votes. Democrats are becoming victims of their own policies. The effort to ‘get’ Trump continues. Fourth example, Stacey Matthews' article on pro-Palestine protests at an American university: As further evidence that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum at Columbia University ... So apparently Jewish students, faculty and staff, and their families were supposed to be assured ... Yeah, right. None of these authors' articles should be used for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 03:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Turns out that Legal Insurrection has apparently eleven regular contributions, I covered four above, leaving seven, now minus Mandy Nagy for not writing since 2014 since suffering a stroke, leaving six, let's check them for opinion articles. Kemberlee Kaye, Senior Contributing Editor: On October 7, and 8, and 9, and beyond, the putrid hate generated by these ideologies spewed forth on campuses, shocking the nation. Our readers were not shocked. I wish we had been wrong. But we were right. Fuzzy Slippers, Weekend Editor: You can’t make this stuff up. The least self-aware politician in the entire nation, Hillary Clinton (who is sometimes referred to as “Killery” for the long long list of dead bodies that float up in her wake) has just taken Democrat projection to a whole new level. James Nault, Author: Although the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Mark A. Milley, was terrible, as we reported almost a year ago, his relief and the current Chairman, Air Force General Charles Q. “CQ” Brown, is even worse Jane Coleman, Author: You might think that after the school finally put its foot down, the Intifada campus crowd would get the message. Instead, they pushed back harder ... This is exactly the kind of mealymouthed answer that got the presidents of UPenn and Harvard ousted following their disgraceful appearances before the congressional committee investigating campus antisemitism last December. William A. Jacobson, Founder: Woke eats its own ... Oorah for that, but maybe it’s time to for woke corporate America to wake up to the monsters they have created ... Google is horrendously biased. And everyone knows it. Only one out of ten active contributors, Vijeta Uniyal, who is based in Germany and reports on international news, did not immediately appear to be writing opinion articles. I would say that the other nine can be discounted for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 04:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Mokadoshi, Simonm223, Slatersteven, Dumuzid, and NoonIcarus: - notifying of the above. starship.paint (RUN) 04:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

    Since this is seeing some activity again: Just for the record, my opinion is that it's generally unreliable per WP:BLOG, I just don't see why we need an RFC about it. Not that GUNREL means never use, and I doubt we'd need to DEPREC if it's only come up twice, but using it doesn't solve the stated issue (that of NPOV/DUE). RFC seems to me to be a bit of an XY problem, so to speak. Court room reporting is PRIMARY anyway, different content type, different level of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, different standards. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks @Starship.paint I agree we should hesitate to use this source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about this source distinguishes it from any random political blog. —100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have found this reporting quite helpful for presenting additional information about the legal strategies used by attorneys in Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College. Oh, no wonder, it’s User:E.M.Gregory’s response when they were prevented from adding poor material at Oberlin College. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting I’m a sock? Mokadoshi (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was commenting on how the article came to exist and why it's chock full of poor sources. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• 3, based on the helpful discussions above: Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. I don't see a problem with the specific use case in the OP, but it seems clear that there are ample reasons to be wary of this source, and in most cases there should be better sources available. And if this is indeed the only source that covers a particular proceeding at a particular level of detail, it may be worth considering whether that level of detail is appropriate for our encyclopedic purposes. -- Visviva (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 This isn't the New York Times, they will be of a lesser quality based on the blog-type column they use to publish. I'm hesitant to endorse them unless they have a robust fact-checking process in place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are looking for Option 3. Option 4 is basically the nuclear option and should only be used if there are known cases of deliberately lying or a long history of being so careless as to be beyond unusable. Springee (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. This is biased blog and should be treated as such. Per another editor's comments, even in cases where the source may be valid, we should look for better sources. Going to the OP's question about adding balance to an article, I think they've completely misunderstood WP:NPOV. We should always rely on the best sources that we have available. TarnishedPath^talk 12:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2-3 I would be warry of putting too much weight into material from such a site. However, if this site makes a case that some main stream source is making a mistake in their coverage I would be inclined to include it as an attributed counter point. They also could be used for in non-extraordinary claims regarding the trials they are reporting on, again with attribution. Basically I don't think we should argue for exclusion purely on this being a minor newish site (we accept crap like the Daily Dot after all) but arguments for/against it's use should be based on the specifics of what is being claimed and if relevant, the quality of the arguments in question. Springee (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2-3 - factual reporting with attribution seems appropriate to use while their opinion wouldn't meet the due weight threshold in most cases. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph and trans issues

For a while it's been fairly clear that certain British papers aren't reliable on trans issues. The most clear example of this by a large margin is the Telegraph, which appears to still be considered generally reliable on this topic mostly because nobody has bothered to compile examples of them making factual errors.

I finally sat down to do it over the past month and I found some real whoppers:

• The Telegraph ran the following five stories on consecutive days asserting that a secret recording at a school was evidence that the school let students identify as cats. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

We have a whole article on this general style of dubious claim in right wing media, it's called the litter boxes in schools hoax. Naturally, it is not true in this case as well. See the following evidence: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

What appears to have happened is that a student compared another student identifying as trans to identifying as a cat to score a rhetorical point. There was a whole government investigation on this which completely cleared the school and the Telegraph has not retracted or corrected any of their articles. Indeed, if you look at the latest one you can see the Telegraph attempting to imply that the school's denial of the claims is false.

• The Telegraph regularly quotes a man named James Esses as a proxy for Thoughtful Therapists, which they describe as a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people or similar. ([73] [74] [75] [76] [77]). They rarely make it clear that James Esses is not and has never been a therapist: he was kicked out of his program for expressing largely the same anti-trans sentiments that they keep quoting him for, and is clear about this on his very own website: [78].
• The Telegraph recently released this article that is in part about a group called Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia. Note that for one, they describe TACTT as "trans activists" despite also being a professional organization with an agenda; contrast to their treatment of Thoughtful Therapists above. But more importantly TACTT released this response criticizing essentially every factual claim in the article about them. The most clear errors in my view are that the Telegraph called the Cass Review a report on the dangers of gender ideology when it is in fact a systematic review about trans healthcare; they describe the UKCP, a voluntary professional organization, as a regulator; and they describe calling a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the UKCP as a "coup" and "bullying" instead of a fairly ordinary parliamentary procedure. Oh, and they weren't contacted by the Telegraph before the article.

And there's tons more to be clear, I don't even have all of it on my page assembling the issues. I've mostly been ignoring factual claims made in opinion pieces, for instance (except for a truly wild claim that Joseph Mengele was transitioning children). Loki (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add some context. In 1978, Glad to Be Gay was released, known colloqually as "britains national gay anthem".

It contained the Stanza

Read how disgusting we are in the press
The Telegraph, People and Sunday Express
Molesters of children, corruptors of youth
It's there in the paper, it must be the truth

What they are referring to is Section 28, a proto-Don't Say Gay bill, which the Telegraph repeatedly platformed homophobic support for and was criticized by LGBT rights groups for.[79][80][81][82] Here's some sources that investigate their opposition to LGBT marriage[83][84]

This non-exhaustive historical context is to drive the point home: The Telegraph has been recognizably anti-LGBT for over 4 decades now. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also a variety of scholarly sources that bear out that the Telegraph is a biased source on trans issues, such as this one this one on coverage of the organization Mermaids and this one on the British press in general.

They were also reprimanded by a regulator a few times for inaccurate statements about transgender issues. Loki (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at many of the cited articles, and some listed here, but almost all the examples have nothing to do with the "reliability" of the Telegraph. They simply show that the Telegraph can be biased when it comes to coverage of trans/lgbt topics. It is well-established here that biased sources =/ unreliable sources. The few examples of where the Telegraph may have been factually incorrect is not enough to argue for deprecation/unreliability. Re cat: The Telegraph ran a article (not listed above) about the government clearing the school's name. And the original Telegraph article just seems to be an accurate transcript of the purported video. Re regulators: this example has almost nothing to do with trans coverage. It also deals with an opinion article. And the regulator even acknowledged that the publication had shown it was willing to correct the record promptly once it had become aware of the inaccuracy. Therefore, on balance, it considered the remedial action was offered with due promptness. So that's really a point to the Telegraph for making prompt corrections in their (opinion) articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that even in the article you linked, there is no mention that the Telegraph got it wrong the first time and no student ever claimed to be a cat. So that's now six articles without a correction or retraction, after directly claiming that the student in question identifies as a cat several times. Loki (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing in those articles that state the Telegraph claiming that factually, simply reporting that claim made by others as central to the news story. — Masem (t) 15:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean we wouldn't get away with repeating lies (even with attribution) on Wikipedia and I don't think a newspaper should be considered reliable if it repeatedly does the same. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The very first line of the very first article I linked is A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.

Furthermore, see the following quotes:

• Difficult as it may be to believe, children at a school in East Sussex were reprimanded last week for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat.
• The incident at Rye College, first reported by The Daily Telegraph yesterday, was not a one-off. Inquiries by this newspaper have established that other children at other schools are also identifying as animals, and the responses of parents suggest that the schools in question are hopelessly out of their depth on the question of how to handle the pupils’ behaviour.
• A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a pupil who refused to accept her classmate was a cat that she was despicable. [...] The Telegraph has revealed that at other schools teachers are allowing children to identify as horses, dinosaurs and even moons.
• Sir Keir’s comments are the most outspoken by any party leader over the issue since The Telegraph revealed that two children were reprimanded by a teacher for questioning a classmate’s cat identity.

Just so we're clear, that's an explicit statement of the false claim in the paper's own words in every article but the last one. And what appear to be several other extremely dubious claims in the same vein in a few. Loki (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these are pretty unequivocally examples of The Telegraph saying in its own voice that there are students really identifying as cats (and as dinosaurs and moons, apparently). The claim that all The Telegraph did was report what people said is off the mark and obfuscates the depth of the paper's promulgation of misinformation. The Telegraph has told the world in its own voice that The Telegraph says teachers are allowing children to identify as horses, dinosaurs and even moons—how much more in its own voice can one get? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

To go through those one by one:

1. That isn't saying that a student identified as a cat, it is saying that a teacher told a pupil they were "despicable" for refusing to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. That is true, and supported by a recording - whether the student actually identified as a cat is a different question.
2. Same as #1
3. That doesn't say the student identifies as a cat, that is saying other students at other schools identified as various animals. Have these claims been established as false?
4. Same as #1 and #3
5. Same as #1

At no point does the Telegraph say, in their own voice, that a student identified as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What part of "a students decision to self-identity as a cat"(2) means the telegraph isn't saying a student identifies as a cat. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The full context is children at a school in East Sussex were reprimanded last week for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat. In this full context, we see that it isn't saying the student identified as a cat - only that the teacher told students off for not accepting it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't saying "a student was deciding whether to identify as a cat or not". It's saying "a students decision to self identify as a cat". If I said "the UK's decision to vote conservative at the last general election" I am saying that the UK did in fact vote conservative, there is no other way to read this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I only saw your edit after posting. To amend my comparison, if I said "Labour party members were reprimanded after refusing to accept the UK's decision to leave the EU" what am I saying about the UKs decision about leaving the EU. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep omitting the first part of the sentence, which changes the meaning of the second part. Without that first part, you would be correct - but because the Telegraph includes the first part, you're not, and the Telegraph is only saying why the teacher reprimanded the students, not whether the reason the teacher reprimanded the students was factually accurate. If this doesn't clarify things for you I'm not sure anything will, so I'm going to back out of this conversation now. BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Swag Lord; possibly biased, but no evidence that they are unreliable. In fact, I would point out that this is one of the most reliable sources in Britain.

The fact that British media has a different opinion on this topic than American media doesn’t make British media unreliable, and attempting to paint it as biased or unreliable because of that difference in opinion would reduce the neutrality of our coverage of the topic by omitting positions that differ from the American position. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that speaking in terms of dichotomy between the UK and US is potentially misleading: there's the rest of Anglophone media (and indeed, non-English language media) as well. Remsense诉 05:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've listed specific false claims made by the Telegraph. What's your defense of the Telegraph falsely claiming a student identified as a cat five times without any retraction or correction? What's your defense of the Telegraph repeatedly quoting a non-therapist for the position of therapists on trans issues?

I have more examples:

• the headline of this article claims that Belgium and the Netherlands called for additional restrictions of puberty blockers when that's not true and not even close to true. Neither of those countries nor any government agency of those countries has said any such thing in an official capacity.
• this article has an "expert" claim that a tweet supportive of trans lesbians violates the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which it very much does not.
• Here's an article, which is part of a whole series like this, where the Telegraph just asks its readers for cases of "wokeness" and then repeats whatever obvious nonsense they give back. I wouldn't even mention it except it's clearly labeled "news", and it's yet again another example of the litter boxes in schools hoax.

Loki (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

One by one:

• Per WP:HEADLINES, headlines are unreliable regardless of who they are published by. The fact that the Telegraph's headlines are no different is not a cause for concern or a reason to consider the publication unreliable.
• That's an attributed opinion; She said the tweet contravened the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. It isn't an indication of unreliability.
• Those are opinions attributed to readers. Again, it isn't an indicator of unreliability.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an attributed opinion

Attributed to simply a representative from a women's group. It seems truthfully introducing Women's Declaration International could arguably require additional description. Remsense诉 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you believed they should have included criticism of that organization? Failing to criticize a organization when attributing to it doesn't make a source unreliable; if it did, I don't think we would have any reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You're correct, of course. This one straddles the border between ontology and epistemology, and is borderline in any case. Remsense诉 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES is not a defense because the false claim is also repeated in the first line of the article. And attributing false claims to other people is not a good defense if you make no attempt whatsoever to fact-check them. Loki (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence contains a different claim than the headline; as far as I know, the claim in the first sentence is true? BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of that article says Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers. Is it true? The parliament of the Netherlands passed a motion[85] which notes the caution being expressed in other European countries and calls for additional research. So the Netherlands part seems true enough. The Belgium claim is more tenuous - it appears to refer to this paper[86] published in a mainstream medical journal by an affiliate of the Belgian Center for Evidence Based Medicine[87], which was commissioned by the Federal Government[88]. Now, I'm not for one minute going to claim that that chain of association amounts to this being an official action of the Belgian government, but synecdoche is common in reporting about countries, so it's not a smoking gun of falsehood. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The evidence shared, both in this thread and in OP's link to the much longer userpage list of examples, persuades me that The Telegraph is generally unreliable for trans topics, and if it comes to an RfC I would there say as much. This isn't down to a difference of opinion. This is about a periodical repeatedly making errors of fact and misrepresentations in this topic area. It's true that biased sources aren't necessarily unreliable, but our tendency to be okay with expecting editors to parse through biases doesn't become a shield for a biased source that is also unreliable. I'll add that an editor's claim that this is about how British media has a different opinion on this topic than American media is not what OP is saying. Although OP wrote, British papers aren't reliable on trans issues, that claim was not framed as being because they report different things from U. S. news sources (for that matter, the very American news network Fox has propounded the "litter boxes in schools" hoax too). And for evidence of the errors of fact of the The Telegraph, the OP has included non-U. S. sources, such as The Guardian. And this rightly shouldn't be reduced to being a difference between national newspapers; this is also about contradicting academic consensuses in trans healthcare and more. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Co-signed. Concerning the judgment that there has been insufficient evidence presented for The Telegraph's frequent factual errors on this subject to consider an RfC, I would ask what would suffice? We're capable of deprecating a source based on a sufficient collection of individual incidents in context. Remsense诉 05:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Given that the Telegraph is a newspaper of record and a quality press, you would need high-quality third-party sources demonstrating that the Telegraph is consistently unreliable in this topic area. Sources simply portraying the Telegraph as biased is not sufficient. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's highly arguable whether the Telegraph is still quality press. Their coverage has been declining substantially in the last few years, with controversy around commercial influence over editorial integrity since 2015. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, to be clear, I said "certain" British papers are unreliable on trans issues because I meant only certain British papers. The Telegraph is by far the most egregious and I'd also probably include the Times, but not the BBC or the Guardian (and that's even though I do think they're still both to the right of most American papers on trans issues). Loki (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The important question here is whether the Telegraph reported at any point that the school had denied any pupil identified as a cat. If they did report this denial, then I don't think there is a problem here. If they have covered this up, then I would suggest there is a serious problem, a new RfC is warranted, and I would reconsider my previous opposition to downgrading the source on trans issues. Given paywall issues, I can't check it myself...Boynamedsue (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It seems you put significant emphasis on later retractions. In my view, an outlet's later retraction is simply insufficient for the example's total removal from consideration for reasons that seem obvious: temporary errors are still errors that existed in print, and a frequent pattern of retraction calls into question the de facto editorial policy prior to publishing. It seems altogether too cute to treat the pattern of publishing one article saying one thing, and another later that includes a vital, previously ignored dimension as anything but retraction in a different format. The question is whether we can treat individual articles from the Telegraph as reliable to support claims: those are incomplete like this as less reliable, full stop. Remsense诉 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've misinterpreted the cat stories - the focus of those stories doesn't appear to be that the student identified as a cat, but that a teacher defended their right to identify as a cat - and there is a tape supporting the claim that a teacher defended that right. I don't think that at any point does the Telegraph say that a girl at Rye College did identify as a cat in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think that it is very important that, once the school clarified that nobody was actually identifying as a cat, the paper clearly states this.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They do; The school now says that no children at Rye College identify as a cat or any other animal. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the very next sentence: However, the girls and their parents claimed it was their understanding that one did.

In context this is clearly not actually a retraction or correction by the Telegraph but an attempt to defend their original reporting even as it's clear that it's false.

Also, I think that the "focus" is also clear from them feeling the need to say this. Loki (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As BilledMammal pointed out, the Telegraph did point out the school's denial of the incident. They did so again in this article ("The school said, five days after the row broke, that no child identified as a cat or any other animal...) And, in this article I linked to above, they included the inspector's report that there were "no concerns" over the school's handling of the issue (plus they include a lengthly statement from a spokesperson of the school). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense:The article is factual though, the recording is pretty clear. The questions are whether the school was contacted for comment and whether its denial was published.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I seem to have misread the first and second articles linked, apologies. Remsense诉 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• By way of comment on the discussion as it's developing, my view is that 'giving the impression of circulating a transnationally debunked hoax by prominently featuring it but technically refraining from expressing it directly in editorial voice' is a low bar to set for reliability, especially for a topic considered contentious. (In any case, the Rye College matter is just one of the examples; there are also the obfuscations/misrepresentations of Esses/Thoughtful Therapists and TACTT and related, as well as the evidence in the userpage list.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong disagree. This is another example of confusing bias with reliability. A good case is made for bias, but not for unreliability. Detailed rationale follows:
  • The cat story issue has been covered by others. In short, it appears that they reported a reasonable interpretation of a recording, focused on the teacher's behaviour more than the cat claim, and then later reported the school's denial. One of the cited examples is about other cases of pupils identifying as other animals[89]. It's unclear whether the accuracy of this has been questioned or not.
  • Quoting someone who isn't a therapist isn't a factual error. It's worth noting that the "anti-trans sentiments" for which James Essess was kicked out of his programme are essentially the same position that the recent Cass review (a WP:MEDRS of the highest quality) has concluded, i.e. that affirmation is not necessarily the only answer. This suggests that the Telegraph is not publishing unreliable information, rather that it is publishing a POV (other POVs are available).
  • On TACTT. You say they describe TACTT as "trans activists" - but they are, and their own website[90] is clear on this: TACTT is an activist group, rather than a learning space.. Looking at TACTT's complaints, they seem to relate to statements made by Dr Christian Buckland, not statements made by The Telegraph in editorial voice. In this respect, The Telegraph is reliably reporting them. Regarding a report on the dangers of gender ideology, this is a strongly opinionated but not strictly unfactual description, since the report does directly criticise ideological behaviour as detrimental to the interests of children.
  • I looked at some of the examples in the "tons more" link. They're long on bias, short on factual errors.
  • I looked at the Joseph Mengele claim. It's an opinion piece, not The Telegraph's editorial voice. And you say it's a wild claim, but it appears to be factual, based on the testimony of holocaust survivor Eva Kor[91]: Cross transfusions were carried out in an attempt to "make boys into girls and girls into boys"..
  • The IPSO rulings are put forward as evidence of unreliability, but they demonstrate that corrections were made promptly and in duly prominent positions. This is exactly what we ask of a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG.
  • In short, The Telegraph projects a strong POV due to its strong bias, but we don't exclude sources for bias, and it would be a violation of NPOV to do so. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Things like the cat box incident demonstrate that the bias of the Telegraph is so severe that it deleteriously affects the paper's accuracy. We should not be using it as a source for establishing notability of a given incident, should attribute any statements it makes explicitly and should seriously consider whether statements of the Telegraph are WP:DUE prior to inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  gender ideology was a term coined by the Catholic church and then borrowed by the GC movement which RS all agree is a meaningless buzzword.

  Thoughtful Therapists is a WP:FRINGE group that opposes conversion therapy bans and recommends organizations known for promoting conversion therapy [92]. Here's a statement[93] where he makes such claims as Schools should never socially affirm a pupil or enable them to socially transition, Self-ID should never become law (self-id is considered a right by the UN), hospitals shouldn't have pride flags, it should be ok to misgender schoolchildren, etc. His FAQ[94] says conversion therapy only applies to gay people, not trans people. He was removed from Childline because he kept publicly complaining about respecting trans kids and why conversion therapy shouldn't be banned.[95][96]

  This man's positions are ridiculously fringe and it reflects very poorly on the Telegraph they went they to him for anything - it's like using the Flat Earth Society as a source for astrophysics news. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty common for newspapers to get quotes from activists/ non-experts (see here). Does that mean that the newspaper is fundamentally unreliable? No. Does that mean WP is required to quote these activists/ non-experts as well? Also, no. News organizations aren't required to follow polices like DUE--but we are. So if someone tries to quote some random activist using the Telegraph as a source, just direct them to this: WP:UNDUE. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay but the problem isn't that they cite activists, the problem is that they cite activists and fail to mention it. Nobody here is going to be mad at a newspaper for citing activists. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  So what I’m hearing is that the only issue is that the Telegraph didn’t use the word “activist” when introducing James Essess. It’s true, using proper descriptors is good journalistic practice but this has almost nothing to do with reliability. Should we also admonish Forbes for failing to label Essess as an activist? [97] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  the forbes article you cite describes his organisation as "an organization campaigning against “the impact of gender identity ideology on children”", which I think does a good job of delivering that information. I also don't recall ever saying that this was the only issue. Could you link me to where I said anything like that so I can correct the record? --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well you said: "Okay but the problem isn't that they cite activists, the problem is that they cite activists and fail to mention it." So I took that to mean you're fine if they quote Essess but you want the Telegraph to be explicitly clear that he be labeled as an activist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and the forbes quote satisfies that requirement, while the telegraph one doesn't. Forbes also does a better job of separating him from the therapists he claims to represent, where the telegraph lumps those two together, thus implying by omission that he is a therapist, which he very much is not. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  So if omitting the word “therapist” is enough for you to deprecate the Telegraph, how do you feel about the very anti-trans Washington Blade referring to him as a “British Therapist”? [98] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Technically they say contradictory things, that he's a therapist, and that he was expelled from his training institute. So one is confused over his status. Also one offs from random publications does nothing to the fact that the telegraph repeatedly refused to label him appropriately LunaHasArrived (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't like that phrasing very much but in context they make his actual credentials very clear. And it's also only one article. The Telegraph repeatedly lets the reader assume he's an expert without clarifying either way. Loki (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if you linked to this article yet, Loki, but the most comprehensive article I found on Esses from the Telegraph is this. It puts his expulsion right at top. Do you think that article is an accurate representation of him? (also other Telegraph articles label him as a “writer and commentator”[99] and as a “social campaigner [100].) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is one expected to read every article from the telegraph to know his full story for accuracy. Either way if anything the fact that the telegraph continues to mislabel him after doing that peice means it can't even claim ignorance. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also the fact that the telegraph has opinion peices written by him should be of note here as well (4 in the last 10 months) LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, regarding that article you linked:

A breakdown of issues in it, partly through comparison to the daily mail, who broke the story in a more non-partisan way months before the Telegraph re-hashed it poorly

It was the second article on him in a major paper, the first being the dealy mail a few months ago about the same story[101] Somehow, the daily mail is actually better reporting in some ways[102]... The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were, the daily mail at least admits he says he noticed an 'increase in the number of young people coming through who said they were in the wrong body. The youngest was about ten or 11. and He said he became increasingly convinced that 'exploration' of their problems was a better way to help. 'I spent hours with them exploring the underlying causes and other ways of looking at things. The Telegraph mentions conversion therapy once to say legislation banning conversion therapy will not extend to gender identity, the daily mail somehow has the decency to use the real definition He was further motivated after learning that the Government was planning to ban conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person's sexual orientation and gender identity. While the telegraph saves most of his employer's rebuttals at the end, the daily mail interweaves them more and gives more statements about the opportunities he was given to not get fired for this. The Telegraph says Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears that young children expressing discomfort in their bodies were being actively encouraged to transition; weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds. Now, much further down it notes Four weeks before his expulsion via email, he had petitioned the Government to “safeguard evidence-based therapy for children struggling with gender dysphoria”, which received more than 10,000 signatures. Esses had also set up Thoughtful Therapists, a collective of clinicians who are “deeply concerned” about the current stranglehold on public discourse. (The petition was calling for the government not to criminalize gender exploratory therapy in its conversion therapy ban, TT are, as we covered above, conversion therapy advocates) It also notes He spoke with senior management, yet nothing changed. As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there. In July, Esses received a call dismissing him with immediate effect. Please note, he was expelled from the psychotherapy program for publicly campaigning against a ban on conversion therapy, with the institution dropping a not so subtle parting note[103]. Childline dismissed him because he refused to stop identifying himself as a childline member when campaigning for conversion therapy and told not to, and offered the opportunity to come back on assurances anyways. The Telegraph hides and distorts these reasons as openly discussing his fears that young children expressing discomfort in their bodies were being actively encouraged to transition for the former, and on the same grounds for the latter. The telegraph makes claims about this in it's voice that showcase it's fringe It seems mind-boggling that someone could be ejected from much-needed counselling work and therapy training for questioning how best to help vulnerable children; - is it mind-boggling that somebody publicly campaigned for conversion therapy, says QUACKy stuff all the time, and his first job found that bigoted and the second gave him the opportunity to stay if he just stopped publicly saying he worked for them as he advocated conversion therapy? And he didn't "question" anything, questions are open-ended, he asked why trans kids are affirmed by childline instead of being made to "explore". For adults who have exhausted all the options, namely exploratory therapy to get to the root cause of their discomfort, he believes gender reassignment surgery can be a reasonable last resort - this is an option that is known not to work and to be harmful (denying transition care at all until adulthood). It's a little unclear to what extent this is the telegraphs voice or Esses' - I think that's a feature not a bug. Imagine if they interviewed a anti-vaxxer and said for adults who have exhausted all the options, namely healing crystals and homeopathy, he believes vaccines can be a reasonable last resort in an article where it's clear the paper thinks he's being treated unfairly.

• Summarizing the above in short, that article is an UNDUE and fringe platforming puff piece derived from the fact someone at the telegraph thought "this dude was fired for campaigning for conversion therapy a few months ago - let's interview him to talk about how oppressed he is and how conversion therapy is actually a normal practice" and wrote an article on it that somehow 1) omits more details than the daily mails reporting on the topic, 2) presents a more partisan stance on conversion therapy than the daily mail, 3) somehow mentions his campaigning wrt conversion therapy less than the daily mail, 4) sanitizes his FRINGE statements through their own voice, 5) misrepresent why he was fired and 6) is literally just re-sensationalizing the case of a dude fired for being a bigoted quack that had been old news when it was written. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're moving a bit fast there, friend. In my main comment here below I explicitly ruled out deprecation, and instead said: I don't think this needs deprecation or anything, but I do think there are some major risks to using this paper uncritically on LGBT issues.. In other words, had this been an RFC I would have probably voted "additional considerations apply" based on this evidence. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it is, but not to platform WP:FRINGE activists that heavily. If almost everything they publish on trans issues is undue because they almost only quote quacks and often get stuff wrong, at some point we should acknowledge the paper is the issue and not have to discuss the due-ness for every quack they quote. If a newspaper had for 40 years the clear POV the earth is flat, and was publishing hundreds of articles a year claiming the earth is flat and quoting the flat earth society and questioning what the shadow lobby at NASA is hiding from everybody about the earth's topology, I think we'd all quickly recognize how unreliable that makes them (at least, for the subject of the earth's topology). When they do it for trans people, somehow perpetually churning out FRINGE nonsense (and attacking a minority) becomes a different POV.

  Here's an article targeting a transgender teen (and misgendering them) while fearmongering about how awful it is the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to. [104] They constantly use the term gender ideology in their own voice all the time[105], which our own article explains is a moral panic. If almost everything they publish on trans issues is undue, we should mention that somewhere. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  “Targeting”? “Fear mongering”? What you may consider targeting and fear mongering is leaps and bounds away from what I—and many other editors—would consider targeting and fear mongering. The Telegraph simply reported on the incident. They quoted the child’s mother. They quoted the school and they quoted the LGBT charity the school works with. It’s actually a pretty balanced news story, more-or-less. The Telegraph even did the smart thing by not naming to “protect the young person’s identity”. It’s a difficult position to argue you’re being “targeted” by a newspaper when the newspaper doesn’t even name you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a school with approximately 2400 students (by looking at their website) anyone at the school or who knows people at the school could probably have a good guess at who the student is given that they would have left recently and would other obvious details (not including possible social media OSINT). If the telegraph had named them I think it would have been far far worse. Also one has to dig very far into the article to know that the school never got any actual confirmation about the supposed clinical advice. And the fear mongering is obvious, it's an extremely common tactic for people to say that schools are taking kids away from parents and even that some schools "trans" kids behind the parents back. This article plays into all of these beliefs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, when you consider the cat articles were about a specific living person it gets even worse. It doesn't matter how identifiable they are, the claims in these articles would be an obvious WP:BLP violation. Loki (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Newspapers aren't expected to adhere to Wikipedia's policies on privacy. XeCyranium (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is all starting to sound like “this article is bad because the Telegraph reported on it, and I don’t like their reporting.” I don’t actually see any evidence of falsity. This is not some hoax incident—these are real events that transpired and a major national newspaper reported on it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, read the paragraph by yfns beneath for a much more information but in general one can lie by omission or suggest an idea without lying. Either way I was just supporting the idea that they were targeting and fear mongering. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sentence 1: A leading private school in Scotland had parents investigated by social workers after they fought teachers’ attempts to “affirm” their daughter’s transgender identity.

  • scare quotes around "affirm", which is a red flag considering affirming a trans kids identity is a pretty straightforward thing for a school to do - just don't misgender and deadname them. They do this multiple times in the article.
  • A quote from later in the article: The child later said she identified as male, and the school adopted male pronouns in a move the mother said was kept from her.

  In the very first sentence, they've misgendered a teenager (the first of many times) and questioned through quotes the school's respect for him as nefarious (the first of many times). How is it not targeting and fearmongering to write an essay about a teenager just trying to live their life framing the parents who are bigoted towards their own child as the victims and endorsing their bigotry?

  One paragraph down: the parents, acting on advice from psychologists who had assessed their child, asked for the school to adopt a “watchful waiting” approach. ... “Watchful waiting” is an approach in which a child’s view of their gender is closely observed but without social or medical intervention. Evidence suggests that many children with gender issues will revert to identifying as a member of their biological sex as they become older.

  • "watchful waiting" was invented by a FRINGE activist known for practicing conversion therapy, Kenneth Zucker, and involved refusing to allow children to socially transition until puberty[106]. without social or medical intervention is doublespeak - it has always involved active intervention to deny transgender identity until a set age.
  • Evidence suggests that many children with gender issues will revert to identifying as a member of their biological sex as they become older is based on long debunked studies from Zucker. He saw kids who were gender noncomforming in any way without identifying as trans, he actively tried to discourage them all from being gender noncomforming anyways just in case, and when the kids continued to not identify as trans he passed it off as saying most grow out of being trans.

  In the first three paragraphs, they've misgendered the teenager and questioned the school supporting him, they've tried to appeal to authority (the psychiatrist, unnamed) to recommend disrespecting him, whitewashed the form of conversion therapy they recommended for him, and presented misleading information about how many trans kids "desist". These are factual inaccuracies and promotion, in their own voice, of FRINGE nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know this a contentious topic, and I’m not trying to engage in any meta-debates about this, but does misgendering equate to source unreliability? The way a newspaper decides to use gendered pronouns is more of a matter of editorial preference/style. When Chelsea Manning announced their transition, CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, and the Washington Post all used different pronouns to refer to Manning [107]. And if we’re going to deprecate the Telegraph for misgendering, we would need to do the same for the Associated Press [108], NY Times [109], and CNN [110]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Considering that those article about the AP, NYT, and CNN are all about them issuing corrections for incorrect pronouns, I think your example undermines your own point.

  Like, I don't think this is the strongest point here either, which is why I didn't lead with it, but the reality of trans people is enough of a fact that we were able to form a clearly sourced consensus around the first line of trans woman, A trans woman (short for transgender woman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. That it's politically controversial in some circles doesn't mean that reliable sources have no opinion on the issue: the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is also politically controversial in some circles but we don't tip-toe around that. Loki (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just used those examples because they were really easy to find. The reality is misgendering in the media is quite common (see) and I doubt most outlets issue corrections. I don’t think I disagree with your last two points? Sources make political claims all the time. But the effectiveness of the Covid vaccine is purely a medically-based claim (even if some political partisan sources disagree with consensus). However, to say something like “transgender people deserve X” or “transgender people don’t deserve X” are purely political claims that we are allowed to insert (with proper attribution) into WP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  However, to say something like “transgender people deserve X” or “transgender people don’t deserve X” are purely political claims that we are allowed to insert (with proper attribution) into WP.

  There is an overwhelming medical consensus that conversion therapy does not work and is harmful. Whether or not it works is not a political claim, it is a medical one. Same for the claim "the majority of trans kids grow out of it" - FRINGE.

  The Telegraph discussing a type of conversion therapy, framing it as neutral while not accurately describing how it works, and presenting debunked statistics to make it look like the majority of transgender people detransition is flat out medical misinformation, not a purely political claim.

  Even if we ignore the fact that the Telegraph, through misgendering, consistently shows hostility and an open lack of respect for a demographic - the FRINGE misinformation remains. It's as if they consistently said the earth is flat in their own voice while interviewing members of the flat earth society and introducing them only as scientists Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn’t making a reference to conversion therapy at all. That is absolutely a medical claim. Before you were saying that Thoughtful Therapists were the ones pro-conversion therapy. Now the Telegraph is explicitly pro-conversion therapy? Regardless, if the Telegraph is pro- or anti-conversion therapy that wouldn’t be relevant for us per MEDRS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, you want evidence that this RS is unreliable. They are completely whitewashing conversion therapy with the "watchful waiting" angle and going against medical consensus. Whilst we would never use the telegraph for medical claims per MedRS that doesn't mean a source going against medical consensus isn't notable. What would you think of this was instead promoting antivax theories. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes to both, though the telegraph is a little more discreet - here I laid out Thoughtful Therapists' ties to conversion therapy and FRINGE lobbying. In the above comments, I was referring to an article in the Telegraph where they present a form of conversion therapy as a neutral therapy, give a false definition, and present debunked statistics (ie, the majority of trans kids "desist") to support its efficacy.

  Regardless, if the Telegraph is pro- or anti-conversion therapy that wouldn’t be relevant for us per MEDRS. - Yes and no. If a paper routinely targets a minority and often (but not always) uses pseudoscience to do so, and publishes hundreds of articles a day on the topic, there is a clear reliability issue in general.

  What is the goalpost for unreliability, or even an acknowledgement of bias? If it's not enough they've been known to target a minority population for over 40 years, if it's not enough they still openly fearmonger about the minority, if it's not enough they routinely turn to groups known for attacking that minority with pseudoscience and in the courts for quotes and present them as neutral, and it's not enough they present medical misinformation about the minority on a regular basis - how far do they have to go before we acknowledge they are unreliable on the issue (or, at the barest euphemistic minimum, biased) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever your opinion about misgendering and source reliability here, one has to admit that factual inaccuracies and promoting fringe theories about conversion therapy has to count towards source unreliability. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• A past discussion can be found here (from late 2022/early 2023). That outcome was pretty clear, but it wasn’t a great RfC either. Do you think that it is probable that reopening it could plausibly change the outcome? FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Just as a note, even the Telegraph's defenders concede that it's strongly biased - but per WP:BIASED, when citing a biased source we must make its bias clear, ie. if we're in agreement that the Telegraph has an anti-trans bias (one that is not obvious from its name), then we must at a bare minimum require that it be given inline attribution that specifically makes that bias clear. People IMHO often forget about this aspect of WP:BIASED; but we cannot present them as a neutral source of information. Given how frequently and aggressively it tends to get cited in this topic area, it might be worth coming up with a standard attribution (though, also, WP:BIASED sources of course shouldn't be used in a lopsided manner, per WP:BALANCE; if we're in agreement that it's biased then that means we ought to avoid sections or articles cited overwhelmingly to them or to sources that share their bias, something that I don't think we're doing currently.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just noting that I’m not convinced it is biased, rather than just having a different POV from some other sources.

  I also think you misread WP:BIASED; it says inline attribution may be required, not that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Does the word bias have some other distinct meaning for you here? Remsense诉 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  If we’re going to interpret "having a POV" as "having a bias", and attribute inline on that basis, then we’re going to have to consider virtually every source on this topic as biased and attribute inline. I don’t think that would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Every source is biased. I'm not convinced myself that the Telegraph is biased to the degree to require attribution in all cases. Remsense诉 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  1) It's not policy (or even guidance) that we must attribute information from a biased source. We can use common sense and editorial judgement to extract wikivoice-grade factual information even from biased sources. I refer to my comment in the RFE/RL thread about how bias works in practice: not (usually) through publishing outright fabrications, but by being selective about what is reported. We need to be careful when handling biased sources, but all sources are biased in contentious topics (none moreso than this one), and we have to work with that.

  2) Is this actually a real problem on enwiki? Sections or articles on trans topics cited overwhelmingly to The Telegraph? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real problem. Mermaids (charity), for instance, still has an entire section devoted to a piece from the Telegraph and a response to it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't look problematic at all. The Telegraph instigated an investigation into Mermaids which led to an investigation by the Charity Commission (thus demonstrating that it wasn't just some fabricated nonsense), and as the following sections demonstrate, this was widely reported on in many sources including the Guardian, the BBC, The Times, and Pink News. We use multiple sources in those sections and we seem to have had no trouble extracting factual statements and quotes from these sources, despite The Telegraph's bias and despite Pink News's equal and opposite bias. This is how it's meant to work. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• From loki's records, I don't get the impression that it's just bias that is the problem. Consistently misrepresenting a guy with no medical background as some kind of expert witness seems like it goes beyond bias to me, as does failing to do due diligence on what is very obviously a hoax story. Correcting the record when you make a mistake is obviously fine and even a sign of a good editorial process that cares about getting things right. Correcting the record because you failed to verify your story before hitting post, however, does not qualify for that kind of understanding. If a news source posts stories without verifying what the people involved in those stories have to say about it, that news organisation is acting as a glorified content mill, and we don't treat content mills as reliable. That aside, I don't see how an obvious bias isn't an issue for a "paper of record". I don't think this needs deprecation or anything, but I do think there are some major risks to using this paper uncritically on LGBT issues. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Telegraph is a news source that has long shown its unreliability in this topic area, purposefully putting out misinformation and false claims and rarely retracting them. And even their retractions are more in the line of "group said this isn't true, but..." with always the indication that the false thing could still be true. It's the same sort of nonsense that the Daily Mail has long pulled with their misinformation. It's just that, in this case, rather than doing that to anything political like the Daily Mail does, we have The Telegraph doing that specifically to LGBT topics and having done so for decades. They are one of the definitive UK pieces of misinformation media when it comes to LGBT subject matter and are willfully misinformative on the topic to suit their agenda. (And, as usual, the defenders of this anti-LGBT media show up relatively quickly, much like the defenders of sources like Fox News and Breitbart did when those were up for consideration.) Silverseren^C 15:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, the Telegraph has major form for printing stuff like this which is aimed at transphobes (I know we're supposed to call them "gender-critical" these days, but we don't call racists "skin colour critical", so sod that). Now, if it was just biased reporting, that's one thing, but there is genuine misinformation here, much like the issue that the paper has with climate change. Repeating obvious nonsense is misinformation, even if you do a Daily Mail and print a correction in 8pt font at the bottom of Page 25 three weeks later. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree entirely. And there is the question of WP:DUE. The only reason we would ever need the Telegraph as a source is to reflect the increasingly fringe opinions of transphobes. Why bother? Transphobic opinions are not worth including in a neutral encyclopedia except as a description of transphobic views. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is also a strong point. WP:BESTSOURCES should guide us away from a biased newspaper and toward citing academic sources that represent medical/sociological/historical/etc. consensuses. I am aware some editors have said The Telegraph simply has a 'different POV'. But I would hazard that if this 'different POV' entails The Telegraph frequently framing coverage of trans topics in an alarmist way that stokes opposition to the mainstream academic consensus on the legitimacy of trans experience and healthcare, then The Telegraph is not the best source for the topic and its coverage will often be undue. And I think that in the case of The Telegraph, the matter has gotten to the point that it so muddles fact and fiction it is more useful to the project to consider the source generally unreliable for the topic area. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do think a lot of this thread is indicative of the contempt many Wikipedia editors have for humanities and social sciences as academic disciplines. Like, sure, there's an evident and obvious academic consensus among sociologists, psychologists and academic social workers about issues like gender affirming care, sure, transphobic academics in the space, like Jordan Peterson, have career trajectories very similar to other WP:PROFRINGE academics like parapsychologists, but, have you considered that a newspaper thinks this is alarming? Totally worthy of use as a counter-balance source. Just like we need to cite Uri Gellar as an expert in telekinesis. Simonm223 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm very reluctant to state any source is unreliable on the basis of our independent analysis of the accuracy or inaccuracy of its stories, as opposed to the analysis of RS on the accuracy of inaccuracy of its stories. Content analysis is a methodical activity that requires adequate sampling (generally, a stratified sample of two constructed weeks for every six months of content is considered a best practice for daily newspapers) and a process of independent coding. That type of research is outside the capability of a Wikipedia noticeboard discussion. In a previous comment Dr. Swag Lord explained that, since the Telegraph is a newspaper of record, we need high quality sources affirming it's not a RS, a position with which I'd tend to agree. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Remember:original research done to determine source reliability is very explicitly the exemption to WP:OR, we can in fact as users do our own research as part of determining whether a source is reliable, that research is even required! It's part of your due diligence as an editor under WP:RS. The relevant sections for this discussion are WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, which states that source reliability can vary depending on topic and a bunch of other factors. Neither "paper of record" nor "quality press" are qualifications that get special treatment in Wikipedia policy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"original research done to determine source reliability is very explicitly the exemption to WP:OR, we can in fact as users do our own research" I'm well aware. And, similarly, there's also no proscription on an editor expecting a second editor engaged in source evaluative OR to meet some minimal standard of research quality. And convenience sampling articles for a cross-source lexical comparison is the shoddiest kind of research. Chetsford (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We're a collaborative volunteer project, so if you feel the amount of research done is unsatisfactory, and you have something to contribute in that regard, you should absolutely feel free to. That said, I think it's also a bit unfair for you to expect one guy to do an entire PhD in Telegraphonics when that is well beyond the amount of effort this board normally operates on. And judging by your comments to loki below, I'm not even exaggerating about the PhD part. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"if you feel the amount of research done is unsatisfactory, and you have something to contribute in that regard, you should absolutely feel free to" It's not my responsibility to prove your position. "I think it's also a bit unfair for you to expect one guy to do an entire PhD in Telegraphonics" Simple solution is point to what RS say. If no RS support your position and you want me to rely exclusively on internet user "Lick Rocks" original research then, yes, I will expect it meets a reasonable quality standard. Sorry! Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole "paper of record" argument is no more valid here than it would be to argue that this article would be an appropriate source for an astronomy page. 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have already been provided, though. And again, "what RS say" is not the only standard applicable here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have already been provided" ... and most don't say what they're being alleged to say. They're framing studies, not inquiries into the Telegraph's accuracy on baseline facts. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• As documented here, we do have significant secondary coverage of the Telegraph making errors, including a few scholarly sources which examine the whole British media. And plenty of other reliable news sources documenting particular mistakes.

  But also, this has never been how WP:RSN has worked before. In other cases, even for major newsorgs like Fox, simple aggregation of mistakes was enough. It's very rare that scholarship will call out a newsorg like this, so the fact that we do have some sources doing it is somewhat exceptional all by itself. Loki (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I read the first two studies which are fairly rote, paint-by-numbers, comparative analyses of second order agenda setting in media outlets; the kind that every media studies PhD grad produces as their first journal article. I have no basis on which to doubt their accuracy, however, neither of them make the conclusion the Telegraph is inaccurate or unreliable. Rather, they merely count and compare the presence of specific frame packages which is a different question entirely. As deductive framing studies, they both are disciplinarily grounded in the constructed nature of social reality which posits the total absence of objective reality. To use framing studies to try to categorize outlets at RSN would then require we make an original conclusion that there is objective reality. And, once we do that, we've invalidated the usability of the very studies we're trying to source. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• As Chetsford explained, the linked academic studies do not question the general reliability of the Telegraph and other British media. I have also looked at the articles you have listed under “Secondary Coverage”. Practically are all PinkNews articles getting comments from pro-trans people about how awful a Telegraph article is—does that seem a wee bit familiar to you? So is it fine when PinkNews does it but not the Telegraph??
• Also re: It's very rare that scholarship will call out a newsorg like this —it’s really not. Look over Breitbart News, The Grayzone, Natural News, Palmer Report, InfoWars, OpIndia, etc. Do you notice the depth of ultra-strong academic studies calling out those sources—in clear terms—for their utter nonsense? Could you provide a similar compilation of academic sources for the Telegraph?

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't see how 4/8 sources being from pink news counts as "almost all". The other sources are: ipso, CNN, the guardian and vox. As for point 2, perhaps make comparison to other large news corporations older than 25 years for an alt comparison. Also remember UK libel law could be influenceful here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

CNN, the guardian, and Vox all relate to the Times—not the telegraph (if we’re going to deprecate the Times too we would really need a separate discussion for that). I guess more comparable examples would be Fox News, daily mail, and Sputnik. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This paper outlines selective quotations and dubious press standards in how they handled Kathleen Stock, arguing they helped spread misinformation[111], here's one on how they were providing "evidence" used to support section 28[112], here's a thesis that extensively covers the Telegraph's promotion of negative stereotypes and myths about trans people[113], here's a paper on IPSO's standards for discrimination being lax when applied to demographics instead of individuals[114], here's another noting how the telegraph frames trans people in negative terms[115], here's another (in italian) comparing independent media to papers such as the Telegraph which push negative stereotypes about trans people[116], here's another commenting on their stereotyping of trans people[117]

These were found from the first two pages of google scholar results for "transgender" AND "daily telegraph" and are varyingly weighty. There are about 1,800 results, from sampling a few pages it seems to be 1/3 about their bias/misinformation/negative stereotyping of trans people, 1/3 about them doing that to LGBT people in general, and 1/3 just happening to cite or mention the Telegraph. IE, in not acknowledging the Telegraph's unreliability (or at least, open bias against a demographic), we are actively ignoring the majority of scholarly sources on the topic. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I just read the Liverpool thesis. As with the other studies presented, it never makes the case of the Telegraph publishing erroneous information, it merely notes frame packages and ruminates on the frame effects of those packages. Outlets aren't unreliable because they produce different frame packages from the social consensus. They're unreliable because they propagate erroneous baseline facts. The arguments against the Telegraph here seem to be mixing up the two. Chetsford (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing new sources to look at. I looked at a couple of them and I'm afraid you either misinterpreted the study or it has nothing to do with the topic of reliability

1. This study: This has nothing to with reliability. All it's saying is the phrase "trans activist" may be used in a negative context when referring to trans people. The study uses this Telegraph opinion piece as an example. That's it.

2. This study: So a footnote in this study states that a Telegraph headline was inaccurate about Allison Bailey "winning" her case (it turns out she did not). You can find more information from the IPSO complaint. But as the IPSO complaint notes, the Telegraph "identified the headline error within 30 minutes and amended it promptly prior to any complaint being received...the Committee appreciated that the publication had recognised the error almost immediately...The correction which was published – and the subsequent proposal to publish a homepage reference to the correction – clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence". So 1) we don't consider headlines accurate anyways and 2) the Telegraph fixed their mistake within 30 minutes. People, news sources engaging in basic error-correction is a hallmark of a reliable source.

3.This Master's thesis: This quotes Labor MP Allan Roberts (politician) saying Conservative Members used papers like the Telegraph and Evening Standard to support the clause. If this is true or not is not relevant. The media will frequently announce their support or disproval of various laws, bills, parties, and candidates. This does not make the source unreliable--even if the proposed law is abhorrent (see: Presentism (historical analysis).

4. Liverpool Thesis. It seems like Chetsford has already disputed this source.

5. This article. Please note that this is actually an opinion piece--hence "Viewpoint" on the top--but no matter. It doesn't actually state the Telegraph spread misinformation. It says: I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure for a trans-hostile media, and discuss the way her case has been used to spread misinformation around universities, and trans people". Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would that be "outside the capability of a Wikipedia noticeboard discussion"? Such discussion originally determined that The Telegraph is generally reliable, and they can likewise determine that this is no longer the case. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like looking at the "There's more" really gives a far more comprehensive view of the issue than just what's posted here. I believe the Telegraph should be deprecated on GENSEX topics. Snokalok (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's so much more that I felt it would be not as impactful to list everything, so I tried to only list the handful of strongest examples. That may have been a mistake. Loki (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I do not see any compelling evidence to remove The Telegraph as WP:RS generally or for transgender related topics as per the last RfC [118]. It is longstanding reliable newspaper and a newspaper of record in the UK. Yes it is biased, but that is completely allowed per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. The three specific things highlighted in the start of the discussion do not indicate factual reliablity, but bias. In the first case, Tele reported on the leaked audio / video and months later a report came out by ofsted saying the culture of the school was fine. In the second case, regarding James Esses it seems they just say he is the co-founder of the organisation. In the third case, it just appears to be simply bias. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is this going to be an RfC at some point? I don't think RSP is going to change without one, and honestly I'd probably save my energy looking into it unless and until there is one. I would also suggest to OP that only one outlet be considered at a time (since the userpage you link refers to two), since if both are done together, I think there will be a lot of confusion, and realistically one is probably worse than the other. Also, more generally about the discussion above, any criticisms of the form "they covered X topic in a slanted way" and not squarely about false facts are best left out since (1) one biased source's facts can be combined with other biased sources' facts for a well-rounded article and (2) this argument usually takes up a lot of space and convinces few. If the bias extends to stating outright falsehoods, then it's a serious problem and we should be squarely focused on that. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think that the suggestion here is in any way outlandish. The Telegraph has clearly gone far beyond simply being a biased source in the normal, legitimate, sense. A Tory broadsheet paper would traditionally be biased towards the concerns and opinions of the Conservative Party while remaining firmly grounded in truth when covering factual matters. The Telegraph has lost that grounding on this subject. It has printed many stories about trans people, and related issues, that turned out to be substantially untrue. It has done this enough times that this, at best, shows a complete lack of interest in whether those stories were correct. It opens a very reasonable suspicion that they might well have been printed knowing them to be false.

For me, the "litterbox" stories look like evidence of bad faith. How does a national newspaper print stories that could have been debunked as obvious meme based hoaxes with as little as a 20 second Google search? I'm just a private individual and I've done more research before pressing the Retweet button! They have staff employed to check this stuff! Sure, reliable Sources can be hoaxed. The fake Hitler Diaries prove that. These are rare events typically leading to a tightening of fact checking procedures to prevent further embarrassment. They are not day-to-day happenings, yet the Telegraph keep on printing this stuff and not retracting it. There is credulity and there is reckless indifference to truth. I detect the latter in the Telegraph's recent behaviour.

I don't see how we can continue to consider them reliable on LGBT or gender issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as sufficient to make the source unreliable for the topic in general. It seems at least some of the pushback comes from sources that have taken claims out of context. It may be valid to say a specific story is not reliable but to say the paper as a whole is unreliable on the topic as a whole hasn't been sufficiently supported. Springee (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here makes it clear that The Telegraph should be considered unreliable for transgender-related topics. Skyshiftertalk 13:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that it has gone beyond bias in this topic and in to unreliable. Most notably whencer they talk about children they seem to promote fringe medical ideas about what's happening, including whitewash conversion therapy or claims about the Cass review that I would get laughed at for putting in the article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Loki is correct here - I wasn't aware of the Telegraph being reliable or unreliable on this topic, but looking through their exhaustive research has convinced me. As another editor said, it goes beyond opinion and bias, because there's a lot of flat-out misinformation there. The Telegraph should be considered unreliable on any transgender-related topics, broadly construed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Most of the evidence indicates bias rather than reliability (like calling someone trans activists or "rarely mak[ing] it clear that James Esses is not and has never been a therapist." If we're going to have an RfC I'd recommend the initiator to focus on the examples that clearly demonstrate the unreliability. I've re-read the paragraph about the cat girl twice and did not understand what exactly the newspaper said that turned out to be false. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, the complaint that I was a bit vague about what they said appears to be fair considering you weren't the only person who was confused. Does this list of quotes where they directly claim a student identified as a cat make it more clear? Or are you instead not satisfied that this claim was sufficiently proven false? Loki (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Was the Telegraph’s initial reporting really that different from the rest of the media?:

  • A 13-year-old girl was reportedly called "despicable" by her own teacher on Friday after she began questioning how her classmate could identify as a cat at a Church of England school. [119]
  • The conversation, secretly recorded and posted on TikTok, appears to show a teacher defending a pupil’s right to self-identify as a cat, while two other pupils vehemently disagree with her. [120]
  • A teacher at an East Sussex school called a student’s opinion ‘despicable’ in a discussion about a classmate’s claim that she ‘identifies as a cat’. [121]

  The Telegraph later did make it clear that according to the school, no student identified as a feline (quotes are up above somewhere). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first one is clearly relying on the Telegraph's reporting. The second and third one both make it clear that they're not saying the student identifies as a cat in their publication's own voice. All three are minor local publications that reported this story once.

  Compare to other big name publications:

  • The Guardian's earliest article on the topic puts the denial front and center.
  • Tbe BBC barely reported on the controversy at all. The only mention of it I can find is this review of what other papers are reporting on, where they make it clear that it's the Telegraph that's saying a pupil identified as a cat.
  • Even the Times, no stranger to anti-trans bias itself, reported the denial in clear terms in their second article on the subject. (Though their first was admittedly not great, it's still better than any of the Telegraph's five articles on the same subject.)

  Again, the Telegraph reported this fake story five times, hasn't corrected or retracted any of the articles, and even attempted to contradict the school's denial. Loki (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing the quotes. I think that your version of the events ("a student compared another student identifying as trans to identifying as a cat to score a rhetorical point") is likely to be true. I wouldn't say that the it's "proven", since essentially we have the school's statement versus anonymous "girls and their parents" with whom the Telegraph supposedly spoke.

  Having listened to the recording, I guess one could have interpreted it the way they did it, but as a major newspaper they should've investigated the story properly rather than rushing to print a sensationalised story.

  One more question, has the Telegraph's coverage of this particular incident been used on Wikipedia? I'm asking since the deprecation would only be necessary if the normal mechanisms and the editorial discretion have been insufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How many angels can meow on the head of a pin? I really don't think the precise number matters -- it's preposterous to imagine that we have only two options here, with one being "they're biased which means that their claims are factually incorrect" and the other being "their claims are factually correct which means they aren't biased". Neither of these claims really make any sense. Can't we just put up a post-it note somewhere saying that they're somewhat biased on the issue and move on with our lives?

Parenthetically, it may be noted for the record that there is a Wikipediocracy topic about this thread. jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of proposing an amendment to its WP:RSP entry to read something like: Some editors believe The Telegraph is biased or opinionated for matters relating to transgender rights and LGBT topics. Statements may need attribution and considered for WP:DUEWEIGHT. We could also include another sentence to remind editors that the Telegraph shouldn’t be used for anything remotely relating to medical claims, as per MEDRS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like a good start, even if many of us might consider that to be inadequate overall — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's good to acknowledge their bias on the issue but I also separately think their bias is so extreme they often report clear falsehoods about trans topics. I've already listed what I think is a clear example of them breathlessly reporting a falsehood every day for five straight days without ever doing basic fact-checking like asking the school if it's true. And also while apparently making up other related falsehoods in the process with zero evidence.

And this is very much not the only example, only the most egregious. there's several cases in the evidence page I linked where they say things that are either clearly false or very dubious, and many more cases where they solicit clear falsehoods from an anti-trans activist they frame as some sort of expert.

Like, if this was just about bias, I could have gone with a lot of other papers. The reason this is only about the Telegraph is that it was clear after even a relatively small amount of background research that the Telegraph specifically is way worse on this than even other papers with a similar bias. Loki (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to have the Telegraph regarded as generally unreliable on trans issues. The paper has totally lost the plot on this matter. There's a great inverview with Jon Ronson, in the Guardian which says this:

His remedy may sound a bit old-fashioned to some, but it involves reasserting the importance of some reportorial values that are under threat. “The fact that ideology-led nonfiction storytelling is happening everywhere feels worrying, because a society that stops caring about facts is a society where anything can happen. I think the way out of it is to treat people as complicated grey areas, rather than magnificent heroes or sickening villains. And to stick to the nuanced truth, rather than flattening it to make ideological points.”

He’s quick to add a qualification: “That doesn’t mean I’m against activist journalism – it’s obviously done a lot of good. But the old rules of journalism – evidence, fairness – still need to apply.”

I don't think that on trans issues, the Telegraph demonstrates any of the reportorial values of evidence, fairness and fact checking that we require of a "reliable source". For us editors dealing with a complex multi-faceted report like the Cass Review, we need sources that "stick to the nuanced truth".

More generally, I think Wikipedia has a problem when newspapers are used to determine WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. We get a bunch of dubious stories published by an extreme press (think, the WPATH eunuch story, or the cat litter story above, or the scare about breast binders being child abuse) while more neutral press simply don't report these nonsense stories at all. We can't weigh shit on one side of the scale and thin air on the other side of the scale and claim we're being neutral. If anyone has ideas for a solution, let me know, but I think there's a danger Wikipedia ends up pushing misinformation and being non-neutral because we haven't figured out how to balance this kind of problem journalism. -- Colin°^Talk 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad we're actually discussing this properly instead of the thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it always has been". As has been pointed out, the Telegraph has had a reputation for bias so strong as to call into question its reliability for, well, half a century. Given the issue has now been a matter of actual academic analysis, I'd go so far as to put the majority of British traditional broadsheet media as "additional considerations apply" when it comes to GENSEX — that's what that category is there for, after all – but as far as the Telegraph goes, it's plainly unreliable in this topic area. Sceptre (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think the threshold for a note of deprication for the telegraph as a reliable source on trans issues has been more than exceeded, and this discussion shows a lack of respect for the social sciences. Transgender care is largely a settled science, especially for adults. If the telegraph was doing this for vaccinations, we'd swiftly deprecate it. I would support a motion to deprecate. However - I would note that the telegraph is generally reliable on all other coverage. Carlp941 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reading through the examples and sources in this discussion, I come to the conclusion that the source is not reliable for the topic area. At the very least, it's biased to the point that its coverage would be undue in most instances, i.e. it covers incidents and minor controversies that other reputable publications do not. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• The evidence presented is convicing - The Telegraph is uneliable on trans issues, appears to have a lack of editorial oversight, either through negligence or deliberately, and presents fringe voices as authorative. I support marking The Telegraph as unreliable regarding trans topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• From what I've seen I would support "no consensus on reliability" or "extra considerations apply" or something like that for the Telegraph's coverage of this topic area. I think some of their reporting on this topic is already not reliable according to WP:MEDRS. Excluding that, their reporting on this topic area seems questionable but maybe sometimes usable. --Tristario (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In order for you to see that we would require a properly formatted RfC, which this isn't. You can't vote "no consensus", it is a summary of users' consensus. The last time this happened, there was a clear consensus for "Reliable".Boynamedsue (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

this is WP:RFCBEFORE, so it makes sense to discuss what a desired or expected outcome would be. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a contentious topic that requires the best quality sources, and its most technical aspects should be covered by WP:MEDRS. While I think that the Telegraph is on the whole a generally reliable source (stronger on international issues, weaker on UK politics), I think we would lose absolutely nothing by avoiding ever using it as a source on trans-related issues, or indeed on gender and sexuality issues more broadly, per the evidence presented here by Loki and the arguments of Hydrangeans and others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think this evidence is strong enough to justify downgrading The Telegraph on trans topics. Colin also makes a great point about WP:WEIGHT, though I don't really see any realistic solution to that, beyond exercising our editorial judgment and arguing things out on talk pages. DFlhb (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd agree. Hell, they're currently going on a bender over David Campanale trying to define his homophobia as Christian values, and then putting out desperate warnings about how "Christians are now the most despised minority in Britain". They're downright tabloid in their coverage of LGBT issues. This is a clear case of "reliable on most subjects, not on certain specific ones", though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• It seems odd anyone serious would consult a newspaper on "trans issues", at all. Surely, there is a body of academic literature on "trans issues", even the politics around it, per WP:CONTEXT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is BIAS, not RS. While some publications may print fake stories to promoted their bias, the more typical way is in the choice of stories or which facts and opinions to report. Note also that headlines and opinion pieces cannot be used as rs. And when a source attributes a claim made, it is not making the claim itself, nor should Wikipedia articles.

Furthermore, news organizations are reliable sources for news only and not for analysis of news or social sciences. By its nature, news reporting will contain inaccuracies.

The way to deal with BIAS is to ensure that the facts and opinions presented in articles are done so in proportion to rs. A story that only appears in the Telegraph would therefore lack weight for inclusion in any major article.

TFD (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have no particular love for the bias of The Telegraph, but I would like to see, as a counterbalance, a list of factually accurate and significant stories on this subject that are principally sourced to The Telegraph.

That is: what would we lose? I'm fine with saying use with care, especially with spin and phrasing, and favour better sources wherever possible, but nowhere near "generally unreliable".

I take issue with this description of the catgender fiasco:

What appears to have happened is that a student compared another student identifying as trans to identifying as a cat to score a rhetorical point.

The story is that audio emerged of a student being called despicable by a teacher in the classroom for saying it was ridiculous to say someone could identify as a cat and that you can't actually change sex.

The Telegraph misreported it, consistently, as about an actual student identifying as a cat, and the "debunkings" focused on the fact that no-one actually identified as a cat, and claims and counterclaims and ridiculous school inspections escalated from there. I think a plague on everyone's house on this particular story, which reflects badly on all the supplied sources, none of whom gave a decent account. Void if removed (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Void if removed the Telegraph reported the cat story as though it were factual news, where the whole truth was unimportant (or tossed out the window along the lines of it being too good a story for its readers). What "debunking" occurred, didn't AFAIK feature as news reporting. There may well be opinion columns about how awful the Telegraph or how stupid the people who believed the cat story were, and various blogs and podcasts, and maybe some of them got aspects wrong or misled in some way. But the important thing is that the kind of article we rely on as a source just avoided the cat story for the steaming turd it was.

More generally, it appears the Telegraph has a problem with "fact-checking and accuracy" for any topic in which its journalists are campaigning with zealotry. Another example is cycling. See 52mph in a 20 zone a claim featuring in bold red on their front page and continued in the article here. The subheading "Lycra louts are creating death traps all over Britain". The reality (source), which the Telegraph won't tell you, is a pedestrian is killed on average every single day by a vehicle. So many that it isn't even news. But a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is so rare, it is news for days. Spot any comparison with trans women and violent men and how they are reported by some press? That sub-heading is screaming out to me "Wikipedia, treat this newspaper for the tabloid trash it is". Many pointed out that 52mph is faster than Olympic athletes achieve in a velodrome. The correction at the bottom of the amended article states that they took the data, which is user-generated by Strata wearers, on trust. The point is that nobody on the Telegraph fact checked the story before publishing and sticking it on the banner of their front page. They only amended it because of a loud campaign ridiculing them. Nobody on the Telegraph is interested in the bigger cause of road deaths, which their readers are told is caused by lycra louts on cycles. I think that's a serious problem for Wikipedia to take the paper seriously on anything remotely controversial.

You ask "what would we lose". I don't suspect an awful lot. If something is genuinely important, it tends to be covered elsewhere. It's the weight it offers some editors, who then insist that reliable sources are covering it so it must be included. I'm sure there are lots of "factually accurate and significant stories" that appear solely in the Daily Mail or the Sun or the Daily Mirror. There's enough news in the world that journalists don't have to invent or mislead with everything they write. -- Colin°^Talk 13:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, my preference is for basically any other source - I just think that "generally unreliable" is too strong, and precludes too many uses. I would go for "additional considerations apply", and advise caution on gender issues if the Telegraph is the only source covering it, but to be honest, I think a general rule on this topic - which so often is riven with social media drama and catgender nonsense - is if it doesn't have two sources, it probably isn't due.

As for what we lose, IIRC The Telegraph broke the story that GIDS suppressed negative evidence, which was part of the chain of events that ultimately led to The Cass Review. Just a quick look at old pages and back in 2021 they were the sole citation on the GIDS page that there had been resignations over the standards of care.

I think to come to a conclusion of "generally unreliable" means looking at a broader sampling of their coverage and not just cherry-picking all the worst ones. They throw a ton at the wall - what's the ratio of reliable to unreliable?

And even then, going through all the examples on the user page at the top, I just find most are entirely arguable. Saying people with Klinefelters or Jacobs syndrome are still male is just true, I don't see the objection. Getting quotes from activist groups and charities the author doesn't like does not make them unreliable. This article is described as suspicious - but why? Hannah Barnes covered this in the New Statesman, and the letter is here. There's no factual inaccuracy here, nothing that would lead me to say this is unreliable as regards the facts.

I think that the objection seems to often be that they are covering it at all plus their general culture war framing, and maybe there's a point sometimes (ie, they trumpet culture war cat puffery for weeks), but not always (they provided coverage of clinical whistleblowers when the Guardian did not).

And frankly, I have to say I'm not aware of any GENSEX article which is massively skewed by an overrepresentation of singly-sourced Telegraph coverage, so what problem is this seeking to solve? Void if removed (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Expanding on my "what do we lose" thoughts with recent examples from the last week.

This recent article covers Wes Streeting's change of heart over calling women bigots for raising questions over the conflict between sex and gender. The only other place to cover this right now is The Times - both of these sources are disputed as to being "generally unreliable" on trans issues, though only the Telegraph is at issue right now. So - is this story a "trans issue"? Is anything about it unreliable? We would not be able to not use this on BLPs if these sources were deemed unreliable, and this was deemed a "trans issue" (and invariably, all issues of sex and gender are deemed "trans issues").

Then there is this article on health consequences for trans men. It is based on a small sample survey, so not the strongest evidence, but the paper does indeed exist, nothing about this report seems to be beyond the realms of popular reporting of such papers - the issue is that since this paper can be used to tell a seemingly negative story, the Telegraph are the ones who report on it. Whereas if a similar quality survey-based study told a positive story, no doubt an outlet like Pink News would report it in a heartbeat. There is bias in what is reported and the way it is reported, but I don't see anything blatantly unreliable here from a quick read of the article and the study itself.

And then there is this, which I think exemplifies the hyperbole that people are complaining about. Seriously, "wokeminster"? That's just embarrassing. But then in the text it says this is a nickname coined by "its own chief executive". Maybe the CEO should be embarrassed. I don't know.

I'm still on the "additional considerations apply" end of things. There's bias both in hyperbolic language and selection of story and angle of coverage - but that's as far as I'd take it in the majority of cases. Prefer other sources where possible, don't be beholden to the language used by the Telegraph, and if only the Telegraph reports it, consider whether it is WP:DUE, but not an absolute rule against. Void if removed (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No disrespect to Streeting, but he's a shadow minister, so currently I don't see significant impact of his personal views mattering much other than his own bio page perhaps. If he were an actual government minister, then more sources might cover it. Wrt the health story: we don't consider any newspapers reliable for that, so it wouldn't figure in Wikipedia as a source regardless of this discussion. I wish there was a separate way to judge WP:DUE than whether the source is reliable or not. -- Colin°^Talk 10:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the last RfC, the Times and the Telegraph are both reliable for trans issues. If, as you say, There's bias both in hyperbolic language and selection of story and angle of coverage - but that's as far as I'd take it in the majority of cases, that generally means the source is reliable given that the bias is within the range of acceptability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Telegraph does seem to have a very strong bias on a number of things which has stepped over into propaganda territory, it is getting more like Fox news. I think it should have no consensus on general reliability - that people should be somewhat cautious using it. I'd only make it yellow at RSP because I think we need to keep a decent spread of opinions about, but we definitely need to at least attribute it for a number of things rather than just treat it as reporting reliably. NadVolum (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this isn't an RfC. The last discussion on The Telegraph for transgender issues was a 4-option RfC, which got quite a bit of feedback from people resulting in The Telegraph being declared "generally reliable". [122] Given that you clearly intend to overturn existing consensus, I'm wondering why you declined to use RfCs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

In the interests of ensuring we get a broader perspective; I have begun notifying everyone that commented at the previous discussion (the aforementioned RfC) and have not yet commented here. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I mean, if you want to do that you can just ping them here. Please don't message people on talk pages directly because the more private a notification is, the more it looks like WP:CANVASSING. Loki (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: I'll post a list of users I have notified here after I'm done. I don't believe leaving people talk page messages using Template:RfC notice is canvassing, otherwise it would not exist. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess But this isn't an RFC, though. It's WP:RFCBEFORE. Loki (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: I apologize, I'm using Template:RSN-notice and made a typo. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: I have notified the users I felt were appropriate to notify. Specifically, I tried to notify everyone that commented at The Telegraph RfC I mentioned, minus editors that already commented here, were topic banned from GENSEX, indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, or indicated that they did not wish to receive messages by redirecting their talk page to their user page. Since the list is long, I put it here: [123] Some people I accidentally notified despite their comments here.

Let me know if I missed anyone or you can leave the same message yourself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That previous RFC had no WP:RFCBEFORE, which is against the usual guidelines on this. This is the WP:RFCBEFORE for a future RFC. It's my contention that the main reason that RFC had that result is because it was sprung on this noticeboard with no warning and no context. Loki (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: When you open the RFC remember not to notify partisan Wikiprojects, to avoid CANVASS issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I intend to ping everyone in this thread and notify all relevant Wikiprojects. I reject the idea that any Wikiprojects are partisan. Loki (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact; evidence shows that some Wikiprojects are non-representative of the broader community on some topics, such as Wikiproject LGBT on this topic, and thus per two ArbCom rulings, one establishing that notifications to forums mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience are considered canvassing, and the other establishing that "biased " or "partisan" means non-representative of the broader community, they cannot be notified without violating CANVASS - and that is particularily problematic in this topic area as it is a contentious topic.

This is a high profile discussion, appropriate to list at WP:CENT, that will get significant participation - there is no benefit to notifying these partisan projects, and it will only result in drama and concerns that the result does not reflect the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the two Arbcom rulings you cited said that informing the relevant Wikiproject on a topic is canvassing.

For those that were not aware, this was also recently discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes and multiple experienced users and admins have refuted the claim there as well, so there is no need to rehash it here again. Raladic (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

They say that informing non-representative forums is canvassing - they don't add an exception saying "unless they are organized as a Wikiproject". As for the previous discussion, four editors including yourself and Loki, and no admins, disagreed - and I note that all are members of the relevant Wikiproject.

I won't go too deeply into the discussion here - I just wanted to make sure editors were aware that such notifications would be problematic and a policy violation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it is your claim that Wikiproject LGBT is partisan, but as was already pointed out at the MfD, both people supporting and opposing LGBT issues are subscribed to the wikiproject, with the specific purpose of being informed of relevant LGBT related articles and discussions. Also there were many more than 4 users that disagreed with your claim (just to quickly refute the 4 - myself, YFNS, Loki, Nat Gertler, Bilorv, Girth Summit, AusLondoner, Joe Roe, Trystan, OwenBlacker,..), and it did include admins such as @Girth Summit and Joe Roe so please do not distort the facts. Raladic (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As per the ArbCom cases I quoted, a forum is partisan if it is not representative. My evidence shows it is not representative - it doesn't need to have zero diversity of opinion for that to be true.

Regarding the evidence, only four editors opposed it. I'm aware a previous accusation of canvassing was made without evidence that may have garnered additional responses, but rejection of an accusation without evidence cannot be inferred to mean rejection of an accusation with evidence.

I'm going to step back now; I've said my piece and there is no benefit to continuing unless such notifications are sent. If you want to discuss further you are welcome to come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved here, but this caught my eye.

Let me get this straight...

1) there is a proposal to, sometime soon, create an RFC about The Telegraph and trans issues.

2) Some editors are suggesting that they intend to post notifications on a variety of Wikiprojects of their choosing.

3) Upon being warned to avoid CANVASS issues, the claim has been made that Wikiproject LGBT is not likely to be partisan on the question of The Telegraph and trans issues, so notifying them would not be a CANVASS violation.

That sounds absurd on its face. Of course the members of Wikiproject LGBT are likely to be biased on the topic at hand. To say "some members oppose LGBT issues", and thereby imply that notifying that Wikproject is unlikely to inject bias into the RFC, is like planning an RFC about a hot-button issue in American politics and notifying Wikiproject Conservatism. There might conceivably be some members there that "oppose conservatism", but notifying that Wikiproject would still be regarded as blatant canvassing - notifying Wikiproject LGBT would be no less blatant.

Simple solution - don't canvass others before an RFC. People who are following the matter are likely to notice the RFC, and there is an RFC noticeboard that will attract others. That will suffice, no need to ping anybody else. At worst, that looks like a blatant CANVASS violation and a POV push. At best, it introduces a potential for bias that would not otherwise have existed, and will cast a shadow over the RFC. That's all I'll say here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And this sort of nonsense is why I don't bother to get involved in most discussions like this. All I will say in short is, you're completely wrong, Philomathes. If there was a politics related RfC, notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics would be completely appropriate. You are correct that notifying Wikiproject Conservatism would be biased on a general politics topic, but that has nothing to do with this. For an LGBT topic, notifying the related Wikiproject is completely in line with policy and is not in any way canvassing. Silverseren^C 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You've already made this argument elsewhere and it went nowhere. WP:APPNOTE explicitly allows notifying Wikiprojects, for one, so your argument is dead in the water even if everything else you said was true.

But I also disagree that "evidence shows" any such thing, for many reasons:

1) Wikiprojects are public spaces. The intended audience of any Wikiproject is anyone interested in the topic area, not people with a particular opinion on any given topic area. You can watch Wikiprojects that you don't like, and many people do.

2) Even if you could establish the audience of a Wikiproject did in fact share a particular opinion, it wouldn't be a bias for the purposes of WP:CANVASS. An RFC about creationism vs evolution can notify WP:BIOLOGY even though almost all biologists think creationism is silly. Wikiprojects exist to improve the encyclopedia, and a Wikiproject that was WP:ACTIVIST in the way you're implying would be WP:NOTHERE and get deleted.

3) Your previous argument was that there was a statistical difference in the way Wikiproject members voted versus non-Wikiproject members. But there's an obvious statistical problem with saying non-Wikiproject members who voted on an RFC in a particular topic area are representative of Wikipedia as a whole. Whatever the eventual consensus was is representative of the opinions of Wikipedians in that topic area. If it's not the same as the majority opinion of non project members, that indicates that it's actually people who edit in the topic area but aren't members of the relevant project who are "partisan". (But it's equally silly to say it's WP:CANVASSING to notify them.)

4) Your statistical argument has another major flaw: if we applied it to ordinary American politics it would imply that since black people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, every black person should be considered biased with regards to American politics. But that's ridiculous (and in a Wikipedia context a violation of WP:HID).

Furthermore, your argument combining two ArbCom rulings is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH, and I mean that not just to state a policy but to point out that it's a combination of unrelated facts to imply a fact not in evidence. That case was about notifications to an outside biased forum, and neither principle you linked even contemplates notifications on Wikipedia itself being canvassing. Loki (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I just attempted to hat this discussion but was reverted.[124] notifying WT:LGBT of LGBT-related discussions/RFCs/etc is canvassing is silly. That was consensus in two discussions this month, the latter explicitly about "is notifying WT:LGBT canvassing". This has been consensus for over a decade. This is not the place for arguments to the contrary and such arguments border on tendentious. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• In terms of my actual opinions on this matter, the first issue I have with Loki's evidence is what BilledMammal said. The Telegraph did not say that a student identified as a cat, they pointed out that a student was censored for saying students shouldn't be allowed to. Even assuming that the Telegraph did say a student identified as a cat, though, that claim is very different than students identifying as cats are accommodated with litter boxes. The second is a well-known hoax, the first is very plausible given the extent of the furry and otherkin community. The Telegraph certainly never spread the second, so using that to criticize the Telegraph is a textbook strawman fallacy.

The other claim that Loki makes is that The Telegraph quoting Thoughtful Therapists is wrong. First of all, it is standard journalistic practice to get quotes from advocacy groups on both sides of an issue. They didn't use it for facts, they didn't publish an op-ed by the group, they used certain quotes from the group to explain why some people would oppose laws on transgender identity. This is an impossible burden for any publication to meet. The Guardian and The Observer regularly quoted Osama bin Laden to provide his perspective on America. Despite Al-Qaeda being generally considered as an extremist terrorist group, newspapers quoted bin Laden because his perspective on events such as the Iraq War or 9/11 was valuable to readers and they wanted to present different sides to an issue. If we designated newspapers as unreliable for quoting WP:FRINGE groups, we would have to designate practically every publication as such for providing a platform to groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda which are more fringe than Thoughtful Therapists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist opined that using the Flat Earth Society as a source for astrophysics would be wrong, but The Guardian has quoted flat earthers on numerous occasions when writing news stories on the movement. [125] [126] [127]

TACTT being described as an activist group is accurate when TACTT describes itself as an activist group on their website, saying TACTT is an activist group, rather than a learning space. [128] Loki has had three weeks to respond to Barnards.tar.gz pointing this out and nobody else has stepped in to show why that isn't accurate, so I'll assume the point is conceded.

To summarize, the main points of the creator of this RfC is that the Telegraph is unreliable because it quotes WP:FRINGE groups and said a school let students identify as cats. My response is that banning the quoting of WP:FRINGE groups is a standard no other journalistic organization is held to and the Telegraph never said in its own voice that students identified as cats. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you're trying to claim that terrorist groups fall under WP:FRINGE makes me immediately dismiss your opinion as uninformed on even what Wikipedia policy is. From our very page on the subject, FRINGE has to do with pseudoscience and, to an extent, alternative history claims. It does not have to do with "is the opinion of a terrorist group on a subject".

Should I even bother addressing your purposeful strawmanning of what Loki and others said in relation to newspapers not only platforming FRINGE groups, but purposefully not defining them as fringe proponents? That's the problem and where the misinformation comes from. Quoting from pseudoscientists like flat earthers is fine, so long as you are explaining them as being flat earthers. If a source tried to claim a flat earther was an expert on tectonic plates or geology when they weren't, that's called misinformation. And is exactly the sort of thing we downgrade sources for here. Silverseren^C 04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren your comments, like "Should I even bother addressing your purposeful strawmanning", "The fact that you're trying to claim that terrorist groups fall under WP:FRINGE makes me immediately dismiss your opinion as uninformed on even what Wikipedia policy is.", and your recent edit summary, "Oh, this tired old nonsense argument again" are WP:UNCIVIL, and don't help the conversation. These stand in stark contrast to @Chess's content-oriented comment. I'll save my opinions on this matter for the RFC. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist extremist groups frequently promote alternative history takes and bizarre pseudoscientific beliefs on religion. See Letter to the American People, published by The Observer, where bin Laden accuses the Jews of controlling America to make Israel. I thought that was implicit, but you can read up on ISIL's beliefs on measuring rainfall (they think it's wrong) as well. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A few responses:

The Telegraph did not say that a student identified as a cat

They very much did, and in fact said that students at other schools identified as several other animals besides.

Even assuming that the Telegraph did say a student identified as a cat, though, that claim is very different than students identifying as cats are accommodated with litter boxes. The second is a well-known hoax, the first is very plausible given the extent of the furry and otherkin community

This claim seems obtuse, and very ignorant of what the hoax actually entails (and why it's used). The idea that it's plausible for a student to identify as an animal is already odd because "the extent of the furry and otherkin community" is actually tiny, and especially tiny among kids. But even granting that, the core of the hoax is the alleged endorsement of adults. You can even read more about this on the hoax page, which includes plenty of examples which do not include literal litter boxes.

First of all, it is standard journalistic practice to get quotes from advocacy groups on both sides of an issue.

I agree, and had this been done in that context and with those labels I wouldn't have an issue. James Esses is clearly an anti-trans activist and if he was interviewed as a representative for his group there'd be no problem. But unfortunately, Thoughtful Therapists is consistently referred to not as an activist group but as a professional group, when its spokesperson is not even a relevant professional. And it's clearly an issue of bias because similar groups with opposing biases are instead clearly referred to as activist groups with no acknowledgement that they are actually composed of professionals.

To summarize, the main points of the creator of this RfC is that the Telegraph is unreliable because it quotes WP:FRINGE groups [...]

No it's not. I never said Thoughtful Therapists as a whole was fringe. I said that James Esses in particular is not a therapist, has never been a therapist, but was repeatedly misrepresented as a therapist even though the Telegraph knows full well that he is not. Loki (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

They very much did

Can you quote where they did that? As far as I can tell, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat". This is true; there is a tape recording of students being reprimanded for this, which is a different claim from the one you claim the Telegraph made, that a student did self-identify as a cat.

and in fact said that students at other schools identified as several other animals besides

They did make this statement - but can you prove it was false, or are you merely assuming it is? BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I personally know two children in the UK school system who identified as animals for brief periods. There is nothing whatsoever dubious about this claim. Of course, if the Telegraph has somewhere claimed children were provided with litter boxes (or in this case, the wolf equivalent), I would be very sceptical.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are good questions. Andreas JN466 19:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you quote where they did that? As far as I can tell, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat".

You have literally quoted them say that. They say "a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". If I say that Keir Starmer opposes Rishi Sunak's decision to defund the NHS, and Sunak has not in fact decided to defund the NHS, have I lied or not?

They did make this statement - but can you prove it was false, or are you merely assuming it is?

It's not on me to prove it's false, it's on them to give literally any evidence for what is clearly in general a well-known hoax. Loki (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A closer example would be Keir Starmer condemns Rishi Sunak for his opposition to the decision to fund the NHS.

And even if there hasn’t been a decision to fund the NHS it wouldn’t make you a liar, as with that statement you’re not taking a position about the accuracy of that claim.

It's not on me to prove it's false

If you want to declare a source unreliable you actually need to prove it is unreliable. It also isn’t a hoax; see Otherkin. BilledMammal (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

From this article

"A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat."

There is no "a hypothetical classmate", or "classmate could identify as a cat". Even if we do say it isn't directly saying "that her classmate identifies as a cat." It is highly misleading and unreliable anyway because we as editors couldn't tell what actually happened. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

On a separate note they have on multiple occasions published op eds by James Esses

here is his page of 4 op-eds he has written for the telegraph. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist opined that using the Flat Earth Society as a source for astrophysics would be wrong, but The Guardian has quoted flat earthers on numerous occasions when writing news stories on the movement. - you would have a point if that underlined section was replaced with when writing news stories on astrophysics. The Telegraph does not quote anti-trans quacks when writing on the movement, it quotes them when writing about trans issues in general, and does not mention they are quacks. Imagine if the Guardian quoted the Flat Earth Society on literally every piece of news about astrophysics... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Telegraph is indistinguishable from a tabloid now. I see it most days. It was always partisan, but in recent years it has dropped any pretence of balance, and there's serious debate over whether it might be the first notionally serious paper to switch from the Tories to racist rabble-rousers Reform UK. It is unreliable on climate change (Nigel Lawson wrote regularly for them until his death), any culture war issue (Toby Young is a semi-regular columnist), Europe (it is exceeded in its fervour for Brexit only by the Brexiter Beobachter), Russia/Ukraine, Prince Harry, the Royals in general - the only part of it that's any good is the crossword. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• That goes beyond what a reasonable person would perceive as bias into something which does actually impact its reliability... I'm disappointed to see that The Telegraph rather than cleaning up this questionable blind spot of theirs has gotten worse. The Telegraph seems to have looked at the Daily Mail and said "Oh that looks fun, reputation and tradition be damned lets do that!" I often see The Telegraph as roughly comparable to the Wall Street Journal... The big thing you see with The Telegraph which you aren't seeing with the WSJ is the messaging and tone from the editorial side making its way into the news side (which is a big reliability issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm against any blanket deprecation of sources. Reliability is context specific, and this noticeboard generally does an excellent job at recognizing and handling this in specific cases, and which the notice at the top when editing this page reminds us of. Blanket deprecation usually happens when the source is biased in the "wrong" direction, and done by collecting and ginning up / spinning up any minuses that can be found, which can be done to nearly any source. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• What are you defining as "blanket deprecation", North8000? Because this discussion is about considering The Telegraph as unreliable on transgender related topics. It is not about deprecating the newspaper's reliability as a whole. Silverseren^C 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• By blanket deprecation, I mean any deprecation that is broader than deciding whether or not it is suitable to support a particular piece of text. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• There's no suggestion of deprecation in the OP. At worst we're splitting it in half on RSP and adding a separate entry declaring it "unreliable for trans topics" or somesuch. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: The point of this non-RfC that seeks to overturn an RfC is that The Telegraph presents a point of view that is unacceptable to the people editing in the gender and sexuality topic area. Let's analyze the context in which this occurred, the Cass Review. On April 25th, Colin removed a citation to The Telegraph and replaced it with Pink News. [129] Colin also removed a citation to The Telegraph which broke the story that the Cass Review would be released in the future, with a BBC article that announced the Cass Review after it came out. [130] These are hardly cases where The Telegraph was shown to have been spreading false information.

The user Void if removed removed The Telegraph as well, because it spotlighted that one of the key recommendations of the report was to prevent children from transitioning genders. [131] They feel that the article should only be cited to the review itself. Reading the review itself, one of its overview of recommendations is that The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. [132]

At the time of my comment, the article does not include this information. [133] Instead, it says that:

The report made 32 recommendations covering areas including assessment of children and young people, diagnosis, psychological interventions, social transition, improving the evidence base underpinning medical and non-medical interventions, puberty blockers and hormone treatments, service improvements, education and training, clinical pathways, detransition and private provision.

Recommendations included:

• The development of a regional network of centres, and continuity of care for 17-25-year-olds.
• The use of standard psychological and pharmacological treatments for co-occurring conditions like anxiety and depression.
• Individualised care plans, including mental health assessments and screening for neurodivergent conditions such as autism.
• A designated medical practitioner who takes personal responsibility for the safety of children receiving care.
• That children and families considering social transition should be seen as soon as possible by a relevant clinical professional.

This is what I would call "burying the lede", as this recommendation was moved to become a single sentence in the "findings" section, specifically Cass Review#Hormone therapy. Most newspapers spotlight the recommendation that the Cass Review recommended against puberty blockers for minors.[134][135] [136] What is happening is that editors on the Cass Review article have used WP:MEDRS to argue that only the Cass Review itself is reliable for information on what is contained within it. By doing this, the article can now selectively emphasizes the aspects of the Cass Review that do not conflict with the view that minors should receive puberty blockers and gender-affirming care. One reading of the recommendations section is that the Cass Review implies that there should be more gender-affirming care for minors, given the recommendation of "the development of a regional network of centers" and "a designated medical practitioner who takes personal responsibility for the safety of children receiving care."

The problem with using only a scientific study to describe the contents of the study is that it is a WP:PRIMARY source with respect to its own contents. By removing The Telegraph and secondary sources which describe the relative importance of recommendations, the article can now be made to avoid mentioning facts that are inconvenient for the point of view that editors feel the article should have.

Other notable facts left out from the summary of the Cass Review [137] include a recommendation that services be provided for detransitioning, that clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity, and for the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. What's fascinating is that editors have brought this up and have been shot down on the talk page, with Colin saying that I still stand by my comment that I don't trust the Telegraph to report trans health issues accurately. [138] [139]

In practice, it appears that editors are deeming the Telegraph unreliable and substituting their own viewpoints on what is important about the Cass Review. This is not something that we should be encouraging. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Good, rigorous comment @Chess. I agree with your bolded conclusions. Everyone is free to reach their own conclusions about "gender-affirming care" for children, but they are not free to manipulate Wikipedia to give undue weight to any particular view about the topic.

I've only recently taken an interest in this discussion, so I may very well have missed something, but I have yet to see any credible that shows a pattern of the Telegraph publishing outright falsehoods about trans issues - they appear, instead, to be publishing views that many editors find offensive (some of them minority-held views, sure).

Even if a factually dubious claim or two may have snuck through their editorial process, that would still not be, per se, a compelling case for changing their reliability assessment. We give RS a lot of leeway to screw things up. For example, the NYT "accidentally" pushed the WMD hoax, which led to over a million needless deaths, but that has not affected their reliability (it's barely even mentioned in the NYT article).

I'm perplexed why this has become an issue. I'm hoping some very compelling evidence demonstrating a pattern of egregious unreliability is presented soon, or otherwise this whole conversation will start to appear WP:TENDENTIOUS. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I could count the amount of times this breaks assume good faith. @Chess if you want to hash out WP:Medrs on the Cass review talk page feel free, but don't assume that people are removing sources for any particular reason and to hide a viewpoint. there is a reason why medrs exists and it basically comes down to, newspapers are bad at displaying science. LunaHasArrived (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am specifically trying to assume good faith by blaming this on a process failure and not on a conspiracy by specific people.

According to WP:MEDPOP, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. This is precisely the sort of information that sources like the Telegraph provide. They discuss social and current affairs impacts of reports such as the Cass Review, e.g. that children should generally not be prescribed puberty blockers, which is a highly charged issue outside of the medical community and many consider to be an important conclusion of the study. Removing the Telegraph has had the effect of minimizing the importance of this issue. This is true whether or not the personal intentions of the people involved was to hide this information. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I would suggest the idea that I've had any part in downplaying Cass' findings against the lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of puberty blockers is absurd to the point of offensiveness, and if it has ended up not being stated prominently enough for you in the article that is largely because of the tidal wave of partisan garbage and mis/disinformation in popular press sources that swamped the release of the review, sifting through in some kind of consensus fashion is a sisyphean task. If you see talk, my original suggestion was that the format of the page should highlight the things highlighted in the Review's executive summary:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

If you want to join in editing that page, please, be my guest. I don't have infinite free time. This has nothing to do with the Telegraph discussion IMO. Void if removed (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess - If I had to, at gunpoint, ascribe to Void If Removed a viewpoint, it would be that minors should not receive puberty blockers and gender-affirming care. For Colin, I'd guess the same or similar. If anything, I'd argue both push that POV excessively, so I did a double take reading you accuse them of pushing the opposite... It's like if somebody accused me of going out of my way to defend Genspect and NARTH.

You are citing one of the most amazing cases of bi-partisan agreement in GENSEX I've seen, "this newspaper is misrepresenting a scientific document on trans healthcare" (from those who agreed with, and disagreed with, the reports findings), and presenting it as indicative of trying to silence the POV that children should be prohibited from transition.

That edit of VIR's you cite[140], is them removing the Telegraph piece that is being used to cite "the Cass review recommends holding off on medical transition until 25" - which it absolutely does not (it recommends holding off until 18, 16 sometimes, which is fucked up in it's own right, but not holding off until 25)[141] This fuckup from the Telegraph was repeated by multiple sources, and the Cass Review had to put out an item in it's FAQ explicitly specifying they didn't recommend that.[142]

TLDR: If a page has both trans and gender critical editors agreeing "the Telegraph fucked up reporting this document, it never said what they said it did", and the authors of the document agree, and the document itself clearly never said what the Telegraph said it did, there is not a pro-trans cabal the Telegraph just really fucked up

Void, I know editing can be tense between us, but I hope we can both smile at how off base this was. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph never said that people under 25 would be denied care. The article says that:

Under-25s should not be rushed into changing gender, but should receive “unhurried, holistic, therapeutic support”, Dr Cass concluded. She said “life-changing” decisions must be properly considered in adulthood, noting that brain maturation continues into the mid-20s.

The report found that “clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity”. Young adults aged 17 to 25 who want to change gender should be seen by “a follow-through service” rather than sent straight to an adult clinic, the report concludes.

Someone misrepresenting the nature of the article doesn't mean the Telegraph is wrong. Anywikiuser already explained that that the summation was likely inaccurate in the talk page discussion I linked from April. [143] I'm surprised to see your argument being that people I see as anti-trans rights and pro-trans rights agree the Telegraph lied therefore it must be true. I fail to see why editors' beliefs about what the article says is more reliable than what the article really says. It would be more helpful if you pointed out where in that article the Telegraph actually did lie since I have repeatedly linked that article for you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The later paragraph is at best incredibly misleading, it says a "17-25 year olds who wants to change gender should be seen by a 'follow-through service' rather than sent straight to an adult clinic."

this faq page ( The question saying "has the review recommended that no one should transition before the age of 25) Clarifies that this follow through service is only for people who got seen before the age of 17 and therefore a 17 year old could be "sent straight to the adult clinic" based on Cass's recommendations. LunaHasArrived (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This article?[144]

• Second sentence of the article The report by paediatric consultant Dr Hilary Cass has made 32 recommendations, including: [1] calling for the “unhurried” care of those under 25 who think they may be transgender; [2] an end to the prescribing of powerful hormone drugs to under-18s; [3] and early help for primary school children who want to socially transition

• 1) The piece later expands Under-25s should not be rushed into changing gender, but should receive “unhurried, holistic, therapeutic support”, Dr Cass concluded. She said “life-changing” decisions must be properly considered in adulthood, noting that brain maturation continues into the mid-20s. - AFAICT, "unhurried, holistic support" does not appear in the document. There is no discussion of "rushing under-25s into changing gender". The reports FAQ says The Review has not commented on the use of masculinising/feminising hormones on people over the age of 18. This is outside of the scope of the Review.[145]
• 2) However, Dr Cass has gone further and said children who think they are transgender should not be given any hormone drugs at all until at least 18. - the report's recommendation 8 actually says The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review would recommend extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.[146]
• 3) there is a section Young children should have therapy before they are allowed to socially transition. Cass actually said the family should: Parents are encouraged to seek clinical help and advice ... This should include discussion of the risks and benefits and the voice of the child should be heard. ... Young people and young adults have spoken positively about how social transition helped to reduce their gender dysphoria and feel more comfortable in themselves. ... The Review has therefore advised that it is important to try and ensure that those already actively involved in the young person’s welfare provide support in decision making and that plans are in place to ensure that the young person is protected from bullying and has a trusted source of support. [147] - ie parents should get advice on how to care for the child, and listen to the child.

TLDR: Within the first 2 sentences of that article, I counted 3 factual inaccuracies. 1) was explicitly not in scope of the review, 2) ascribes a more hardline position to Cass than she had and 3) it ignores all mentions of supporting social transition for youth and that it is families/parents, not the kids, who are brought for counseling. The Telegraph has tried very very hard to make it seem like the Cass Review said 3 things it did not.

What the article really says is fearmongering nonsense and cherrypicked quotes and not up to WP:MEDRS standards or even WP:MEDPOP standards, as editors of varying political opinions have already agreed (which was raised in relation to your comment that editors were substituting their own viewpoints) . Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I got as far as @Chess's claim that the Telegraph "spotlighted that one of the key recommendations of the report was to prevent children from transitioning genders" and decided it wasn't worth my while reading whatever other nonsense they wrote. That isn't a recommendation in the report, never mind a key recommendation in the report. If the Telegraph wrote that, then Chess has just made, themselves, a strong argument for not using that unreliable source. YFNS, my position on puberty blockers is that Wikipedia should document the most reliable evidence or lack of evidence on their efficacy, which I think various systematic reviews have demonstrated and Cass repeats, and simultaneously neutrally report what various international and national guidelines recommend wrt their use for trans healthcare. I don't appreciate your claim I've been pushing my position on it or that there are only "trans and gender critical editors" who are complaining about the Telegraph: my position is whatever the evidence says together with whatever experts recommend, which is also Wikipedia's position per WP:MEDRS. If WPATH published a better systematic review next month that demonstrated the opposite, I'd advocate articles should change.

The Telegraph systematically gets trans reporting wrong. It is failing basic journalistic standards of reporting news neutrally and keeping opinions for opinion columns. It misreads important nuanced documents like the Cass report, claiming it is some kind of victory for its anti-"gender ideology" and transphobic campaigns. That's deeply unhelpful for medical healthcare. It is fairly clear that on culture war topics the Telegraph has no editorial oversight requiring fact checking and accuracy, only that the article meets the Tory Party ideological campaigns. -- Colin°^Talk 07:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Colin, quick note, I did say your position is similar to VIR but not the same - you and I disagree on the evidence of their efficacy that the reviews present (we all agree they don't change GD, I just think their conclusion that "no change in GD could be proof the treatment works for preventing it worsening" should be given weight). I did not mean to put you in a GC camp, just note that accusing you and VIR of a POV neither of you hold was funny.

I was mostly commenting on the accusations against VIR, as he said I would suggest the idea that I've had any part in downplaying Cass' findings against the lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of puberty blockers is absurd to the point of offensiveness - I responded last night out of shock at the absurdity. I was attempting to defend you both from silly accusations, and apologize if I caused offense in my haste. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to fix this. The most egregious comment was "both push that POV excessively". We generally reserve "POV pushing" for a block request with plenty evidence, for editors who clearly came to WP pre-armed with a personal POV they want to push, regardless of what the best sources say. I think it is possible for reasonable good faith editors, with either strong ideological positions or none or little, to come to somewhat different conclusions from the vast array of sources we have. I have been defending Cass and the systematic reviews they commissioned from a MEDRS pov. I'd prefer to make my arguments and have them challenged on that basis, rather than be accused of being in one ideological camp or another from which I'm pushing some activist POV. -- Colin°^Talk 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

For 1), page 224 of the Cass Review says Taking account of all the above issues, a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. This will have the added benefit in the longer-term of also increasing the capacity of adult provision across the country as more gender services are established. In other words, younger people feel rushed to transition before the age of 17 because they'll lose access to the care that transgender minors receive.

For 2), there is a distinction between the words "should" and "must" that is best explained by RFC 2119. [148] This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. This is precisely what Cass says, children under 18 are recommended not to receive hormones. The article from the Telegraph later says She said the NHS should exert “extreme caution” in giving out cross-sex hormones to under-18s as the research carried out by her review concludes there is “a lack of high-quality research” on their effectiveness. She said their use should be incorporated into the puberty blocker trial, which means that the Telegraph understood that "should" in this context means there are exceptions.

For 3) page 165 says for the full quote of the recommendation: When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience. Again, Cass recommends that children should be seen by a clinical professional while the decision is being made, not after. "Should" =/= "must". It seems the Cass Review implies that this can be broader than therapy, but it's quite clear that it recommends against a child socially transitioning before a clinical professional can see them (even though that might not be possible in practice). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I would suggest that if we weren't treating the Cass Review as MEDRS then that page would be 99% garbage sourced to partisan ideologues who insist the Cass Review advocates conversion therapy and should be ignored because Hilary Cass spoke to "baddies". Void if removed (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Again, why is this not an RfC? As noted above, there has already been an RfC on this issue, which did not find a consensus to declare it unreliable. A free-form, easy to subjectively interpret discussion like this is not going to overturn that on RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE Is the rationale given LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying it will. Calm down. Loki (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion has, as usual, quickly devolved into a trainwreck and I don't think there's a point in me wasting my time bringing more arguments here. I'm just commenting so that I may be pinged when the eventual RFC opens, where I do intend to present my arguments. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• As long as what is being reported is factual, I don't care if the tone seems "biased" (which is a POV accusation made easily and too often by activists who want to control and suppress content they despise). The Telegraph is a decent, serious, reliable source, and as an editor I don't ever support throwing the baby out with the bath water. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm. As regards The Telegraph is a decent, serious, reliable source I would have agreed with this five or six years ago. Since then it has taken a (not, admittedly, complete) swerve towards printing Daily Mail-esque misinformation, which I suppose in unsurprising when you employ people like climate change denier James Delingpole, GB News presenter Camilla Tominey and the regularly post-truth unpleasantness that is Allison Pearson. I wouldn't trust it now. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Can [well-known] 4chan archives (i.e 4plebs) be used as a primary source?

Hi there, wondering if 4chan archives such as 4plebs.org can be used as primary sources in certain situations, such as citing a post related to an incident (ex. the votehillary.com incident) with another source (in this case, a government document linking to said post) backing it up? It may seem tight, but I think having a consensus on it could be valuable.

I'm requesting these auto-archiving services to have a consensus because the original archive page, containing archives to many, many, 4chan posts was excluded around 2015.

Thanks, LOLHWAT (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WHy would RS not cover something? Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just asking for consensus on these specific situatuons; that's all. LOLHWAT (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I would say a blanket no, as there is no way of judging how accurate such are, ar they wp:sps for example? Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

When there's a reference to a secondary source, I consider it good practice to also reference the primary source, and that's what I usually do. That is to say

According to the Scowmpka Argus-Picayune, Billy Bob made a post on his blog, www.BillyIsTehEpicSmexeh.com, confessing to being the Streetlamp Crapper of summer '89 and asking where he could go apologize. Mayor Haskins met with Billy Bob later that week, and they agreed that Billy would go around on Sundays and help change lightbulbs.

This is how I'd cite this: citation 1 would be the Argus-Picayune article, and citation 2 would be the post on BillyIsTehEpicSmexeh.com, which is obviously not a reliable source, but it's the actual post that this paragraph is talking about, so why not link people to it so they can go read it? It's WP:ABOUTSELF.

I think that if there's some relevant a link to foolz or archive.moe or fuuka or whatever would be justified if we have a RS saying "the thing was posted on 4chan in a thread saying blah blah blah". jp×g🗯️ 17:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well said. LOLHWAT (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

4plebs is used in a number of academic sources [149] [150] [151] [152], so seems to be a fine primary source in the limited cases where including one would be appropriate Tristario (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Strenuously disagree. WP:PRIMARY is clear that primary sources used in this manner must be "reliably published", which 4chan is not; using it in this manner would be WP:OR. Academic sources are permitted to perform OR; we are not, and can therefore only cover things posted on 4chan, at all, in circumstances where actually reliable sources have noted it. Cases where 4chan is cited as the sole source to establish that something was said on 4chan should be removed on sight. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting 4chan be used as a sole source, the kind of context I was thinking of was where it's been noted by a reliable source, as given in the example above. Tristario (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this usage. A 4chan post is definitionally a reliable source for the contents of the post, and 4plebs in my experience has been a reliable source for replicating the contents of 4chan. A "generally unreliable" source can have exceptions to its unreliability, and this is a fair one to make. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Dege31 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is lacking in context, to the point where we can't really answer it without knowing what that context is. If the claim is about a living person, then a self-published sourced and a court document likely aren't sufficient. If it's simply that the votehillary.com incident happened? Maybe, but like Slatersteven, I have to wonder why there aren't better reliable, secondary, independent sources?

I see that the editor has courtesy vanished, so I don't anticipate an answer to this—but adding my own $0.02 in case someone points to this thread later on. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, for several reasons. WP:PRIMARY does not exempt a source from WP:RS; as PRIMARY says, only primary sources that have been reputably published can be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, 4chan archives can't be used as a primary source to say eg. "X was posted on 4Chan"; that would be textbook unacceptable WP:OR. And none of the exceptions to RS in this case can apply; WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB require that there be no reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of the author, but 4chan doesn't provide any sort of verification (or, normally, accounts), so even if someone is claiming to be a particular person talking solely about themselves or a subject-matter expert, that wouldn't be enough. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty common to use a primary source to supplement information discussed in a secondary source, I disagree that that is "textbook OR". Just as it's not OR to grab someone's birthday from a primary source it's also not OR to grab e.g. a thread title (see example below) from a primary source which is in this case a faithful reproduction of a 4chan thread.

  And I don't understand what you mean regarding the "authenticity of the author" part here, everyone on 4chan is anonymous, we wouldn't be using those posts as sources for the belief of some specific author, we'd be using those posts as a source for the existence/content of the posts. I think the relevant question would be whether we believe those archives are faithful reproductions of the original threads, which given their use by academics and journalists seems likely. Endwise (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  So every instance of twitter being used as a source would be disallowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22twitter.com%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 good luck with that clean up... Traumnovelle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here is an example. Miles Routledge, who famously posted through the fall of Kabul, has a sentence in his article like this: Routledge said in an August 14 4chan post that "the intelligence agencies show that the capital may be taken over in 30 days; however not in a few days [...] Also if I get proven wrong and die, edit a laughing soundtrack over my posts. It'll be funny I think." This is currently cited to this Daily Dot article -- here I think it is obviously fine to link to an archive of the post. jp×g🗯️ 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, linking to an archive of a post in situations like that seems fair Tristario (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's another example, of an article which currently cites an archive of a 4chan post: Superpermutation#Lower bounds, or the Haruhi problem. It links to a warosu archive of a 4chan thread where a novel mathematical discovery was made. This warosu archive is actually linked to in a reliable secondary source (this article in The Verge). In this case the archive is just used to supply the title of the thread, and basically as a courtesy link for people who want to view the primary source. The secondary source verifies that the thread is authentic, so I think this is another case where it is fine. Endwise (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to have a link to a 4chan archive (archive.today) whitelisted for the article LLaMA and it was denied at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2024/01#archive.today of 4channel.org. Used for a similar purpose of illustrating an event on 4chan. I disagree with the decision there and would like to see this addressed firmly once and for all. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Stifle who made that decision. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said at the whitelisting discussion, 4chan is not a reliable source; it's about as unreliable as they get. DIYEditor said it was not to be used as a source, but as an external link, and declined to further engage when I asked which part of WP:EL permitted it.

I express no views on the wider present discussion. Stifle (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Suissa and Sullivan

Hi, RSN! Please help us resolve a content dispute.

• The disputed source is this one: Suissa, Judith and Sullivan, Alice: The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Education, in the Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2021.
• The disputed article is J. K. Rowling, a featured article.
• The source says at page 69: The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020).
• The claim I'd like to make is: Rowling received insults and threats. (The threats part is supported by a different source.)

I'm being asked not to use the source because it's variously said to be partisan, generally unreliable, or unsuitable for use in a BLP, leading to the discussion here (permalink). Your thoughts, please?—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The core of the dispute is that it is a WP:PROFRINGE source. The authors did not do anything even resembling due diligence regarding their research to the point where the press had to issue a post-publication correction for errors of fact. Beyond these straight-forward errors of fact the authors regularly make bold assertions, for example, We will argue that current conflicts around sex and gender are not about trans rights per se, which we fully support, and which are already protected under current UK legislation,1 but about the imposition of ontological claims underlying a particular ideological position. Often associated with the intellectual traditions of postmodernism and queer theory, this position entails denying the material reality and political salience of sex as a category, and rejecting the rights of women as a sex class (Jones and Mackenzie, 2020). Disallowing discussion on these points is a feature of and, as we will argue, fundamental to a prominent strand of activism associated with this position, which we will refer to here as the gender identity ideology and movement. Is dipping into fringe territory with the claims that:

1. There is a postmodernism and queer theory-derived ontological position that denies the material reality of sex as a category.
2. That said ontological position "rejects the rights of women"
3. That discussion of these points is disallowed

These are fringe positions. They're frankly farcical if you have even a passing familiarity with queer theory or the major ontological works of "postmodernism".

Suissa and Sullivan say, For gender identity campaigners, simply asserting that sex exists as a meaningful category, distinct from people’s self-declared ‘gender identity’, is deemed transphobic. Lobby groups such as Stonewall demand affirmation of the mantra ‘Trans Women Are Women’, with explicit and repeated calls for ‘No debate’. The statement ‘Trans Women Are Women’ could be assumed to be a polite fiction. Which is both deeply inaccurate, deliberately disingenuous with its interpretation of what "trans women are women" means.

This is not the factual claim the press later required a correction of: In practice, the kinds of statements that routinely lead to people (overwhelmingly women) being denounced as transphobes include: but Suissa and Sullivan provide no evidence that women are "overwhelmingly" the subjects of transphobia accusations.

Over and over Suissa and Sullivan make the claim, unsupported by evidence, that the ideology of Stonewall and another trans rights charity erases, eliminates or obviates sex as a protected category. This is a factually inaccurate statement and is, frankly, a WP:FRINGE view within politics, social sciences and philosophy regarding the relationship between sex and gender and how trans rights advocacy goes about protecting the rights of trans people.

For this reason it was suggested that this source should not be used when better sources for the same claim are readily available. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I also want to call out that the source only supports "insults" and not "threats" and other sources support "insults" - it is not required to support the statement it currently supports. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If the statement it's supporting is already widely supported by other better sources there seems to be no reason to include this one at all. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said in the other discussion, we should not be citing anything in a BLP to a bad source. (I think the source is bad for basically the same reasons that Simonm223 does: it appears to have a strong and very much non-mainstream POV.) We don't even need it to source the statement at issue, so I don't understand why people are fighting for it. Loki (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to believe that there aren't other sources supporting the statement, is there a particular reason to use this one? If a less controversial source can be used to support the same statement it could lead to less arguements in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested I can supply part of the reasoning, based on five pages of FAR discussions. Every time Rowling tweets, there is a storm of news coverage; RECENTISM and NOTNEWS are constant problems in that article, where many editors don't seem to understand summary style and that there is a sub-article at Political views of J. K. Rowling. Part of the FAR process was to weigh what might be enduring commentary (not engaging RECENTISM) according to that which was raised after-the-fact or in journal or academic or scholarly sources. That wasn't always possible, as consensus determined that some WP:RECENTISM had to be tolerated re items that had not yet had time to make it to academic publications, and we were constrained by a very poorly designed but recent and well attended RFC. But the intent was to mostly reflect items that were covered by academic or scholarly sources, even if we sometimes added on news sources to provide reader accessibility. The current draft is favoring more RECENTISM and has moved away from a broad summary of more enduring issues with less he-said, she-said, as found in the FA version ("Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors."). That JKR was insulted for her views didn't seem to be such a problematic statement. (Somewhere in this discussion I see that even got altered to "death threats", which was never in the article.) Hope this helps -- more concerned about how to get back to the collaborative environment that prevailed during four months and five talk pages of FAR discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of a silly thing to get into a big argument about; the source is being used as a reference for a fairly minor point, one which probably has lots of other possible sources that could be used, so it's not particularly necessary. Still, I'm worried that if the objections to the source go unchallenged, this will be used as precedent from now until the indefinite future to ensure the sources deemed reliable for gender-related articles are all from a monoculture of support for the position of trans activists, just the sort of thing Suissa and Sullivan wrote their paper to speak out against. So I have to object to declaring a source out of bounds because it holds a dissenting view. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, from what it seems it's less the entire viewpoint and the fact that the text is proven unreliable (a post publication statement had to be put out correcting various points), and that instead of getting into the nitty gritty about the viewpoint, one just simply uses a better source for this singular statement. If an argument about the viewpoint comes up it comes up later, but let's not waste everyone's time here and now and instead remove it and use the clearly more reliable sources. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lots going on here:

• First a point of order: a source is not necessarily disqualified because it advocates a fringe theory in it, if it has non-fringe material too. For example, The Emperor's New Mind contains a fringe theory about consciousness, but contains a great deal of other material besides and thus is a suitable source for supporting statements about that material. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• It's relatively easy to identify fringe theories in the physical sciences, where scientific consensus is widely discussed and results are widely believed to converge on an objective truth. It's far harder in academic philosophy, where ideas diverge and proliferate and different schools of thought emerge. This is not in any way to besmirch philosophy as non-rigorous. It is simply rare to find complete consensus on complex philosophical issues. Robust disagreement comes with the territory. Does that mean fringe theories can't exist in philosophy? No, there is pseudophilosophy and pseudo-scholarship, and people tweeting their personal incohera on a daily basis. That's what fringe looks like in this context. A highly cited paper in a respectable academic journal really doesn't come close.
• The given objections to this paper are weak. The cited statements seem to be based on a mixture of interpreting theorists like Judith Butler, and argumentation about the consequences of regarding sex as performative and socially constructed. Maybe you disagree. I'm sure many do. That doesn't make this paper fringe.
• Is the paper unreliable? Possibly because a correction was published? Well, the correction was to a minor point that didn't change the conclusion, and publishing corrections is usually a good signal that accuracy is taken seriously. Another signal of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS. I see 45 citations on Google Scholar. I haven't checked them all but at a glance they seem to be routine citations without comment. If the paper was as unreliable as claimed, we would surely expect it to either be ignored, or subject to scathing refutations and retraction.
• Is the paper a good source to support the phrase "insults and threats"? Certainly for "insults", and it's not far off "threats" either, given that it's not unreasonable to think that a woman might find extreme sexualized violent insults threatening.
• Since the paper is neither fringe nor unreliable, and supports the content, and none of the controversial elements of the source are imported into the article, removing it merely acts to cleanse Wikipedia of a disfavoured POV, which is not exactly in the spirit of WP:NPOV. It's ironic that the article was about suppression of ideas. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• The Emperor's New Mind is a reliable, and excellent, source for its maths and physics content. It's clear and well-written. It's not a reliable source for philosophy or cognitive science. Because Roger Penrose is a superb, world class mathematical physicist, and he's got exactly no qualifications at all in cognitive science or philosophy.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• My position is summarized fully by Barnards.tar.gz ... that said, this is not a hill to die on, and I wish we could set aside this unfortunate sideshow and go back to the productive discussion that saw us moving forward on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that wether a source is reliable depends on what we are using it for (although interesting to note that for its claim it cites a sps and Rowling, not the best in the world). On the nature of it's ability to check facts there's the uncited claim about most people being called transphobic are women, and various comments about policy capture and groups (including Stonewall) trying to get rid of Sex as a thing whatsoever (as in not in law, not in general discussion and beyond). The first of these isn't inherintly true and the second is just blatantly false and nearing into conspiracy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely unreliable about the authors, source (Journal of Philosophy of Education/Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain), or the publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). They all seem like pretty mainstream academic sources to me. As Barnards.tar.gz pointed out, correcting minor errors post-publication is a sign of reliable source. Have there been peer-reviewed articles attacking the source's claims? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So given that no other sources are disputing the factuality of the article--and the article has even been cited numerous times in other quality sources--what's the issue? The source clearly verifies the cited content. Are editors simply objecting to the article's thesis? If yes, that's not a matter of RS at all. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well to be fair to the objectors, that's not quite what they're saying? Their views are best read in their own words, above.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, there are one or two sources commenting, but this is a low impact journal Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.philosophy-of-education.org/enabling-free-inquiry-together-a-response-to-suissa-and-sullivan/ is a response to a very similar article by the same authors, for instance. So the authors are disreputable Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that people disagree with them makes them disreputable?—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You explicitly said there were no sources disputing the factuality of the article. This is a source disputing that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Where does this source dispute the factuality of the article I'm citing?—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of the main argument, but, "We feel it is a misreading to suggest that

the material realities of sex are erased within queer theory" is a good start. It's written in polite, academic language, but it's all about how Suissa and Sullivan's core assumption is false. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

That's refuting Suissa and Sullivan's opinions and conclusions. Which is fair actually: I agree that Suissa and Sullivan's opinions are wrong. And also, ghastly. And horrible. But their facts are in a scholarly journal that cares about the truth and prints retractions where appropriate, so we can rely on the factuality of what they publish without retracting. I want to be clear that I do so without ever endorsing or supporting the views in that article.

Could we refocus on whether this is a reliable source for the claim that Rowling got told to choke on a basket of dicks, please? There's no need to launch a full frontal assault on a position nobody's defending.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Well, I thought that was what you were asking for. As for if it's a reliable source - well, first off, it's worth noting that the article is written in a very "scattershot" way, and has three sentences on Rowling in total. The source for the "choke on a basket of dicks" is a non-peer reviewed blog by Mary Leng, and there's no source for it on the blog.

The entire coverage of Rowling is a mere three sentences in the entire paper, so it's not a major focus of the paper, and, as such, I wouldn't presume a lot of fact-checking of the source. So I'm not sure that quoting Suissa and Sullivan is really much better than citing Leng's article on Medium, a website without editorial controls. Frankly, I don't think that's a reliable source, and think it's mere sourcewashing to quote Suissa and Sullivan's direct quoting of an unreliable soruce.

Another issue is how you want to frame this. The only explicit thing that Suissa and Sullivan say about the "choke on a basket of dicks" is that it was in response to an essay Rowling published (the essay has a citation, so we can at least identify it), and Rowling's defense of "women who speak publicly on these issues".

You want to use this to talk about insults in connection to her commentary on changes to laws related to transgender people, which Suissa and Sullivan does not cover with respect to Rowling. So, regardless of the reliability of the source, it doesn't say what you need it to for the information you want to cite. Because we're not trying to say that Rowling was insulted, we're actually trying to say that she received insults in response to specific things, so, even if we considered it a reliable source, it couldn't be used where you propose for it to be used. WP:SYNTH violations are very easy with this source, since, in the end, it has three sentences about Rowling and doesn't really provide a lot of context, so if the material in our article frames "insults" in any way not supported by Suissa and Sullivan, that's a WP:SYNTH violation. So it's kind of just generally a terrible source for information on Rowling, because there's only the slightest passing mention of her. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Argh! Please may I edit that? The editor in me can't stomach "irregardless".

Yes, I do want to say that after she posted her essay she was insulted and threatened on Twitter, and I do want to say that the insults and threats were in response to her essay. That link is intentional. Are you saying her essay didn't lead to insults and threats? Because I can answer that without difficulty.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: That's not what the discussion is about.. This discussion was over you using this for the sentence "As her views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny, she received insults and threats". So, no, you don't want to use this for the essay. The essay isn't even discussed in the draft you're writing, at least, not explicitly. I presume you're not intending to make up new content just to keep it in the article, so it's a bit exasperating that you seem to be have forgotten the text (that you yourself wrote) that Suissa and Sullivan is meant to cite. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's what it's about. This is exactly what it's about. Follow the sequence: Rowling wrote an essay on her blog where she explained her views on the legal status of transgender people; and lots of people looked at it and were appalled; so they resorted to insults and threats over twitterX. What on Earth did you think we were talking about?—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any reference whatsoever to "her views on the legal status of transgender people" in Suissa and Sullivan. WP:SYNTH actively forbids us from drawing conclusions not found in the actual text by combining sources. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading the essay and then reading Suissa and Sullivan page 69 is SYNTH? Really?—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: 'Yes, really. Especially as the essay only mentions the changes to laws around 7/8ths of the way through. If the essay was titled "Why the changes to Scottish gender identification laws are wrong", then maybe we could argue it's obvious, but when Rowling only brings up laws late in the article... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, now we're getting somewhere! That's not how SYNTH works but let's pretend for the sake of argument that it is.

Remember that, as I've said right from the start of this thread, that the only part which I'm citing to Suissa and Sullivan is "Rowling received insults". Is it SYNTH to say that choke on a basket of dicks is an insult?—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have said I would stop commenting, but since you're directly asking me, citations aren't without context. If you want to say Rowling was insulted after her essay, it's not SYNTH. If you want to include clauses saying that it's connected to the legal status of transgender people, or any other framing of the insults than that they were in response to the essay, then you'd either need a source saying that connection - for the same insults to avoid misleading characterisation of the Suissa and Sullivan source - or would need to replace Suissa and Sullivan with the other source. In practice, this makes it useless. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Since it doesn't appear that my attempt to get people from the talk page to stop commenting here is going to work (the only person to claim they would stop has just commented again after not even 24 hours), I guess there's no point to me declining to comment myself.

So: I don't think that citing As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny, she received insults and death threats to Suissa and Sullivan would be WP:SYNTH. I do think it would fail verification, because Suissa and Sullivan doesn't say anything about "Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people" (and because they're not a reliable source overall and so they cannot be cited for anything at all in a BLP). To cite "X happened because Y", you can't just provide a cite that says "X happened". Loki (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

---

There is only one citation to Butler in the Suissa & Sullivan paper. It misinterprets them pretty severely. Particularly, they are using a particularly vulgar read of "categorical fiction" that shows the very sort of naturalized ontology Butler is criticizing throughout the pages surrounding that brief citation. They're clearly talking about how variation within categories destabilizes the sex category, not that it should necessarily be abolished.

And this is what I mean that this is a fringe paper. It is reading conspiracy theories into single-line statements in much larger works and then suggesting that everybody is lock-step, within queer theory, with that one line from that one book.

And this doesn't even touch on the idea of treating Gender Trouble as a key "postmodern" ontological text. I suppose Discourse, Figure wouldn't have served their thesis such as it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any other reason why someone could be annoyed at the essay other than JK's views on the legal status of trans people. (For example calling Magdalen burns "an immensely brave young feminist" could be one comment people took anger over that had nothing to do with rowlings views on legal issues). This would mean it's synth to say people threatened Rowling over the legal views as opposed to anything else in rowlings essay. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If the text this source was supporting could only be sourced to it, then it would make some sense to go back and forth over whether it's too fringe to be reliable (in general or for a specific statement), since the question of whether or not to include the text would hinge partly on that ... but since there's no shortage of better sources for the only text this source is being used to support (namely, Rowling received insults and threats, although this source only verifies the first half), and indeed some of those better sources are already being used, it's hard to see what the basis for also citing a lower-quality, biased/fringe source (as discussed on talk and somewhat above) is: it's better to use the better sources. (What's the noticeboard for discussing that, I wonder? It's not exactly a question of reliability in absolute 'is X reliable' terms, it's more like: if we have several academic biographies saying Cicero was born in Arpinum, and then also a Washington Examiner article saying it, what's the venue for discussing 'why should or shouldn't we cite the Washington Examiner if we're already citing biographies?'?) -sche (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just on that last point, the articles' talk page is probably most appropriate for discussing which sources to use in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It was being discussed there, then the talk page section got closed and moved here because S. Marshall seems to be desperate to continue using this source as a "teaching moment" of how to use a questionable source in an article.

This really feels like the use of Suissa and Sullivan is classic disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It doesn't even source the whole statement it's being used for, and the whole statement is trivially sourced to better sources. Maybe this is more a situation for WP:TROUT. Let's review:

• The source is, at the least, actively questioned. Many people think it's a bad source.
• No-one says it sources everything it's used to source in the single sentence clause it's used for. The other half of the clause is currently unsourced, so another source needs found whether it stays or goes.

+It's relatively trivially replaced.

• S Marshall, who's in charge of writing the draft, has literally upped the discussion to a noticeboard before even doing basic things like, you know, sourcing the other half of the clause.
• Wikipedia articles are regularly used to find sources on subjects by people. It's almost a meme that one uses the sources on Wikipedia when writing essays in high school/university. As such, including a questionable, definitely transphobic article is a problem, as we're giving it substantially more prominence. "Suissa Sullivan Rowling" only returns 45 google hits, many of them not on the paper, so this would probably be its most prominent use.

So, is there actually any positive argument for including it, other than "it was already used"? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not removing an academic source just because some people think it's ideologically unsound. I do take seriously the claim that it's generally unreliable, though. That's a matter for this venue.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's factually unsound. This isn't simply a matter of ideological unsoundness but of shoddy research principally consisting of misread books and unsourced grand claims. For instance my complaint with their claim that the "overwhelming" targets of critique for transphobia are cis-women is that it's uncited, unverifiable, opinion being masqueraded as academic work. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I rather disagree this isn't relevant. That there's oddities around the request for it to be reviewed here calls for a higher level of scrutiny of the source. That it doesn't even source the whole sentence clause it supposedly cited, that it is trivially replaced - all relevant, especially when S Marshall shut down the discussion on the talk page to move all discussion of the source here. If S Marshall hadn't shut down the discussion on the talk page, then maybe such things would be irrelevant, but they are insisting the entire discussion has to happen here. Talk:J._K._Rowling#Suissa and Sullivan. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also note that my collapsed comment was explicitly about the reliability of the text and not about the comportment of any editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Again if you believe S Marshall shutting down the conversation at the article talk page was inappropriate you need to discuss it elsewhere. If you wish to discuss should reliable source 'x' or reliable source 'y' be used in the article the appropriate place to discuss it is the articles talk page.
This is specifically a forum for discussing the reliability of sources, per the noticeboard header This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. My hatting of the above thread was only an attempt to keep discussion to the nature of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've un-hatted it. I know you meant that helpfully, ActivelyDisinterested, but when we get discussions about a hatting, the hatting's not serving its intended purpose.

I didn't shut down discussion on the talk page. I moved it here, because it's, yanno, a dispute about the reliability of a source. Moving a topic here doesn't shut anyone down. It just invites previously uninvolved people to opine.

Adam, let's remember that Hava Mendelle is publishing actual magazine articles about Talk:J. K. Rowling. Mendelle has an angle about Wikipedia and an axe to grind about "editors with activist agendas", which means me (because I want to call Rowling gender-critical in Wikivoice) and I suspect it might mean you too. Let's not give Mendelle too much fuel for her next Spectator Australia article.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I won't undue what you've done, but I will remind everyone again to discuss the source not each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

In the end, I do think the context is important for determining whether it should be used. Even if it was determined reliable for this fact - though see below for why I dont think it is - there are other reasons that come into the debate of whether it should be used, so we're in the weird situation where, if we only consider reliability and it's somehow determined to be reliable on this one point, but we've shut down all discussion on the other issues, it wouldn't settle anything because those other issues wouldn't disappear. If anything, it'd make things worse, because people would be pointing here, and saying "It's a settled issue!" and the other side would be saying "All those other points were explicitly excluded there! It settles nothing!" and that seems like something no-one wants. In the end, there's going to be a strong case of WP:NPOV's admonition that "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements" hovering over this: Whether it technically is good enough to cite this specific fact or not, it's not the best respected, nor the most authoritative source for what should be a fairly trivial fact to prove. It also requires a certain degree of interpretation to get from its claims (quoting what is presumably a specific rude tweet without characterising it) to ours (she received insults). I'm not saying that's the most egregious interpretation, but it isn't quite what the source said. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this has now spilled out onto other pages, I'd say it counts as WP:RSOPINION and if used should have in-text attribution. As such probably not suitable for the originally stated purpose in this discussion, but nothing wrong with it being used in other ways more generally. Void if removed (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's more nuanced than that. Yes, their opinions should certainly be attributed. But I don't believe the following two examples necessarily need attribution: a., J.K. Rowling received an insult and b. the UK has specific laws. My reasoning is as follows: plenty of sources state that J. K. Rowling has received insults but that's as far as they go, this is a specific example; plenty of sources mention the laws but this paper explains them. It's not synth to say there are laws; it's not synth to say that Rowling has received insults. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it's not synth to say the UK has specific laws, and it's not synth to say Rowling has received insults. Synth as prohibited by policy happens when you join two statements together and the implicit assumption in the conjunction is controversial, it can literally by definition never happen when analysing the synthetic statement by its parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't convinced there was a WP:SYNTH problem before but Victoria has, perhaps inadvertently, laid it out pretty convincingly.

If you have a source that says A happened, and a source that says B happened, and you want to say "because A happened, B happened", you still need a separate source for that. You can't just say "As A happened, B happened" and expect readers to draw the implication. That's obviously WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A simple statement of problems with the source itself

Let's step back. I don't think this source is reliable in the first case, not even for Rowling receiving insults, because I have now checked Suissa and Sullivan's sources for that bit of their text - which, as I explain below, is literally "random person from the internet's blog".

ETA: It's worth saying that there are literally only three sentences on Rowling in the entire source. That's it. It uses a kind of scattershot writing style, where it's listing related topics and doesn't draw connections between them, so, per WP:SYNTH's rules on using different parts of a source to draw connections not exxplicitly found in the source, this is the entirety of the text on Rowling found in Suissa and Sullivan:

• Page 66, "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read" (Nothing before or after this connects it with anything else discussed)

• Page 69 "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."

Now, after that quote on page 69, it does list several women that it says were harrassed, but it very explicitly doesn't say that they were the women that prompted Rowling, nor does it use any source connected with Rowling for them. (The sentence in question is "Prominent legal cases like those of Maya Forstater (Kirkup, 2019), Allison Bailey (Filia, 2020) and Sonia Appleby (Barnes and Cohen, 2020) represent the tip of the iceberg." - and this is part of a transitional section moving from the brief discussion of Rowling towards a discussion of their complaints about the Labour movement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the source doesn't cite half of what it's meant to be used for. There is no mention in it of Rowling receiving threats. No-one is really disagreeing with this.

Second, it's a Fringe source. For 99% of statements in Suissa and Sullivan, trying to bring them to the Rowling article would immediately raise problems. As such it's only being used to cite a very minor point for which dozens of other sources exist.

Third, the text meant to be used to source the insults - as explicitly said by S Marshall in the first post in this thread, is, "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar..." That's hyperbolic in its wording, which isn't ideal: one would prefer a source where you can cite the fact without having to reinterpret hyperbole.

But it gets much worse: it has two citations. Rowling 2020 - which does not include any such language (feel free to confirm) - and Leng 2020. Leng 2020, the clear source of Suissa and Sullivan's "fact" since it's the one that uses such language, is this Medium article. Medium is an open blog with no apparent editorial controls; Mary Leng has two articles on it, and no profile meaning the source works out to "some random person from the internet said it, and Suissa and Sullivan repeated it."

We wouldn't cite Leng's blog. I don't see how it becomes reliable because it passes through Suissa and Sullivan with slightly more sensatonalism (the "tidal wave") added.

I really don't see why this source is being defended at all. It's basically sourcewashing some woman's random blog. Even if we ignore everything else in Suissa and Sullivan, I think there's strong reasons to doubt the text used to cite the "fact".

I don't know how how defending this source even got to this stage in the first place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the full sentence from Suissa & Sullivan, page 69: The treatment of J.K. Rowling, sub- jected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). The footnotes refer to the "essay", which indeed is on Rowling's blog. Victoria (tk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Basically this essay is so bad on so many levels that it honestly is somewhat embarrassing that the Journal of Philosophy of Education ever published it to begin with. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if it was even just Rowling reporting it, we could discuss whether we should be using her characterisation of her critics, but it'd probably pass muster with at most a "Rowling said". but Rowling's blog doesn't quote the text Suissa and Sullivan use; the actual quote is from some random person's blog, and said blog lacks even a profile, so, while we do have an article on a Mary Leng, it's probably a BLP violation to presume they're the one who wrote a transphobic blog post without evidence of such. And of course, even if it is the same person, it's still a blog post, not an academic article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, the footnote is simply pointing to the essay itself, not to the words as Wikipedia must. As for Mary Leng, yes, that is the philosopher Mary Leng, [153], who is not just some random woman on the internet. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Still, that the statement in question is sourced to two blogs isn't really helping its reliability. It's pretty much universally agreed Suissa and Sullivan has problems, but the argument is over whether it's reliable enough to use for this single statement. That that statement is sourced to two blogs with no editorial oversight, and the direct quoting of an uncited fact from one of them is the exact part being used as the only text in Suissa and Sullivan that supports the Wikipedia text... Well... I think at this point I can rest my case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Suissa & Sullivan is a secondary source. The insult is mentioned by Mary Leng (primary) and probably also on Twitter (primary). That's how it works. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems dubious; that'd basically make it impossible for any secondary source to be rejected. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As with most fringe scholarship this is ultimately a question of WP:DUE - yes this article is a secondary source. But it's not a good or reliable one. It has obvious errors of fact. It has many more claims that are unsupported by evidence. Its thesis seems to rest upon, apparently, a weak reading of a single line of Gender Trouble and the subsequent assumption that Stonewall (charity) exists to reify that specific mis-read of Judith Butler however it engages so poorly with said material that it ends up just looking like someone trawling blogs for vaguely philosophical defenses of Rowling. As such the question of whether it is citing blogs is more an indicator of the low quality of the essay rather than something apropos to Wikipedia policy on primary and secondary sources.

I would note that I honestly think "Rowling got insults" is a WP:SKYBLUE statement while "Rowling got threats" is unsupported by this source. As such my personal preferred outcome would be to retain "Rowling got threats" in the article and to simply remove this source, which is a bad source that Wikipedia should not be using for anything. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Someone being insulted on the internet is... not really news. As for the death threats... I'd like to see a bit better sourcing than "Rowling said she received threats", but let's leave discussion of that for after the statement is actually sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The commentary here has made some decent points about how the source is being used to document a claim that is fairly peripheral to the source's own points, can be sourced many other places, and is not really very well sourced factually in that source which is more of an opinion piece than a research study. Unfortunately, several commentators have been unable to restrain themselves from going beyond such reasonable criticism and getting into much more inflammatory territory by labeling it "fringe" and "transphobic" (and such things), thus compelling people of dissenting viewpoints in this contentious area to mount an unnecessary defense of the source (similarly to how in another thread further up this page they are forced to defend articles about a silly urban legend of litter boxes in schools). Sticking to the facts instead of pushing ideologies would make for a better discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing anybody to defend the litter box urban legend. Any editor doing so could just go, "yeah that was all pretty silly and we should stop," and then stop. And here's where I have to bring up the actual factual correction the journal required: you can read it here but, specifically, they changed the way they cited their source to refer to trans women as "males who identify as women", called it a systematic study when it was a literature review, and tried to convert bottom surgery rates from the figure of 5-13% provided in the source to 0.1% "annually".

This is really egregious and it's egregious in an openly bigoted way. I'm sorry if me calling this bigoted offends anyone. But it's true. They focused on surgery rates (already a red flag if you've ever actually spoken to trans people about the challenges of getting gender confirmation surgery assuming they want it), then they misrepresented the nature of the study they were citing to make it seem more authoritative than it was, then they doctored the numbers to make it seem like no trans women actually want gender confirming surgery anyway. If you can't recognize how that's bad then you probably need to step away from discussing sources in social sciences and humanities academia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"These details have been corrected only in this correction notice to preserve the published version of record." Wow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot, their claim about trans women mostly not taking hormones was incorrectly sourced to the citation involved in the correction and was, actually, just a whole-cloth invention. Like calling this WP:FRINGE might almost be too kind for this sort of blatant academic dishonesty. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• This "simple statement" now runs to 1,500 words and has never been edited by anyone uninvolved. Can you see how those two facts are connected?—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  The source has a lot of problems. It took that long to unpack them all. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this in the source?

In the latest proposed draft, Suissa and Sullivan is additionally used to cite "As her thoughts on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny", which is cited to pages 68-9. Rowling isn't mentioned on page 68, and I'm not seeing text that even begins to cite that on page 69. Can someone provide the quote from Suissa and Sullivan meant to source this as a first step? Because if it's not in the article, it's a pretty easy issue to deal with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• You're right and it's not in the source. I copy/pasted that from the text that's currently in the article because I mistakenly assumed that a featured article would be well-sourced. I'll fix that in the next draft, once we've decided whether Suissa and Sullivan can be used at all.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not and never was pages 68 to 69; it was and is cited to pages 66 to 69. The entire section is about the legal status of transgender people, concluding on page 69 with the "choke on a bag of dicks" aimed at JKR (which is a bit more than scrutiny). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The entirety of commentary on Rowling is two sentences in page 66 to 69 inclusive: Page 66 states "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read", and Page 69 states ". The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired." That is literally the entirety of the framing of Rowling in Suissa and Sullivan, in pages 66 to 69 inclusive. Neither of those talk about her "thoughts on the legal status of transgender people" in any way, shape, or form. SandyGeorgia, I really think you should step back, because that fact is patently not in Suissa and Sullivan, unless you have the wrong page numbers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reference to her essay is an obvious reference to her views, and that reference to her views concludes an entire section discussing the legal status of transgender people. The content is clearly supported by the source. As Barnards, Victoria, S Marshall and several others have patiently explained above, the reliable source is adequate for the text it is citing. You're bludgeoning the discussion, and this last example appears as if it's a struggle to find a valid reason to discard the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm been passively reading goings-on regarding the article and these discussions for a while now. Didn't really want to get pulled in to all this. But, that's a quote from a reference that's supposed to be an academic source? Wow, that sounds immensely biased and terrible of a source. It sounds like it should be an opinion piece in some right wing rag. Basically straight out of the Daily Mail. Silverseren^C 02:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have not been following closely the preceding discussion, so I will likely need to review, for example, the 45 citations on google scholar later, but it seems like a reasonable disagreement to want a source that's a little more explicit if we are to say that the scrutiny (or more than scrutiny, as it may be) of JKR arises from thoughts on the legal status of transgender people. As it seems like a reasonable contention, having the disagreement patiently explained to Adam seems a little condescending. I apologise if I have missed something that is on the article talk page and not here at this noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I really don't get how Sandy thinks that reading four pages of text - three sentences of which are about Rowling, the rest on other people - and then making interpretations about Rowling based on the content that IS NOT about her (How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? How does that not fall afoul of "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source"?).... is a reasonable way to cite half of a sentence of trivial information in a Biography of a Living Person where standards of citation are particularly high. I asked her to quote the text she thinks supports it, and she's saying all four pages are necessary. I don't understand how this is a good faith argument. I'm not assuming it's a bad faith one; I just don't understand how a respected writer of featured articles, who has been through and passed many source reviews can seriously think that's a reasonable thing to argue. What am I missing? I'm genuinely confused here, because I don't believe she's acting in bad faith, but to argue what she's arguing for is madness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarize in simplistic terms: an attempt is being made to write a draft about Rowling's transgender views - a draft that will gain consensus. The draft needs to be written in summary style and has to include a number of points, including the context that Rowling's comments came about in response to UK's gender recoginition laws (and what those are for readers not familiar), that Rowling's stance is gender-critical (or in line with trans exclusionary feminism) and that she's drawn criticim & even insults. This source satisfies a number of these points by explaining that the laws triggered the debate (and Rowling's part in it), what the laws are, and reactions Rowling has received. These points are strewn across a number of pages. Whether or not the source is used can be worked out on the Rowling talk page. The only question here is whether those who aren't involved in the discussion on Rowling talk deem it reliable. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: Let's be clear on a key point: If you go to the PDF, and search for Rowling's name, the one sentence on page 66, and the two sentences on page 69 are the only things you will find. It's not a valuable source of information for most of what you're mentioning, because WP:SYNTH explicitly disallows "combin[ing] different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." This source never connects Rowling with gender recognition laws. It does not show that Rowling has commented on the laws. It does not show Rowling's point in the debate. And that's because it's really not about Rowling at all.

The entirety of Rowling's mention in the source is the three sentences I've mentioned. I'll repeat them again, because it's important to be very clear on the sum total of information about Rowling in this source:

Page 66, "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read", and Page 69 "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."

Page 66's reference is too scarce on details to use it, since it doesn't even name the novel in question. Page 69 doesn't connect it to UK laws, it connects the insults to her 2020 essay, and that's it. It very explicitly does not state which women that "face[d] campaigns of harrassment" inspired Rowling. Suissa and Sullivan are, again too vague to allow us to use them to make a point like that, because this article isn't about Rowling, and the authors of it do not provide sufficient detail to say much of anything about her. Literally the only thing this could be used for is her receiving insults in response to her 2020 essay - NOT gender recognition laws. The sentence on page 66 is not put in sufficient context to say anything on the back of it that would be useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

References

A proposal

The point of coming to WP:RSN is to get outside input from people who weren't already arguing about this back at Talk:JK Rowling. I've declined to participate much in this discussion for that reason. Right now, almost all the people who are talking about this are people who were already arguing about this back at JK Rowling's page, which doesn't help at all to resolve the dispute. Just so it's clear, I specifically mean Adam Cuerden, S Marshall, SandyGeorgia, Victoriaearle, and Simonm223.

So, I have a suggestion: let's all take a week or so off this thread so we don't keep on scaring off outside input, which will hopefully let us all actually resolve this ultimately very minor issue and get back to improving the article. Loki (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I think everything that needs said by me is said Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

While I will note I didn't choose nor particularly approve of the venue for this discussion I will also say that I've said my piece about this source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye. I mean, it was rushed over here after a mere three days of discussion on Talk:J. K. Rowling. Of course it's going to havea lot of comments from the people active on the talk page there; discussion had barely begun. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would add that involved editors going round removing this source from other pages such as with this edit, with no discussion of content, citing this rushed and incomplete discussion as an absolute authority, is not on. Void if removed (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Literally nobody has demonstrated that my analysis of their factual inaccuracies and general poor scholarship is in any way incorrect. That source is not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, you are having a content dispute about one page which has nowhere near reached a conclusion, whatever you may personally think, and you cannot unilaterally declare this source "unreliable" and remove longstanding content on a bunch of other pages that have no idea this discussion is even taking place. Void if removed (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223 Whited (a Potter scholar we use extensively) has lots of errors, too, but no one is complaining about using them. In the medical realm, where I usually edit, I can't recall ever reading a source in the areas where I'm most knowledgeable that I couldn't find plenty to correct. Many sources have similar, and here, we aren't using the source to cite anything controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't spend several hours of my life doing a close read of Whited's essay. I did spend several hours of my life doing a close read of Suissa and Sullivan's poor excuse of an essay. This led to me feeling it was grossly inappropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Whether I would feel the same about Whited is neither here nor there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple of comments here in the context of Rowling doesn't give you the right to go unilaterally removing it from multiple pages with no discussion as if you have "proven" the paper is bunk with your negative opinion. I've read dozens of papers I have a low opinion of, but they still get cited, whatever my opinion of them, because they are invariably reliable sources for the scholarly opinions of the author. Now, I agree that using this paper to establish a factual claim in wikivoice is inappropriate, but I disagree that it is a source that is so contemptible it cannot be used with attribution, let alone based on your say so. Void if removed (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's factually inaccurate opinion piece that appears to have been principally derived by an inability to effectively read one paragraph of a Judith Butler book and then cooking up some bizarre conspiracy theory about the Mermaids charity. It's a fringe source and, as it is currently used, is mostly just establishing that people were mean to British bigots online in a variety of capacities. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is all very much your opinion, which is fine, but not terribly compelling, especially when that opinion is coloured by epithets like "British bigots".

I don't know what you mean about Mermaids, can you quote the relevant part? Void if removed (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's the conclusion of the essay. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to Mermaids. Sorry but do you mean Stonewall? Void if removed (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is possible I got the two mixed up. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, LokiTheLiar; I responded on your talk page about the misimpression left here. I hope someone uninvolved will come along and hat the off-topic portions or otherwise get some direction back in to this severely bludgeoneed discussion. Else maybe we can perhaps all go back to working collaboratively on talk as we were before this digression. My opinion remains that a) the source is reliable, and b) it verifies the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Suissa & Sullivan contains multiple instances of factual distortion and FRINGE promotion:

• They say J Michael Bailey was targeted - they neglect to mention what for, ie the pseudoscientific Blanchard's transsexualism typology (which posits that all LGB trans women are fetishists...) (p 60)
• They say ROGD (the theory kids catch trans from the internet) was attacked by activists and that's why the school issued a correction, arguing it vindicated the analysis and results, yet the journal insisted on some ‘reframing’ of the paper in a corrected version - The correction was actually huge, it went from "parents said this is happening so it's true" to "parents said this is happening so it might be true" ie "the data means this is true" to "the data does not mean this is true". (p 61)
• They defend Kenneth Zucker (who has a paragraph in gender identity change efforts and whose own article makes clear he attempted to 1) prevent kids growing up trans and 2) prevent them being gender noncomforming at all) (p 75)
• In those previous 3 examples, they claim the person was silenced and attacked, without bothering to even mention what they said that people took issue with.
• We would like to thank Holly Smith, Michael Biggs, Alan Sokal, Adam Swift and an anonymous reviewer of this journal for their extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Unsurprising they both cite and worked with members of Genspect and SEGM...

Other sources take issue with the paper:

• Transphobia has become a point of fixation for the birthright-speech community,30–32,36,37 which has once again attempted to disguise bigotry under a patina of academic freedom.3[154]
• Autistic-trans people’s existence is also frequently deployed to undermine transgender healthcare (e.g., Hruz 2020; Suissa and Sullivan 2021).[https://bulletin.appliedtransstudies.org/article/1/1-2/7/

I would say these issues are blatant enough we should avoid this paper as much as possible. It's a multi-page rant that defends WP:FRINGE activists and scholars from criticisms, claiming they were on political grounds, without bothering to mention why they were criticized and trying to downplay the scientific issues with their work (such as, in the three examples above: calling all LGB trans women fetishists, saying kids catch trans from the internet based on a survey of transphobic websites, and putting kids through conversion therapy). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If a publisher (Journal of Philosophy of Education) is reliable do we generally cherry pick which of their publications are to be considered reliable? Seems like a huge rabbit hole were many sources will be challenged because of objections to their content, methods, etc. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do generally do so. WP:SOURCEDEF is explicit that reliability also depends on the authors and individual works, as well as the publisher. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's actually fairly common to exclude WP:FRINGE pushing papers no matter what journal they're being published in. Major journals can still publish crap papers, see Lancet MMR autism fraud for one of the most well known examples. We, as editors, have some amount of discretion in determining what sources are good to use. That's the entire point of WP:DUE after all. Silverseren^C 04:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am generally one to go to bat for trusting the veracity of current academic sources, as I am at times concerned by the willingness of some Wikipedians to simply ignore relevant scholarship while writing articles. But just as newspapers sometimes get things wrong, so too do journals at times. And here we have not only a close and thorough read by Wikipedians of errors and distortions in "The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Education" but moreoever a situation in which other academic sources are criticizing the piece (YFNS's link to the pieces in Digital Discovery and the Bulletin of Applied Trans Studies article and to the piece in Digital Discovery). This is a high level of analysis that is altogether very persuasive. Suissa and Sullivan's "The Gender Wars, Academic Freedom and Education" is not a reliable source and shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post "in a hole" and required to have "AI everywhere in our newsroom"

https://x.com/maxwelltani/status/1793303914655158284

Washington Post CEO Will Lewis is introing the paper’s new “Build It” plan today. In a meeting with staff, he noted that the paper lost $77 million over the past year, and saw a 50% drop off in audience since 2020: “To be direct, we are in a hole, and we have been for some time."

Lewis says the says the three pillars of the new strategy are: great journalism, happy customers, and making money: “If we're doing things that don't meet all three…we should stop doing that." He adds that the company will also be looking for ways to use AI in its journalism.

AI is a major component of the Post's internal strategy announcement today. WaPo's chief tech officer told staff that going forward, the paper has to have "AI everywhere in our newsroom."

What could this mean? Bruh moment or malarkey? This is not a request to formally alter or reassess the reliability of this source. jp×g🗯️ 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit premature to raise this issue here now. Vegan416 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree as to premature. Sounds like corporatese to me, but who knows? I think it would entirely possible to have a reliable source which leans heavily on AI, so long as that AI is edited by humans (or is remarkably accurate in a way I don't believe is currently possible). But yeah. Something to keep an eye on! Dumuzid (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Setting off the corporatese radar, the supposed trifecta of great journalism, happy customers, and making money is a combination that I'm not sure any publication has achieved in recent years. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes you wonder when we are going to have AI editors in wikipedia. But then again maybe we already have... Vegan416 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would love to see an AI editor here smart enough to fix inadvertent typos and grammatical errors, while leaving intentional ones (like those within direct quotes) alone. I would like even more to see an AI editor smart enough to surf the web and suggest reliable sources for unsourced claims in articles. BD2412 T 19:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While such specialized tasks are not beyond current AI, I want to reiterate that LLMs are a dead end and in general suck at accuracy as they lack any form of comprehension. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, they are more likely to hallucinate sources.

and as LLMs are trained on wikipedia data, using an LLM to edit the same data its trained on will lead to weird consequences. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the word "comprehension" here, but in the normal meaning of the word, this statement is false. jp×g🗯️ 23:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier I'm curious, are you saying LLMs are a dead end as an expert in the field of AI? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

...to raise what issue? This is a noticeboard, not an immediatedrasticactionboard... jp×g🗯️ 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

True, and I'm glad you posted this here. Thank you. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it’s premature. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple ways to use AI in the newsroom, most of them don't come with significant reliability risks... The key is the context, whether AI is being used to support existing journalists and editors or replace existing journalists and editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably not a good thing, but I agree with other editors that it's premature to discuss changes to WaPo's reliability based on this alone. Something to keep a close eye on, though. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this pretty much. Statement reeks of corporate-speak rather than concrete change, and there's less worrying ways for them to use AI than writing articles, but it's worth following for a little while. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m concerned as a person who cares about journalism, but agree with the others that it’s something to remember, but not currently a sign of unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur in being unconcerned. The most reliable newspapers will all make similar announcements (The Guardian already has) for cost and productivity reasons, but they're reputationally risk-averse and they'll make sure to have appropriate scrutiny & safeguards. At worst each source's reliability will stay the same (at GENREL), but the variance across authors/articles/editors will increase, and we already have tools to deal with that. DFlhb (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Would AI robots do live TV field journalism any time soon? I suppose AI may be used in transcription of scripts of live field journalists but not AI robots doing live TV field journalism, any time soon. The solution may be to use AI to cross check with feeds of live TV field journalists? Bookku (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the first AI thing they are rolling out is curated AI summaries of articles. Not something we need to worry about unless it impacts article copy, probably, but worth seeing how this expands. Toa Nidhiki05 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Til it actually happens, it's simply a businessperson thinking out loud. We can revisit if and when things change. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

BOL News

A brief discussion about this website bolnews.com was archived recently, but I believe it needs to be revisited due to its usage in our articles, especially in BLPs. Numerous UPEs also frequently cite BOL News coverage to support notability claims for articles related to Pakistani actors and TV shows. FWIW, this website is owned by a notorious Pakistani TV network, BOL News, which lacks trustworthiness and respectability. The network's owner, Axact, was involved in running a diploma mill, and BOL News was established as a front business. It appears that these websites are now operating as content farms. I noticed that bolnews.com and its affiliated websites such as bolentertainment.com has been producing paid articles on various individuals, such as Kim Gravel, Jared Carrabis, Lawrence Zarian, Cherryn Krol, Ella Langley, Dario Gil, Gian Luca Passi De Preposulo, Laura Jarrett, Jennifer Adamson, Sarah Netburn, Tony Balkissoon, Katelyn Mabus, Amanda Eller, Alberto Musalem, Jonathan Higginbotham. This coverage could potentially be used for establishing WP:GNG for non-notable figures. For example, their article on Natalie Harp even states Despite her prominence, Harp has yet to be featured on a Wikipedia page. Moreover, BOL News has been producing a lot of paid placements for figures like Waqar Zaka, whose BLP was recently deleted due to a lack of WP:N. Given these issues, can we safely categorize BOL News and its affiliated sites as WP:GUNREL? @Erik, Denniss, and ActivelyDisinterested:—Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Good summary. I'd support this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Smelled fishy once I stumbled about this site. I highly doubt this site was ever reliable. --Denniss (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

bolentertainment.com is clearly unreliable. The main site, bolnews.com, is a mix. They also ran an English-language newspaper (print edition) which produced some quality content and it was available online through this site - I consider it as reliable. Anything produced by their web team is usually AI-generated, so it is highly unreliable. For bolnews.com, I'd say it is reliable if it is produced with a proper byline (which means that the writer has a proper history of writing quality content and is actually a journalist, not a guest post). Anything from bolnews.com/entertainment/ or bolnews.com/trending/ is highly unreliable. Please note that somewhere.

Also, it is under a different management now, i.e. AsiaPak Investments, so we can hope that they will produce more professional journalistic content, leaving behind Axact legacy. Can we discuss and ban Daily Pakistan please like Republic TV of India or Daily Mail from the UK? 216.213.133.219 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

216.213.133.219, I strongly disagree. I wouldn't trust their news stories, even if published under bylines, as they are known for produce paid content. Just take a look at the quality of paid content they were producing for Waqar Zaka. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree bolentertainment.com is unreliable. Bolnews.com clearly has problematic content so at best falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA even if written by a journalist. It should not be used for BLPs, to establish notability or anything controversial. It might be fine for uncontroversial facts but even so, better sources likely exist so BOL News should be avoided which lands me at WP:GUNREL. S0091 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Also found this where they were fined for airing unsubstantiated allegations against media executives in 2020. S0091 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

S0091, Bol News is known for peddling fake news. They deliberately spread fake news to tarnish reputations and even endanger lives. Check out this article for evidence supporting my claims. One of their TV hosts, Aamir Liaquat Hussain repeatedly claimed that some activists engaged in anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam activities, putting their lives at risk. He later admitted that he made these claims at the direction of the network's owners. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It also does not seem to be much better since being purchased by AsiaPak Investments in September 2023 given many of the articles you provided are from this year, with some as recent as this month. S0091 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

S0091, Well, AsiaPak is a notorious organization with no prior experience in journalism. They acquired Bol for dubious reasons. For instance, according to this investigation report, Bol has been involved in numerous scandals, including accusations of misconduct and poor journalism. So why would anyone want to buy Bol? Some might argue it's to exert influence over others. Simple! I anticipate they'll produce even more fake news now. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Source on Ukraine strike

At 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes, source number 20 is cited to elaborate on Russian state media claims that Ukraine housed a military warehouse and command post in a mall that was recently struck by Russia, killing 18 civilians. This is the source [155]. It is an apparent offshoot of Telegram citing the Conflict Intelligence Team. This claim is extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL and in my view we require multiple sources of higher quality to justify the inclusion of such analysis. Apparently there are no such sources. Is the source enough on its own? Super Ψ Dro 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is an apparent offshoot of Telegram citing the Conflict Intelligence Team
It's actually the subdomain of the CIT website, i. e. the CIT website. Which uses Teletype. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So... a primary, self-published source? Super Ψ Dro 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

CIT can be described as an investigative journalism so they are a secondary source when commenting on Russian claims. They are often referred to by BBC and other RSs. Their investigations were used in MH17 downing investigation. As a mass media outlet, they are not very well established however. They are not a mass media, actually. Definitely more reliable then tg channels. Less reliable then BBC and other RSs. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

One could similarly argue that the Ukrainian claims of war crime are WP:EXCEPTIONAL when they can't even count properly the number of large explosions that happened in the strike. It's also confusing how removing a balanced explanation/elaboration will improve the section given the same general claim is already deemed satisfactory for inclusion before. It's not like the article is too big or covering too many views. Feels like WP:IGNORE. If the secondary explosions are confusing enough to make all but the specialists be unsure of what they are, then I see it as a duty for Wikipedia to cover a more detailed explanation for transparency, thus overriding WP:RS paperwork. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If the secondary explosions are confusing enough to make all but the specialists be unsure of what they are frankly that source is the only time I've ever seen that claim, then I see it as a duty for Wikipedia to cover a more detailed explanation for transparency Wikipedia does not lead in anything, it always follows the sources. when they can't even count properly the number of large explosions that happened in the strike pretty damn sure they know better than any Wikipedia user and that it is not our job to reach into these grounds. I will stop commenting here for the sake of avoiding the section from becoming a wall of text as is usual in noticeboards. Super Ψ Dro 17:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

pretty damn sure they know better than any Wikipedia user If so, then they are willfully lying. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am not sure why this was completely ignored. Super Ψ Dro 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure which claim of CIT you regard as exceptional? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure it's a reliability issue. Here you can find an article in Kommersant saying that a source in the ministry of defence told TASS them there was a munitions storage in the mall, and this is the original TASS article, I'm pretty sure they are reliable for the Russian government's position. Neither of these two sources say that it was a military target in their own voice.

The real question is whether it's WP:DUE and so probably should be asked at the NPOV noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Russian govt position often falls into WP:FRINGE. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Obituary in Lobster (magazine) for Olivia Frank (a transgender mossad spy); is it investigative or conspiratorial?

Link

Written by the same already cited author who wrote this already cited article in Tablet (magazine), this request is primarily due to an abundance of caution because I want to heavily rely on it, as well as the contentiousness of the content, particularly I/P and gensex. FortunateSons (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be rather nervous. Lobster has published some important and well researched investigations, and has some writers who are also published authors with reputable presses (probably the most heavyweight are Peter Dale Scott and John Newsinger) but by definition the material here is edging towards WP:FRINGE, because it focuses on "parapolitics", conspiracy theories and topics the mainstream won't cover. On its masthead, it has some recommendations by other publications, the most mainstream of which is probably Red Pepper who said in 2001 “It feels very amateur, but in the best sense of the word: human, passionate and honest—qualities often lost in the polished professionalism of other publications.” So if this is the only source for something, you need a big load of caution.

The author does have some bylines apart from these two articles, mainly in regional alternative media: https://muckrack.com/andrew-rosthorn/articles - mostly the regional editions of Byline Times, for which there's a bare consensus for reliability (per page patrol: weak consensus for reliability in a January 2022 RSN discussion. Previously, no consensus in a May 2021 RSN discussion., no consensus in an October 2020 RSN discussion.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that’s quite in-depth.

In this particular case (note the author engaging with the wiki page), that author also writes in the Independent.

What approach would you recommend? FortunateSons (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

17 articles for Independent 1996-2013. Adds some credibility. Looking at these, most but not all are NW England stories (e.g. he was a regional stringer) but also a few in the topic area of this article: intelligence/parapolitics. Not sure what I'd recommend. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. I think very selective inclusion might be appropriate, but I will be very careful. FortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

OpenAI "content and product partnerships" with Vox Media and The Atlantic

The Atlantic announces product and content partnership with OpenAI

Vox Media and OpenAI Form Strategic Content and Product Partnership

These articles are a bit difficult to decipher. The best reading I have of them in terms of answering the question "will future articles contain AI generated content?" is "no, but a sufficiently vague no that we have plausible deniability if we change our minds later." Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably another wait and see situation such as with the Washington Post thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just the higher ups thinking out loud at this point. Nothing to do about it until things change. Oaktree b (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oftentimes this is OpenAI trying to buy data. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: that seems likely, but my concern is that OpenAI is giving more than just money in return, and the article is very vague as to what. I agree with the above though that there's nothing really to do but keep an eye on it. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hasan Piker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Abraham Accords and mixed sourcing

Piker is a leftist streamer, AOC is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives . He recently made statements regarding Israel and the Abraham accords in a conversation with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, specifically covered by:

JPost

Jewish Insider

National Review

Cleveland Jewish News (aggregated?)

Are any or all of those reliable? FortunateSons (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Past discussions about The Jerusalem Post seem to indicate it's considered reliable aside from archaeology and content translated from other non-English news outlets, paid advertising sections labeled as "Special Content", and opinion pieces. It's used frequently enough that it seems like it should be listed on WP:RSP, but I think someone would need to do a deeper dive to search for other past discussions, summarize with links to past discussions, and get consensus for the summary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Any idea about the other sourcing for this use case? FortunateSons (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the other sources aside from National Review (which is listed on WP:RSP). And even if a source is generally considered reliable, that doesn't mean every article is worth citing. The quotes in the JPost article are rather short, there's not a lot of context, and there's not much of an explanation. I would look for a better source. And that's assuming this is worth including in any article, but that's a better discussion for an article talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. I think it’s likely due for Piker, not sure on AOC. FortunateSons (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: Can you clarify what you mean by "perfect"? Being listed on WP:RSP doesn't mean a source is considered reliable. You should read the National Review entry. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect referring to your response, not the listing, sorry for being unclear. I will wait for more responses regarding the two others :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What content are you hoping to include, on what article? Have you discussed it on the talk-page of that article already? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably as written now, with some low-level extensions if permitted. However, this is all covered by the relevant ARBPIA rules, so only extended-confirmed users can participate in the discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The question you have asked ("are any or all of these reliable sources?") is certainly not covered by ARBPIA. Possibly, if you were to give a coherent answer to my questions, I would no longer be able to participate in the discussion because of those rules; unfortunately you have not done that :(. What is the content you are hoping to include, on what articles? Is there prior discussion of this on article talk-pages? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the content for Piker, cited to the three sources above:

In May 2024, the Jerusalem Post and National Review reported that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agreed with Pikers statement that the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a direct consequence of the Abraham Accords and the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem during a live stream.

There have so far been no objections to content, so I was BOLD and added it. I will likely start a discussion once there is a version indisputably covered by RS, as I have found that a due conversation is significantly more productive when the status of the sources is clear. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleveland Jewish News cites Jewish Insider as the source of its information, so I don’t think it adds anything. I’m not familiar with Jewish Insider, so can’t help you there. John M Baker (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

These sources are marginal in terms of prominence (not reliability) possibly even JPost - are you really sure this is due? If this were the standard for dueness in these two articles, I would think they would be 5x longer; and our threshold for dueness should be consistent per WP:PROPORTION (from one of our three core content policies). DFlhb (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good question. I think something between 1-3 RS (and one source with mixed reliability) covering a single event are due the singular sentence I have now sourced with it (and maybe a second one). However, I do not at all object to you raising it on the talk page if you disagree. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• JPost is considered GREL but biased iirc - it's usable, but I'd strongly recommend attribution and trying to find a more neutrally-positioned source.
• I'm not familiar with Jewish Insider unfortunately, but if CJN is jus repeating what they said, the latter feels redundant.
• WP:RSP says National Review is considered partisan and should only be used with attribution.

The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. There is no neutral coverage (as of now), but there might be some in the future. I will attribute to JPost and NR for now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO I wouldn't attribute in this case, despite what RSP says; I haven't watched that stream (I assume you have?) but since it was on camera, as long as you can check it's accurate, attribution would a pointless waste of words. Really there's just the dueness question DFlhb (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s linked in the JI article, so yes, the statement is accurate IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Seems undue for a BLP if these are the only sources covering it. My suggestion would be to wait a month or so and see if it gets WP:SUSTAINED coverage, especially from ones outside the same small political bubble - almost all of these are right-wing / anti-progressive outlets; the fact that they're picking a bone with a progressive isn't very significant unless it spreads to other sources or has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I don't think it's worth the entire paragraph you gave it here, and certainly it's not enough for a mention on either of the other two articles you referenced right now. --Aquillion (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Minor correction, but as far as I know, NR is the only right wing outlet, all others are generally centrist-ish (with all of the fun disputes that tend to be attached to that labels, particularly for JPost).

  On your broader point, I probably agree that it should be shortened (likely into the upper paragraph, removing the attribution and one citation). However, in this case, the degree of coverage is already in line with how much coverage other items in the article have received. However, bringing it up on the talk page once we have RS status is probably the best way to answer the due question.

  Regarding the other two, it’s definitely not enough for the article about the Abraham Accords, and probably not yet enough for the AOC article, though it might be if she makes another statement about the accords and gets us to clear sustained coverage. FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently it's for [156] in Hasan Piker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article as a whole needs a great deal of work to bring it up to the standards of WP:BLP. --Hipal (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with the general cleanup requirements for the article, but there is no consensus for exclusion as “grossly undue” here. FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You should review WP:BLP again. --Hipal (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to tag you on the article talk page once the RS discussion is closed? FortunateSons (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to find the recording of the Twitch itself? That should settle the reliability question. Whether it's due is another matter. Alaexis_¿question? 09:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be, but there is a clip embedded in one of the sources anyway. Would a Twitch link be better? FortunateSons (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

That would settle the reliability question, i.e., whether she actually said that and whether there is important context that is missing in other publications. Alaexis_¿question? 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim is verifiable per our policies and requires no attribution, and none of the sources have reliability issues. However, definitely isn't due in AOC BLP, might be in Piker BLP as he's a far more marginal figure so a more prominent person agreeing with him more likely to be due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A discussion about the inclusion of the content can be found here FortunateSons (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC: Cartoon Brew

Back in Feburary of this year, I started a discussion on Cartoon Brew's reliability. The general consensus on the matter was that it was reliable for animation-related topics, but should not be used in articles about living people. However, some editors have expressed concern over the website's accuracy of their reporting, as seen here.

That being said, what is the reliability of the Cartoon Brew regarding information related to animation?

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

— 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: Generally reliable. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to questions a particular article from Cartoon Brew that may contain a misunderstanding. It's quite possible for 'generally reliable' sources to be wrong, this RFC won't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Premature RfC This doesn't seem like a source that has been discussed enough to justify a RfC. I would suggest asking if the source is good for a particular use rather than trying to create a blanket view for a minor source. Springee (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we have more examples of concerns? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 - never seen its reliability questioned within the field of animation. Other RSes point back to CB to back up their sourcing. --Masem (t) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 Seems like it is one of the more highly regarded animation news sites. Well regarded in the field, referenced by other reliable sources as an authority. Silverseren^C 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this, but there has been some criticism towards the website in the past over claimed uses of sensationalism. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple of interesting sources raised at an AfD (incl. dbdb.io, FreeCodeCamp)

So, as far as I'm aware, FreeCodeCamp articles are a sort of group blog (WP:SPS) but they don't seem to have been discussed here at all. Not too surprising, I only see a couple of dozen uses. Database of Databases (dbdb.io) I'm less sure about, it's nominally published by people from Carnegie Mellon but it's not clear to me if there's any sort of editorial review process at all. I figured I'd raise this over here since I find it unlikely we'd come to a consensus at the AfD itself (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurrealDB). A couple of others were a bit interesting too: Light Square (lightsquare.org) which seems to be AI generated, only used on Claude (language model) so far but people might want to keep an eye on it; and the GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken), which seems to be a reasonable source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its relatively easy to apply to put your own software on dbdb.io and its like wikipedia for software and i know wikipedia isn't a reliable source. I've done a course with freeCodeCamp, it is famous, and overall U could say its decently trust worthy. However I know that almost anyone can write for it so it is probably not reliable enough for wikipedia. and light square looks like its made By ChatGPT Freedun (yippity yap) 10:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

FreeCodeCamp and Database of Databases are user generated content so wouldn't generally be considered reliable sources.
GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases appears to be a conference, the papers used in it are likely reliable. Anyone can submit papers, but that doesn't mean they are all included and the conference appears reputable.
Light Square is... weird. I've read several of the articles and I'm not sure they are written by AI, but they do read oddly. This may have something to do with them being an independently managed official government organisation of the Government of Lumina,[157] details of Lumina movement can be found here. I would suggest finding a more established source if possible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A more general concern I have with the sourcing for this article - and one of the reasons I nominated it for deletion - is the confusion over exactly what they are being cited for. Is this supposed to be an article about an " open-sourced multi-model database", as the lede describes, or is it instead about a company of the same name, which seems to be selling cloud-based database services? Either topic might be notable, possibly both are as topic for separate articles, but what we have at present appears to me to be an attempt to use sources relating to one to establish the notability of the other, in a rather confusing article which entirely fails to explain what the relationship is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

LOTR Fansite (TheOneRing.net)

Is TheOneRing.net a reliable source? Online it's described as a fan-based website, which I know requires caution. This site is used as a source in Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power to mention Howard Shore's involvement in composing the score. The article also draws upon a YouTube interview with TheOneRing.net and Bear McCreary. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the source and I don’t think it’s the most ideal personally.

It’s an article on a fan site. It links to a blog post, Twitter post, and a YouTube video. CycoMa1 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It does link to a news article. Although I’m not sure how reliable the news article is.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But any way I personally think it has no place in the article.

I see potential of it being replaced with a better source.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What does the rest of the community think?CycoMa1 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to to mention, the article cites more than one article from the TheOneRing.org.

But still, the whole website in general is not reliable. TheOneRing.net is basically a fans blog site.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also just adding on to the whole YouTube thing.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Fansites are basically never reliable Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be considered reliable. It's a group blog, and you're asking about BLP-related content. --Hipal (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as the editor who added these sources to the article, this site is not being used to verify Shore's involvement in composing the score. There are much more reliable sources being used for that purpose in the article. This is indeed a fan-run site, albeit one that has been around for decades and often gets inside access to Lord of the Rings projects and direct interviews with creatives which are all great for us to use. It is in a similar position to something like TrekMovie.com which is also a great source for interviews and insights but wouldn't be used for an exclusive scoop based on unknown sources. In this instance, TOR.net covered unconfirmed reports about Shore and McCreary's involvement in the series. I didn't include it as a source until their involvements were confirmed by more reliable sources, at which point I added this one in to support the fact that those reports were circulating before the official confirmation. The YouTube video is a direct interview with McCreary and perfectly fine for inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those clarifications. In that case I will probably accept the source for what it is used for in the article. YouTube can be used as a source in certain cases, so I will investigate it further. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Times of India running AI-generated articles?

This article "Billionaire CEO surprises UMass Dartmouth graduates with cash gifts" (archived: [158]) likely wasn't written by their staff, given that Charlie Munger died last year and the referenced Insider report[159] doesn't mention him. It grossly mistakes Granite Telecommunications CEO Robert Hale Jr with late Berkshire Hathaway vice-chairman Charlie Munger. AI hallucination, I guess? Ptrnext (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• sigh* Goddammit, this sort of BS is going to make the internet such a hellhole. More than it already is. Are we going to just have to make a "reliable only before 2024" note for most news media at some point? Silverseren^C 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit this again. We might need to make a [AI generated source] tag.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Or something.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's easy to foresee a future where watchdog organizations rate sources based on disclosed and undisclosed AI use. Where sources differentiate by being "AI Free" (for a price). It's always been, the lies are free and the truth is behind a paywall. -- GreenC 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• The Times of India is generally unreliable anyway, this just makes it worse (WP:TOI). Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised if they're using AI to write articles. However, the entry at RSP indicates the general consensus is that they aren't quite generally unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recently processed it through WaybackMedic (a link maintainer). We have many links and domains: timesofindia.com, timesofindia.indiatimes.com, m.timesofindia.com, economictimes.com, m.economictimes.com. About 13.5k articles with these two publications, Times of India and Economic Times. They have six more publications. -- GreenC 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:TOI was already questionable at best, but this sort of blatantly false content means that a formal RfC is probably in order since WP:TOI encompasses discussions no later than 2022. - Amigao (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced this story is AI, rather intentional. Why they did this, probably the end result of how they obtain news stories, editorial decisions and their target market ie. monetary issues, not an infowar campaign. It's clearly designed to appeal to two readers: the wiser market who know who Munger is; and the dumber market who dream of a rich man giving them $1,000. They changed the name to someone famous because it is more relatable. They invented fake quotes from students to make the amount seem life changing, really only a token gift.

  My experience with Indian journalism in general is that (sometimes) a good story is better than the truth, particularly when that story advances the larger aim of keeping everyone dumb and happy, maintaining social harmony. I don't think we can eliminate all Indian news sources and the correct action is to accept them but with more caution and verification. Note that Times of India is the largest English-language circulation in the world, it's not like cutting off The Daily Mail or something, it would be huge and given this is the primary news outlet of India potentially very adverse. -- GreenC 14:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't editorializing or misleading framing, it's outright fabrication. The only way to verify sources that have a reputation for this is to find a corroborating source, and at that point it's basically a generally unreliable declaration. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The tech industry uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any piece of technology people don't understand and WP:RSN uses "AI" as a buzzword to describe any newspaper article that doesn't make sense. I would ask that anyone that believes an unreliable source is "AI-generated" try using a large-language model to replicate the hallucinations. It is much more difficult than you think.

Editors are greatly overestimating the capacity of WP:TOI's staff. They've fabricated content before AI (including for pay) and will do so into the future, though this is much worse than usual. The impact of banning it would be enormous but even so, they're clearly not safe for even basic human-interest stories anymore. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The Nation (Site)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is the reliability of The Nation for biographies, current events, and politics about the country Malawi? This is an online version of the physical newspaper that began in 1993 while the online version (that I am asking this for) started in 1998. It is the country's only major paper.

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

Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are you asking? Do you believe that it's not reliable? Or is someone else challenging it? Alaexis_¿question? 09:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I would like to know if it's reliabe so that it can be added here and so that the CiteHighlighter script can indicate it. Am sure you can't just add sources as reliable without any discussion, or RfC on Perennial sources, can you? If the source is believed to be reliable, then just like all reliable sources are treated, it should be added where other reliable sources are listed. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That list is not a list of reliable sources, no such thing exists. It's a list of sources that have been discussed. This won't be on the perennial sources list, as it hasn't been regularly discussed. This also doesn't need to be an RFC, Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#How to use and improve this page just says there has to have been a discussion about the source.
As to the source it appears to be a typical WP:NEWSORG, and as reliable as such. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

So it is reliable then. Is there a way for the CiteHighlighter script to recognize this as reliable? For example, you will see that BBC links are marked in green in the CiteHighlighter to indicate that the site is reliable (those of you who use this script). Some are marked in red for being regarded as unreliable. Some in orange, greener, etc. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, we only mark sources that have been discussed (usually multiple times) and this hasn’t been. There is no need to mark it in a color. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC I don't see any extensive discussion of the source. If it was previously discussed then where are the links to prior discussions? Conversely, if there is currently an issue with a specific use we should look at that specific case rather than a general case with little information. RfCs shouldn't be generalized until we have had a number of discussions related to a specific source or some clear, external issue has been seen (say a switch to heavy AI created articles). Springee (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Springee Calling this bad Rfc honestly doesn't help me or anyone who is not familar with this. By the way, speaking of prior discusion, I tried to post this here last month ago but was it was archived without a response/answer. This is why I had to post again, going with single site. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. That's understandable if you don't do much RSN page watching. What I would suggest is withdrawing this RfC then simply asking if a particular The Nation article is reliable/due for a given claim. I would take no response here to mean go with the consensus on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to have been opened as a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide highlights. If Tumbuka Arch agrees I suggest this is closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested Sure. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close. A search finds that it is only used in all of 275 articles and there has been a distinct lack of prior discussion at WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these sources on K. Annamalai reliable?

Hi! I'm writing an article on K. Annamalai, the Tamil Nadu state president for the BJP and more or less Narendra Modi's main man in the state. I've used all of the sources listed below for the first draft, which are not listed anywhere on the Perennial sources page as either reliable or unreliable (you can read my article draft here to see how exactly I've used them). I'd be quite grateful if you guys could go over all of them and let me know if they're good enough to be cited in a Wiki article.

- The News Minute (these articles)

- Livemint (this article)

- Business Standard (this page)

- India Today (this page)

- Deccan Herald (these four articles here)

- NDTV (this article)

- theprint.in (these articles)

- Oneindia (this page)

By the way, how do I get at least some of these sources on the Perennial page? They're all a pretty big deal in Indian news media (to varying degrees), but none of them are listed on the page - in fact, there are only three Indian sources listed as "reliable" in total, which sort of limits the options of people trying to write articles about figures who are only discussed in India. Let me know who I should talk to so I can help fix this. Thanks! CalyxSage (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@CalyxSage: The Oneindia page you list is certainly not acceptable as a source since as per the disclaimer at the page it "is sourced from various publicly available platforms including https://en.wikipedia.org/" and the publisher disclaims responsibility for its contents. See WP:CIRCULAR for one of the relevant policies.

Most of the other sources you list should be okay under WP:NEWSORG although that should not be taken to mean that they can be used blindly, especially when writing a WP:BLP, and editorial judgement needs to be applied depending upon what exactly the source is being cited for. As a concrete example, while this Print profile may be used as a source for the subject's educational qualifications, it is a puff-piece ("broke a lot of hearts", "strict policeman who has a heart of gold" etc) and a wikipedia article should not regurgitate its characterizations uncritically.

At a quick glance, your current draft seems to along the right lines although I would suggest that you have it reviewed at WP:AFC before moving it into mainspace so that some kinks can be ironed out. For example, the line about the subject belonging to the Kongu Vellalar community is currently unsourced (see also WP:CASTEID) and the note about the community being classed as OBC, which is cited to a government database, would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS. But overall a good start! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll get rid of the Oneindia source, I was only using it to cite his birthdate and birthplace. This Hindustan Times article confirms the same information, should I just use it instead as a citation in the same place?

Also, I'm not really sure where to source Annamalai being from the Kongu Vellalar community. I got that information from the Tamil Wikipedia page about him but now that I look back at it, they didn't actually source it either, whoops. Everything else I look up about his background confirms that that's the community he's from, but nothing that I could source in a Wikipedia article (e.g. websites with names like "StarsUnfolded", Quora posts asking about his caste, etc). What should I do? I feel like this information is something that should be noted in an article on him, seeing that this type of thing gets a fair amount of weightage in India.

Thanks! CalyxSage (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Deccan Herald should definitely go on RSP. I’m not familiar with the others. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm only sort of familiar with the Indian press environment, but I believe that all of these sources, maybe save Oneindia, are pretty well established (NDTV is just Indian CNN). Maybe ask other Indian Wikipedians who are familiar with news in India about their validity. CalyxSage (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop using The Times of Israel as a source for Israel-Palestine conflict news.

The Times of Israel has shown itself to be biased in favor of Israel on multiple occasions, such as this article where they put an Israeli report above internationally recognized reports about Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, and this article where they refer to Sde Teiman detention camp as a "field hospital", and the civilians held there as "October 7 suspects". MountainDew20 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Have they published anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict that has been shown to be false? Pecopteris (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Opinions and controversial facts sourced to the ToI are unlikely to be due unless balanced with contrasting opinions, attribution is likely necessary in many cases. The use of "field hospital" to describe a detention camp is unlikely to be due at all.

It will have very useful factual information about the Israeli perspective on the conflict, especially the thinking of members of the genocidal regime and its armed forces, but it must be used with care due to its level of bias, the lack of freedom of speech and level of self-censorship within Israel at the current moment.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@MountainDew20 First of all your tone is highly problematic. This is not how we start discussions here. We present questions for discussion. We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community. Second, there is nothing problematic with the article about the "famine". It just reports about the position of the Israeli health ministry on the subject. Third, regarding the Sde-Teman facility, the Guardian and CNN also say there is a field-hospital there. Vegan416 (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

They describe it as a field hospital at a detention camp, which is different. The whistleblowers' evidence regards torture at the detention camp as a whole. Saying Sde-Teman is a "field hospital for October 7th suspects", when in fact it is a detention camp for any males captured by the Israeli army in locations they deem likely to hold Hamas/other fighters is worrying. This is a good example of why we must use ToI with care.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The ToI article also describes this facility in the same way "The hospital is near the city of Beersheba in southern Israel. It opened beside a detention center on a military base after the October 7 Hamas attack". And "Israeli human rights groups say the majority of detainees have at some point passed through Sde Teiman, the country’s largest detention center. Doctors there say they have treated many who appeared to be non-combatants". You apparently didn't read the whole article, and judge it based only on the title... Vegan416 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The wording is bad in the article in several places, the article draws a line between the two facilities that no other source does. Again, I think it is clear that the degree of bias and limitations on free speech in Israel means that we need to be careful with these type of sources. This of course does not mean we can't use it.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have shown that the Guardian and CNN also draw a line between the facilities. Also it seems that the people who were the sources for this article worked in medical jobs there, so the emphasis on the hospital part seems reasonable. I also disagree completely with your claim that there are significant limitations on the freedom of the Times of Israel. This article actually proves the opposite. Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they published an article about Sde Teiman and did some journalistic work themselves to investigate the abuses committed by "their" side actually shows that it's a reliable and valuable source. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the better Israeli media in my experience, a little biased but comparatively less so than others. Byline "TOI staff" should be avoided and attribution for controversial material, but otherwise I think its OK. Selfstudier (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

All sources on this are biased, and by that I include the New York Times etc., which the other day attributed to the Israeli government a plan which other sources said substantially met the core demands of the Hamas authority, a plan which Israel promptly rebuffed. Were bias the criterion, then we would be close to having no secondary sources at our disposition. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Its news reporting is better than most of the Israeli press. Its opinion pages are frequently written by lunatics and should be ignored. Zero^talk 09:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell us which of the writers featured in the OPs section here today is a lunatic , and why do you think so? Vegan416 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ToI blogs are obviously unreliable unless written by an expert. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Come on Vegan416, you can't be telling people "We don't give orders to the entire Wikipedia community" (which is not really a rule, rather, a popular activity/comedy goldmine), then ask someone to name names, thus potentially violating WP:BLP. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't order him. I asked him. Can't you tell the difference between ordering the entire community to stop using a source, and asking someone a question? Also, obviously Zero did not use the word "lunatic" here as a certified psychiatric diagnosis but rather as his political opinion, which therefore doesn't violate WP:BLP in any way. Vegan416 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently I can tell the difference between 'order' and 'ask' using the difference in symbols. That's probably why I wrote 'ask' rather than 'order', although I can't be sure. Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I was merely pointing out what looked like a mistake to me. If you are interested in testing WP:BLPTALK, it's probably better to do it yourself. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who labelled here a whole group of specific people as potentially "lunatics". So whatever concerns you may have regarding WP:BLP should be aimed at Zero and not at me. Vegan416 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition to Nishidani's point, our policies do not require reliable sources to be unbiased or even neutral. They do require them to be accurate in context of the material they are being used to source/reference. The issue with the TOI isnt one of bias, its that it frequently publishes what amounts to Israeli government line with little-to-no editorial comment or critical evaluation. So when the Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias. Its certainly reliable if you want to know what the Israeli government wants people to think/believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a few examples of them uncritically reporting something you would describe as: Israeli government goes into misinformation mode, the TOI reflects this. Its incredibly low-value when compared to most reputable non-Israeli news organisations on the subject of Israel government and state actions, even taking into account bias FortunateSons (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

ToI is generally reliable for good reasons. They do original reporting (though I concur with others that some of their opinion pieces are of mixed quality in text and author), but removing any citation simply because it’s ToI will be highly inappropriate 99% of the time. Bias (which they are significantly less affected by than many others) is not unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I agree with Boynamedsue, Nishidani, Selfstudier and Alaexis. No source on this contentious topic is perfect; we should be wary of being overreliant on any one source; but bias is not unreliability and this is basically usable with the usual caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This may not be obvious to most editors, but the central use-case for TOI and, to a lesser extent, JPost, is as aggregation of Hebrew-language media. Many stories are only available in English via these outlets, and they are usually reliable translators. NOTE: This is to the exclusion of specialized legal, religious, or military subjects. TOI and JPost do not have the expertise to translate these articles correctly (no one with legal, military analysis, or Orthodox-religious higher education on staff) and the result is often seriously distorted.

Although w/r/t religious and technical detail a similar concern attaches to every daily newspaper, I would never prefer TOI for any claim that a monolingual outlet had equal ability to report. For example, I spoke with Jacob Magid last year for a story regarding UN diplomacy. He had badly misunderstood his source, unlike mainstream outlets. There is no reason to use TOI for such a claim.

Anyway, there's a category of such publications for every foreign language, and it does no one any good to restrict our citations to equal-quality foreign-language sources that most editors can't even evaluate. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Mada Masr

Is Mada Masr a reliable source on the Arab- Israeli conflict? Specifically, can we use it for a claim that a particular casualty of the recent war was "executed", as here- Faiq Al-Mabhouh? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article you've linked acknowledges that he died fighting (His brother surrendered, but Mabhouh resisted and engaged in gunfire that resulted in his death). AJ Arabic also confirms that he died in a clash with Israeli forces. So the facts of his death are not in question and can be described in wikivoice.

This leaves us with the question of whether the characterisation of his death as "assassination" should be included in the article. I think that this is a rather unusual choice of words for a death on a battlefield, and unless there many other RS that use it, we should not include it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems he was a Hamas security forces officer that died while fighting, so clearly he cannot be said to have been "executed". Vegan416 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it the only source that uses the word "assassinated"? From the article it would likely seem an exceptional claim that would require other sources to agree with it in order to be WP:DUE.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?

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

Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Telegraph on trans issues)

• Option 3, and I'd vote 4 if I thought deprecating in a single topic area made sense. The Telegraph has lied repeatedly about trans issues. In one case, it promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week, and even when the hoax was proven false they didn't retract or correct any of it. In fact, in the final article in the series it seems to double down on its dubious claim despite it directly being proven false. Also the second article in that series makes several other similar hoax claims that are completely and totally unsourced.

This wasn't a one-off incident either. Here are several more examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues:

1. They regularly ask anti-trans interest groups for comment while calling them subject-matter experts or trying to disguise their affiliation. See here (James Esses is not and has never been a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group), here (the idea that the UN is violating international law with a tweet is pretty transparently ridiculous, and yet they have the person saying that positioned as an expert), and here (anti-trans interest group Sex Matters is positioned as a women's rights group) but there are many many other examples.

2. They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic. And they're not even consistent on this, this is a factual question they don't appear to have a single position on either way. One way or the other they must be saying something false.

3. Here they try very hard to cast doubt on what reading between the lines appears to be a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on. Similarly see this article, which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like.

I'm not just going based off direct evidence either: there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well. I have even more evidence here because it's frankly unending. Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did they promote the litter boxes in schools thing? I can't find it in the articles you linked. The only mention I could find in those articles was them saying it was a hoax? tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes[160] Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? Endwise (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What you're missing is that according to the article on the hoax, it's not just about literal litter boxes but any accommodation for students that identify as animals. Sorry for the lack of clarity, but I partly blame it on the article title and the lead being so strongly focused on this particular iteration of the hoax, when the rest of the article has followed the myth as it's actually evolved. Loki (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no mention of a litter box. The viewpoint seems to be that any mention of a child identifying as an animal is an example of the litterbox hoax.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Addressing a few different points discussed here:

• As noted above, the statement that the Telegraph "promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax" is misleading at best.
  • The Telegraph does not mention that litter boxes were involved in this incident. In fact, this article places the incident in its broader context and denies the hoax:

    Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.

  • The Guardian and PinkNews articles do not show that the story was "directly proven false". The central question here is whether a student truly had a feline identity. These articles do not disprove that. They state that an investigation exonerated the behavior of the teacher and school (reprimanding the students who mocked the idea of a feline identity).
  • In general, pointing to an article from an otherwise reliable source and saying "This story resembles other incidents that were hoaxes, therefore this is also false and an instance of the hoax" is not a sound argument. Consider the example of snuff films. The Wikipedia page says that snuff films are an urban legend because there are videos of people being murdered, but none of them have been sold for profit. But if such a film were to emerge and be sold for profit, and then be reported on by a reliable source, we wouldn't say "This is clearly an example of the snuff film hoax, therefore we should deprecate the source that reported it".
• The Telegraph article describes James Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people. Esses is a counsellor according to this article, which calls him a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists".
• The characterization of this article as "whining" does not appear to be a good-faith summary of the article. The IOC paper's critics raise several issues that, if true, are significant and problematic: small sample size, self-selection bias, failure to control for important variables like hormone treatment and body fat percentage, etc. It is not "whining" to raise these concerns.
• The "even more evidence" linked further down is largely unconvincing in terms of reliability issues. Stories are described as "extremely dodgy", "dubious", and "suspicious", but with no explanation for why this is so. Without further elaboration, this strikes me as precisely what the IOC study's critics are being accused of—complaining about articles with an unfavorable perspective—but from the opposite direction.

Astaire (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It is perhaps important to point out that seemingly the only mention of litterboxes wre this in The Telegraph (search query: "telegraph litterboxes lgbtq") is this article, about the school denying the rumors. Flounder fillet (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

See above: the litter boxes in schools hoax is about any accommodation, not just litter boxes, and this is clear if you read the examples and not just the lead. Loki (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not the way it is framed in the article or how a reasonable person would understand it.-Boynamedsue (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is? The article uses all the following as examples of the hoax:

• In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.
• In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".
• Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.

"Litter boxes" specifically is the central example of the hoax but it's not the only way it can manifest. Loki (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Let's assume any claim of accomodations for animal-identifying students is a hoax (even though you have been unable to show that despite being pressed on this issue by many people).

Can you provide some actual examples of The Telegraph saying that students identifying as cats receive accomodations? More specifically, some kind of quote? Accommodation is a broad term; a student could self-ID as a variety of things and yet not need individualized accomodations from the school. If your claim is that The Telegraph falsely promoted the idea that students received accomodations for identifying as animals, you should be able to a) point to specific examples of accomodations and b) quote The Telegraph saying that students received those particular accomodations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The articles repeatedly claim that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. That sounds like an accommodation to me, right? Loki (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative rights (such as punishing other students) are not an "accommodation" in the same way as positive rights (such as providing litter boxes). And the litter box hoax article contains no similar stories where students or school officials were punished for refusing to respect any feline identities. This story does not slide into the "litter box hoax" framework as neatly as you want it to. Astaire (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This said it better than I could. Even if the claim that students identifying as animals receive rights to services matching their chosen animal identity is false in every case, that's not even what LokiTheLiar is saying The Telegraph said. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Astaire Okay then, so, was the story true?

Even if you disagree that it's an example of this particular hoax, it's still definitely false reporting every day for a week, right? IMO this "which hoax is it" stuff is a red herring: it sounds compelling but doesn't actually make the Telegraph any more reliable that they promoted a false claim that was merely similar to a well-known hoax rather than an actual example of it. And again, never corrected nor retracted said false claim. And tried to imply it was true even in an article directly mentioning the proof that it was false. Loki (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just now entering the discussion, so I may have missed this, but...what exactly did the Telegraph say that was "proven false"? I'm having a hard time finding it. Pecopteris (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

They claimed multiple times that a student identified as an animal, and that a teacher strongly insulted another student who questioned this identification. None of this is true according to the school itself. It's a misinterpretation of a (real) recording, on which the idea of identifying as an animal was brought up rhetorically to insult a trans student. Loki (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim you're disputing is that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a specific classmate's identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not true at all. The student was reprimanded for attacking another student's very real trans identity using the metaphor of animal identity. Loki (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm getting this straight, @Chess and @LokiTheLiar.

A student at a school (call them student #1) identified as trans. Another student (student #2) objected in some way to acknowledging student #1's trans identity, and rhetorically brought up animal identity...i.e. "if we respect student #1's identity, what's next, does that mean we have to respect animal identity, too?" Then, the teacher reprimanded student #2, and told student #2, essentially, "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that, and it's insensitive and wrong to not respect animal identity."

But the Telegraph missed the "rhetorically" part, and instead inaccurately reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal.

Obviously I am paraphrasing, but do I have the gist correct? Want to make sure I understand the objections before I weigh in on the survey. Thanks. Pecopteris (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

One small misunderstanding; the Telegraph never reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal; they only reported that students #2 and #3 were reprimanded for not accepting classmate #1 identifying as an animal, which is true. BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Close, but the teacher didn't say "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that". She just said, essentially, "you're being very disrespectful and you need to stop".

BilledMammal above is incorrect, here's the direct quote of what they said: A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation is also saying that the prime minister resigned. Loki (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep using The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation, but the equivalent hypothetical would be The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

In addition, at the time of publication, no one knew whether the classmate actually identified as a cat or not, and as such there was clearly no issue with them not taking a stance on whether the classmate did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk)

If you really insist, I will use the longer example, because it clearly doesn't make a lick of difference. You cannot make a false claim not false or not a claim by adding more subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A question to all participants. Where can we see a full, accurate and reliable transcript of this video, or even better the full unedited video itself? Vegan416 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The best option is the Daily Mail's one which has captions but is edited to have scary music on top of it. [161] WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated for a reason though, so I'd take anything not substantiated by another source with a grain of salt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've placed a transcript here if you don't want to sit through the Daily Mail vid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Void_if_removed/sandbox/Catgate_transcript Void if removed (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pecopteris: Pretty much. I think the teacher was less clear than you're making it out to be, but you have the gist of it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are two examples referring to extreme non-litter tray accommodations in our article, but the point is that they were not true. Hence the word "hoax". The Telegraph does not make any claim of accommodations, merely stating that children were called despicable for refusing to identify a classmate (who it does not specify is real or hypothetical) as a cat.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki, please stop moving this down to discussion; you don't get to present your arguments and deny those who disagree with those arguments the opportunity to reject them in context.

As a general rule, if you are going to hat or move something, the highest level reply included within the hatting or moving should be one you made. For example, you could move 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC), but not 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC). BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you won't let me move a discussion that's several pages long down to the Discussion section where it clearly belongs.

Let me ping an uninvolved admin to settle this. @ScottishFinnishRadish, twice now I have tried to move this incredibly long thread responding to my !vote to the Discussion section. Twice now BilledMammal has brought it back up, and this time they're accusing me of attempting to eke out some sort of advantage by doing this. Could you please settle where it belongs? Loki (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki, I don’t see you moving your own rebuttals to others !votes down to discussion.

As I said, if you want to shorten this, do so from your own replies; allow the immediate rebuttals to stand, and move your replies to those rebuttals, and all conversation from those replies, down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I put comments I expect are going to lead to long threads in the discussion section in the first place. But I do and have moved other threads many times without regard to whether or not it helps "my side". Honestly the idea you think this is partisan is baffling and is indicative of a huge WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.

I'm not moving just my comments down because that wouldn't help. There are five responses to my !vote, counting this thread, and one of them is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. If you want I can move the whole thread including the !vote down and re-vote, but that would make several other people's !votes not make a lot of sense in context so I'd rather not do that either.

(Why did you put this in the Survey section, by the way? It's clearly not a !vote, you could have put it in Discussion and pinged me.) Loki (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, we might as well leave everything as-is and just stop making the wall of text bigger. If anyone has more to say about this thread, just put it in the discussion section and ping everyone from this thread. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The general rule, when refactoring a discussion you are involved in, is don't refactor in a way that gives you the last word.

As for just moving down just your comments, and the responses to your comments, it would reduce the length of the responses from ~2600 to ~800. For context, the length of your !vote is ~800. If your concern is length, I'm not sure how removing ~1800 words wouldn't help.

No objection to moving this discussion over refactoring down to discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The Telegraph is generally unreliable for topics involving transgender people, matters, etc. There is extensive evidence that the Telegraph's coverage of trans topics defies relevant academic consensus around the reality of trans experience and existence and favors sensationalist parroting of rumors without contextualizing the content as unreliable rumors. Secondary sources, including scholarly pieces published by academic presses Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury Publishing as well as conventional journalism, have reported on this unreliability. This unreliability cannot be reduced to a "bias" that editors are expected to filter out when citing the coverage. A "bias" is an implied frown or favor; it's not a failure to get facts right or a disregard for academic consensus. The Telegraph's coverage entails the latter. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. It was extensively proven that The Telegraph constantly propagates blatant lies and misinformation regarding transgender topics. Skyshiftertalk 03:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 We're not quite at Option 4 yet on trans topics in particular, but we're rapidly approaching that with The Telegraphs seeming turn toward Daily Mail esque misinformation when it comes to topics involving transgender people. Actively promoting extreme fringe people without including their pseudoscience position in their articles, making up incidents and conversations that didn't actually occur in events involving trans people and gender identity and then trying to pass things off as "well, the things we said could be true and may still be true" is some high level gaslighting nonsense from a supposed mainstream news source. Like I said, we're not quite at Option 4 yet, but I feel like we're teetering on a knife's edge and one more extreme case of this sort from the paper would push it over. Silverseren^C 03:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The evidence provided here by Loki distorts the articles and mainly hinges on The Telegraph not taking a pro-trans viewpoint, same as the last RfC. [162] The Telegraph never said students have litterboxes in schools, did proper journalistic due-diligence on the possibly cat-identifying student, quoting opposing views on a subject is standard journalism, and saying that "trans women aren't biological women" doesn't make it unreliable. A drug that the manufacturer states could be harmful to breastfeeding babies does in fact make chestmilk less safe and a self-selected study of 69 people does not conclusively prove that trans women are worse at sports than cis women.

To go point-by-point (starting with the 0th), The Telegraph never promoted the "litterboxes in schools" hoax. The articles cited by LokiTheLiar claimed students identified as animals, not that they requested accommodation in the form of litterboxes. The first claim is much more believable than the second, and was based on a recorded conversation in which a teacher at Rye College asserted a student was offended because their identity as a cat was questioned.

Specifically, this controversy was because a student was reprimanded for not accepting that a classmate of theirs could identify as a cat. This student recorded the conversation and leaked it to the media. The contents of the conversation itself implied that a classmate *did* identify as a cat, which Pink News acknowledged. In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?” [163] And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. [164] While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said: Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way” in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals. [165]

It's bizarre to claim that The Telegraph knowingly spread false information when the contents of the recording the story was based on indicated that a student did identify as a cat, and the school did not even dispute the truthfulness of the allegation. How were they supposed to know that this was false when they published the story?

If Loki wants to refute my point that The Telegraph said that animal-identifying students are getting litterboxes in schools, merely provide a quote from the article saying so.

In response to Loki's first point, that quoting anti-transgender activist groups makes The Telegraph unreliable, this is standard journalistic practice. A newspaper giving both sides of the story does not make it unreliable. Loki's standard, that The Telegraph should not quote any anti-trans activists when covering transgender-related topics, is untenable. The Telegraph does not misrepresent Esses' affiliation by describing him as a therapist, only as a spokesperson for a group of therapists.

In more detail, James Esses is a spokesperson for Thoughtful Therapists. He is passionate about this issue because he was thrown out of his master's program for holding gender-critical beliefs. [166] [167] One does not have to be a therapist to be an activist about therapy. Should the Amazon Labor Union be deplatformed because it's chief organizer, Chris Smalls, was fired from his job at Amazon?

In the first article cited by Loki [168], the article accurately describes Esses as a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people The article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology.

The second article provides a quote saying that the tweet Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity. contravenes the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. [169] While Loki describes this as pretty transparently ridiculous, Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females [170] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.

The third article says that Sex Matters is a women's rights group. They advocate for what they see as women's rights, which they don't view as including trans women. At best, this demonstrates that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical viewpoint since they're adopting the preferred verbiage of such. This isn't a factual distortion and isn't very WP:FRINGE given that the UN says women's rights refer to ciswomen's rights.

On Loki's 2nd point, the statement that trans women are women or that trans men are men is a litmus test for agreement with the transgender movement. It's a commonly-held political position, one held by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women [171] and the Education Secretary of the UK [172]. Proposing to designate The Telegraph as unreliable on that basis alone is illogical since by that logic we should get rid of Reem Alsalem. But the sources Loki provided don't even authoritatively state that trans women aren't women.

Loki's first source [173] says that It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards. It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women.

Loki's second source says that a 13-year-old socially transitioned without the mother of such knowing. [174] The Cass Review, a systemic review of evidence in the field of transgender medicine, points out the same concerns on page 160, point 12.16, and says that socially transitioning young girls could reinforce feelings of gender incongruence. Saying that a socially transitioned 13-year-old might not really be trans is not saying that "trans women are not women" and that is not asserted in the article.

Loki's third source[175] does dispute that trans women are women, but appears to be an outside opinion piece from Richard Garside, who "is the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies". That's not an official policy of the newspaper, and per WP:OPINION, opinion pieces already have a lower standard of reliability.

Loki's fourth source[176] says that there is a distinction between biological sex and gender, then acknowledges that students can change gender, i.e. be transgender.

It is telling that Loki did not provide any quotes from these articles despite the claim that they all "alleged directly" this claim. If they make these direct allegations, one should be able to provide quotes for the ones I have refuted.

For Loki's third point, the first article just reports that transgender women can produce milk to feed babies and an NHS trust says that this is equivalent to normal breastmilk. [177] Then it discusses how the patient leaflet for the drug used to facilitate this, Motilium, says Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. [It] should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary. I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph?

The second article for Loki's third point[178] quotes Dr. Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, saying that the study compared unathletic trans women to athletic cis women. [179] It had a self-selected participant base of 69 volunteers responding to a social media advertisement. The claim is that the study is poor-quality research funded to advance a viewpoint. Loki says that the second article is anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what WP:MEDRS tells us to do. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.

Please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective. Future comments should be more specific because otherwise they are unfalsifiable generalities Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I'll add on, that in your linked page you acknowledge that your problem with Thoughtful Therapists isn't that it's being inaccurately described, but that The Telegraph uses biased phrasing in favour of it. They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".

[180] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it can be and is both. Loki (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that[...] Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.

It should be noted that this position paper states the following on it's last page:

The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization.

See also United Nations special rapporteur.Flounder fillet (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, since I wrote this already, here's The Telegraph making a similar mistake and the BBCs better coverage of the same situation. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess I think that this response, despite being long, doesn't have a lot of substance. A couple of quick points:

First, the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't necessarily about litter boxes specifically but any accommodation. A teacher defending an animal identity and punishing other students for questioning it certainly is an accommodation and the Telegraph repeatedly made this claim in those articles. And regardless of whether it was an example of the hoax, the fact of the matter is that it is definitely and unambiguously false, and the Telegraph repeated it over and over again and never retracted or corrected it.

Second, I specifically do not think that quoting anti-trans activist groups makes the Telegraph unreliable per se. What I'm objecting to is hiding the nature of those anti-trans activist groups, and also quoting them repeatedly as experts, and usually without any reference to pro-trans activist groups at all.

Third, I agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false. But it's clearly misleading because it makes it seem that he is a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is a reliable professional organization when neither is true: he got kicked out of his program for bigotry of the sort that he is being quoted to repeat, and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans activist group which clearly does not require you to be any sort of psychotherapy professional to be a member given that James Esses is a member. Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading. It would be like describing Andrew Wakefield as "a well-known doctor": not technically false but clearly misleading.

Fourth, as Flounder fillet said that's Reem Alsalem's own personal opinion and is honestly not directly related here anyway. The claim being made here is ridiculous no matter what Reem Alsalem thinks. The UN cannot violate international law with a tweet.

Fifth, see Talk:Trans_woman/Definitions for an exhaustive list of sources on the matter of trans women being women. TL;DR no matter how much you think it's gender ideology or whatever, saying that trans women are men is very much not in keeping with reliable sources. I think your close interpretation of these sources to deny that they are calling trans women men or trans men women is pretty clearly untrue. As briefly as I can manage: in the first article it's the headline and the first sentence among other times, second article calls the transmasculine subject of the article a girl repeatedly, the fourth article calls people binding their breasts "girls". The third article you concede but say is opinion is marked in the URL as news, and not marked as opinion in any way. So it's either news, or the Telegraph is mixing opinion and news, which would make it unreliable generally and not just for trans issues. Being from a writer that does not usually write for the Telegraph does not make something opinion.

Sixth, for my third point you're trying to make us focus on the trees and ignore the forest. (Honestly, I think that's the whole reply, but especially on this point.) Yeah if you ignore that the NHS is officially saying a medical statement you can make it look dubious. You can also make a whole study look dubious if you quote one doctor and a bunch of non-experts. Here at Wikipedia, we wouldn't say that a single doctor's professional opinion is even WP:MEDRS but for the Telegraph it's apparently better than a study. Loki (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that the litter boxes in schools hoax isn't literally about litter boxes is both untrue and irrelevant to the point, which is that The Telegraph did their journalist due diligence. They had a recording where a) the teacher said a student identified as a cat, and b) the school didn't deny that in their initial statement. Only a week later did the school deny the story after intense media pressure, but no one other than the school ever denied a student ID'd as a cat. If your claim is WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL, show why the fact-checking of the source was deficient, because even reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, and the most evidence you have the Telegraph made a mistake is the school's denial after the article came out.

On your 2nd and 3rd points, the purpose of designating a source as unreliable is to prevent using it in articles. Citing a reliable source for what it implies (and does not directly support) can already be challenged and removed from articles per WP:Verifiability. Since you acknowledge that the false claims you've drawn from the Telegraph are only misleading implications, designating the Telegraph as WP:GUNREL or WP:MREL is redundant as those claims already cannot be cited. Please give directly supported claims from The Telegraph that are false and could be cited under our reliability policies if the source was declared WP:GREL.

On your 4th point we will have to agree to disagree over whether United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Reem Alsalem is a WP:FRINGE perspective on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, since you acknowledge she agrees with the claims Women's Declaration International made against the tweet.

On your 5th point, I've explained how articles 1, 2, and 4 are saying that the definition of "trans women" is too wide, not that "trans women =/= women". I'm not going to go in circles on whether taking the position "trans women are women" is a good litmus test to apply to reliable sources, we've both written our views. Article 3 is either a single example of an opinion miscategorized as a news piece (which I believe happened) or it's a regular news article and the only factual error you've pointed out is it saying trans women aren't women.

Your sixth point doesn't explain how the Telegraph was wrong in saying the Motilium patient leaflet contradicts the NHS guidance nor does it address why the Telegraph was wrong in saying that the IOC study had a small sample size and a discrepancy in fitness between the trans athletes and the cis athletes. If the Telegraph isn't wrong, why does quoting these views make the Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, although I'm open to Option 2. So far, I don't think any of the arguments made stand up to Chess's rebuttal statement. Looking forward to seeing a counter-rebuttal. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 There is clearly no presence of a litter box hoax in the linked articles. The Telegraph made a largely accurate report of that situation. The rest of the complaint is simply a protest about the political positions of the Telegraph. Sources have political positions, we can only reject them when they publish false content. The milk thing, again, they don't say anything false, and I am deeply uncomfortable with wikipedia mandating holding a political position that transmen are men and transwomen are women as a barrier for RS. Obviously, the Telegraph has a strong bias when it discusses trans topics, and that is something we should be aware of, just as we should when we read something from the Pink News. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. See my reply above disputing many of the arguments made for lowering reliability. A good argument has been made for bias, but a much weaker argument has been made for reliability concerns. Astaire (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Biased source for this topic, but clearly reliable (as demonstrated by Chess above). Pavlor (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: In summary, practically of Loki’s third-party sources of the Telegraph amounts to bias, not of unreliability. If sources take a position of X or Y on certain controversial areas, not is not indicative of reliability in those areas. I believe the only instances of true factually errors came from the two IPSO complaints. However, this “evidence” undermines the OP’s argument that the Telegraph is unreliable since the IPSO noted how quickly and responsibly the Telegraph fixed their errors. I brought up how the Telegraph is a noted newspaper of record. This is not to say newspapers can’t make mistakes. Rather, it signifies that for some time—over 150 years in this case—the newspaper has been a beacon of peak journalistic performance. It would take mountains of solid evidence to overturn the Telegraph’s status of a newspaper of record. Such evidence has not been presented. This is a clear slippery-slope RfC that has the potential to overturn many of our other most ironclad RSs—such as the Times and the Economist—into sources equivalent to tabloid media. What a shame that would be. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Strong evidence has been presented that Telegraph is not generally reliable on this topic, with its extreme bias leading it to report in misleading way. But I do not yet see enough evidence to consider it generally unreliable on this topic. My view is that this is a contentious topic where we should only use the very best of sources and/or triangulate reliable but biased sources, and so the presumption should be against using the Telegraph anyway, so I'd be comfortable with option 3, but I think we need a stronger evidence base from other reliable sources before designating it generally unreliable, let alone deprecating it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. I'm disappointed to see the opening vote on this RfC repeat several points that were rebutted in the RFCBEFORE discussion. @Chess: has done a good job of addressing them. Many of the points seem to fundamentally conflate bias and reliability. We are told there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Wikipedia considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has alleged directly that trans women are men. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be unreliable. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically false. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are generally reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Wikipedia. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think something you say here is the key to all the recent RfC's on news sources and trans issues. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.--Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: In the discussion earlier I was leaning towards “additional considerations” and I'm not personally a fan of the Telegraph’s spin so I wouldn't lose sleep over Option 2, but I have found the comments about the difference between bias and unreliability persuasive.

Most of the provided evidence hinges on a misrepresentation of the "cat" story. The Telegraph categorically did not promote the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth:

Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.

The only aspect of the story that actually seems in any doubt is as to whether there actually was a child in the school who did identify as a cat, or whether this was a hypothetical thrown up in the classroom discussion, and it was ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the recorded conversation - and subsequently denied by the school. Everything else is AFAICT pretty factually reported, albeit biased, and audio of the incident was widely available so anyone can confirm this. The "cat-identification" portion is almost irrelevant in the context of the actual discussion, in which a teacher tells a class of students that there are three human sexes, and labels a child despicable for disagreeing as well as suggesting they should leave the school. These are reported accurately, eg.:

She added that "there is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones"

The teacher said that "if you don’t like it you need to go to a different school", adding: "I’m reporting you to [senior staff], you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson."

All of this is true and verifiable and acknowledged by the school:

The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be "reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future".

So again - the only aspect of the story that is exaggerated is that there was an actual child literally identifying as a cat in that class, which does not seem to be true, but is also - despite the headlines - a minor aspect of the story and nothing to do with the "litter box" hoax at all. Dismissing it as such serves to obscure than the vast majority of the story - as reported elsewhere - was nothing to do with the cat-identification and actually to do with poor handling of a sensitive subject, and it was this handling which prompted a snap inspection. The fact that media across the spectrum focused on the specific detail of the cat virtually to the exclusion of the entire rest of the story, and that politicians and pundits made much hay with that, is a universal failure and merely representative of silly season to my mind. Additionally, the "rebuttal" is misrepresented - as the Guardian makes clear, the Ofsted inspection did not look at this specific incident, and since the school has already conceded it happened and took action, saying this is "proven false" is, frankly, a misrepresentation. The inspection found that, whatever the failures in this case, they were not systemic.

Some comments about the other points.

• We decide whether a group is "anti-trans" based on how reliable sources refer to them. Deciding a priori that a group is “anti-trans” and that any source that does not denigrate them as such is “unreliable” is begging the question, and POV. Not only that, this sort of reasoning will act like a ratchet, steadily removing all sources except those that adhere to a preconceived POV. This is a rare, non-fallacious slippery slope. Sex Matters are a registered charity, and if reliable sources refer to them as “women’s rights group” then that is how Wikipedia should refer to them, or at the most present different opinionated labels in an attempt to balance a divisive subject. Deciding the Telegraph is factually unreliable for not strongly espousing a particular subjective POV is to elevate one specific POV to the level of fact, and a blanket decision at the source reliability level on that basis will inevitably entrench that POV across the entirety of Wikipedia, and lend weight to further RFCs argued on the same grounds. This is a concerning move indeed.

• Irrespective of whether that makes a source unreliable, the complaints about calling trans women "men" don't seem to be supported by the supplied links.

• On the breastfeeding story - where is a factual error here? And the opener strongly overstates the status of “a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on” in criticising The Telegraph:

The letter leaked to Policy Exchange is here, and no-one disputes its veracity. The letter responds to questions raised over the use of the phrase “human milk”, which they defend as intended to be non-gender biased, as part of their policy on “Perinatal Care for Trans and Non-Binary People”. Then in a specific response to a question which uses the unpleasant phrase “male secretions” they make the claim that induced lactation produces milk “comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby”. They do not outright say this specifically applies to trans women, but this is implied by the five citations. The first four relate solely to lactation induction in females, where such a claim may well be true (though one is a very limited two-person pilot study, and another is a “La Leche League” info page that just references the same citations).

However the fifth citation makes it clear they are applying the same language to trans women. This references a single case study, with a single trans woman participant, with absolutely no sample control. That is, a trans woman, with a partner who had given birth and was at that time breastfeeding - and initially expressing milk too. The participant would deliver samples they themselves had allegedly produced at home - with no supervision or observation - for testing, and the results were limited.

Four samples of expressed human milk were frozen and supplied for analysis. Each 40-ml sample was obtained from full breast pumpings pooled over a 24-hr period, collected approximately once each month, starting 129 days after initiation of domperidone and 56 days after initiation of pumping.

the quantity of expressed milk was low in comparison to what would be needed to sustain infant growth independently

Nutritionally, our participant’s milk was quite robust with higher values for all macronutrients and average calories over 20 kcals per 30 ml. Other important characteristics of human milk, including micronutrients and bioactive factors, were not assessed.

So based on a totally uncontrolled and unverified sample size of one, obtained under an honour system with no source verification, with inadequate volumes and incomplete nutritional testing, it is wishful thinking to consider that a “medical fact”. This is an atrocious standard of evidence, and an NHS Trust shoehorning this in as part of a response to a policy query is, frankly, bizarre.

What is however misleading in The Telegraph's reporting is that they segue from talking about induced lactation in trans women to this claim:

It also references a 2022 study that found “milk testosterone concentrations” were under 1 per cent with “no observable side effects” in the babies.

What they don't make clear in the source is this was referring to a trans man. Now, they don't outright say anything false, but arguably by omission let an ill-informed reader assume they're still talking about trans women, so I think this is marginal. But an obfuscated claim like this does not come close to making them "generally unreliable", rather exactly the sort of biased elision that editors need to be wary of with any biased source.

The objection here seems yet again that the Telegraph reported the story at all, not that it was wrong or in any significant way unreliable. And even if it were, when would we cite this article?

I have no doubt that The Telegraph have their own interest in focusing on and generating such inflammatory stories - but they aren't notably unreliable more than any other biased source IMO. They are biased in what stories they choose to report on and how they choose to present them and what they choose to leave out, but virtually none of what's been presented here amounts to false information. That this cherry-picked handful of coverage spanning years is supposedly the strongest evidence, I find highly unpersuasive. Void if removed (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The Telegraph has gone far beyond bias and into unreliability, from the above RFCbefore they advocate for conversion therapy. From [181] we have the quote "A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat." from which it is clear that the telegraph says someone at the school identifies as a cat. From [182] we have constant misgendering of a child (honestly I can't remember an article where they respect the gender of a trans child) and the quote "citing the most comprehensive study of the impact of binders to date, which found that more than 97 per cent of adults who use them suffer health problems as a result." which seems to be mentioning [183] where the most 5 reported health problems were backpain (53.8%), overheating (53.5%), chest pain (48.8%), shortness of breath(46.6%) and itchiness (44.9%). I think one could get similar health problems (in terms of severity) from people who consistently wear high heals and possibly at a higher frequency. Another point people seem to be bringing up is that it is normal (and best practice) for newspapers to bring activists or campaigners from both sides on any issue, whilst true the telegraph doesn't do this. They rarely balance with a campaigner or activist from stonewall or mermaids or any number of local groups, somehow they always manage to bring in an activist from Safe Sex Matter, Thoughtful Therapists, Safe Schools alliance, Protect and Teach and more. They also promote the myth that most children with gender dysphoria will desist and are in fact gay in some kind [184](one example) a myth based on studies that assume any gender nonconformity is the same as gender dysphoria and based on outdated definitions. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. The deciding factor for me is that The Telegraph has presented fringe voices as authoritative, and at times promoted pseudoscience. That pushes it from being biased towards being unreliable. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Since my preferred answer "Do not make such over-generalizations" It should be case by case, and in the context of the text which it is being used to support. is not on the list. And in majority of those cases, the answer is "yes". North8000 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 This is the Telegraphs leader column today. Meanwhile, the Telegraphs columnists include the notorious "gender-critical" activist Julie Bindel "Trans activists and their allies can be the most horrendous tyrants" plus 30 or more anti-trans rants. Look at that page and tell me "this is a reliable source". Oh and then there's this and this and this and this (which appears to be false) and this is all in the last few weeks. Seriously, if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Did you intend to delete Chess’s comment of 19:33? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not being funny, but all of those are just opinions you disagree with, none of it is factually wrong. Your vote here is so far from our policies, I'm not sure if it should even be counted by the closer.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"None of it is factually wrong". Even if you were correct, which you aren't, do you think it shows that the newspaper can be trusted on the topic? It clearly can't. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well thats the rub isnt it. Our sourcing policies do not require us as editors to personally trust the sources, only that they fulfil the criteria for reliability we have set. I distrust the Telegraph because its a mouthpiece for Tory scumbags, but thats not actually against any of our policies. If only it were. Per Chess, pretty much all the rest of the evidence to me shows bias, but not unreliability (as we have defined it), so I am going to have to regretfully go with option 1. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think there is factual inaccuracy, could you say what it is? Whether I like what it writes (and I usually don't) doesn't make any odds at all.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That last one misrepresents the findings of the Cass review, on top of whatever else is going on there. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS already recommends against using normally reliable news sources to explain complicated medical studies; what does designating The Telegraph as unreliable add here? Even so, I dispute that The Telegraph is inaccurate. The Telegraph's article says Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.

Page 32, paragraph 78 of the Cass Review itself[185] says: Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.

The Cass Review also says on page 164 that Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.

It's not a misrepresentation of the Cass Review to say socially transitioning could cause feelings of gender incongruence, and there should be clinical involvement in the decision-making process instead of a child unilaterally deciding to socially transition without any advice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The SNP government has kept controversial guidance, which calls on teachers to “be affirming” to children who say they are trans and endorses “social transition”, in place despite the recent findings of the Cass review.

Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. This is not the first time, nor the most severe such incident. See this and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/under-25s-trans-care-must-be-slower-says-cass-report/ (visible URL intentional), where the Telegraph states that the report recommends some sort of restrictions on GAC for under-25s and not just for minors. This is false. Additionally, Telegraph coverage of the Cass Review caused problems at the Cass Review article, at the talk page of which the idea for this RfC started. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is not to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how.

If you refuse to say what you believe what the findings of the Cass Review are, it's impossible for other editors to engage with your point and weigh it.

Deciding to criticize two unrelated articles doesn't affect the reliability of the first article, it just confuses the discussion.

But to address your point anyways, WP:RSHEADLINE says that headlines aren't reliable, so the "visible URL" containing the headline isn't citable in articles anyways (this is the only specific part of the article you bothered to say is unreliable). Additionally, those two articles were published the day before the official release of the report and the day of the report being released respectively. WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news, especially when summarizing a newly-released scientific publication. If you look into what the Cass Review says, on page 224, it says that 17 year olds are getting aged out of their childhood transgender care providers and that a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition.

That's the only other inaccuracy I could guess you were referring to; and it did recommend that under 25s not be subject to sudden changes in their care. This fits with the word "slow" which can refer to taking a longer time to complete an action (in this case the action being a transition to adult services).

A source having minor errors in an ambiguous situation during a breaking news story doesn't make it unreliable; it's already possible to exclude those two articles under WP:RSBREAKING without designating the Telegraph as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of not looking insane, I would like to state for the record that I agree with your understanding of the stance taken by the Cass Review final report. Anyways, with the two articles not being relevant to this discussion due to WP:RSBREAKING, this discussion about a nitpick is now meaningless and I concede and drop my point for the sake of not making this RfC swell faster than it needs to. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In your last 4 links, do you plan on including a quote or any specific context about what is false about those stories? That would be useful in conjunction with reliable sources that describe the specific claims as being false.

Just dumping a bunch of links and asserting that it appears to be false without any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough when you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that a newspaper, which under its own byline (let alone its choice of bigotry in its opinion columns) posts wildly biased material, is probably not the best one to trust on the topic. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you've conceded that your evidence does not show that The Telegraph publishes false information. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, please. There is evidence in this discussion that the DT posts misinformation on the topic. And if you think that a newspaper that posts stuff like Bindel's, or like this on a regular basis (did you look at the link I provided?) can in any way be reliable on trans issues is simply delusional. Yes, the DT does - very occasionally - print more balanced articles on the subject, but it's very noticeable that they usually still come with an agenda. Judging a newspaper on its own material - and that's material printed under its own byline as well as by its motley collection of "columnists" is hardly a massive leap. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for collecting the links. You've got a stronger stomach than I have to be able to wade through that much bile. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Their reporting simply doesn't show the respect for facts and getting things right that is required. We've seen plenty of examples of them getting things very wrong; I don't think anyone's pointed to them getting things right, though. Like, it's easy to dismiss their coverage as opinion pieces, but if that's all they have, then they're only really sources for opinion anyway (WP:RSSOPINION), which means they're generally unreliable for actual facts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 is the sensible answer. I don't see how we can depreciate the whole paper at the moment, although it may come to that later depending on who ends up owning it. Option 2 is arguable but I fear that we would be forever arguing over the details of the "additional considerations" and it's just not worth it. Option 1 is entirely untenable. It is undisputable that they have published stories that were substantially untrue, where even casual enquiry would have revealed them to be untrue prior to publication. That is enough to make them unReliable. It doesn't matter whether those untrue stories were published knowingly in bad faith. I'm OK with them remaining Reliable on other topics provided that we broadly construe trans issues to include all the strange and disingenuous ways in which people talk about trans people without actually saying "trans people". So, for example, the ridiculous "litter box" bullshit hoax (I struggle to see any way that it could have been published in good faith unless the entire editorial team was kicked in the head by a horse!) would have to fall within our definition of "trans issues". We recognise that when people say "lizard people" or "global banking elites" they quite often mean Jews. Similarly, we need to recognise that when the Telegraph, and others, say "children who identify as animals", or whatever nonsense codephrase they come up with next, they are talking about trans people in an intentionally obfuscated way and that is fundamentally unReliable writing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Unfortunately based on the evidence here, I think the Telegraph is undoubtedly biased, but bias is explicitly not something that means unreliable. The Daily Mail had a long long history of factual inaccuracies (not to mention just making things up) before we got to the stage where we said it was an unreliable publication. We are not even close to that level of unreliability with the Telegraph. Who knows, there may be plenty of examples of the Telegraphs actual unreliability (as opposed to editorial bias) but I am not seeing them in the discussion or various links above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 During the last RfC on this, which concluded last year, editors were told there was substantial evidence of problems with this source, but the supposed evidence for unreliability wasn't presented. Looking at the supposed evidence this time indicates that it still doesn't exist. From above... "even when the hoax was proven"; it wasn't... there was a later inspection leading to a report that, as The Guardian source states, "does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals". The PinkNews source quotes the same recording that The Telegraph used: "how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?" Further analysis of this isn't worth my time – it's a silly story, but not a "hoax". "James Esses is not and has never been a therapist"; the source doesn't say that he is. "Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group"; the source describes it as "concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people", which is probably a different perspective on the same thing. Same with "Sex Matters". "the UN..."; I don't see what's factually inaccurate. I stopped there. As last time (and the frequency of the attempts is becoming tedious), there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable. EddieHugh (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. My biggest hesitation is the lack of third party reliable sources labelling the Telegraph as misleading on transgender coverage. I could not support option 4 without that. But it is plainly obvious by the examples provided that the Telegraph is incredibly biased on transgender coverage, and I would prefer basically any other news source when citing sources on topics. The Telegraph routinely flaunts basic journalistic practice, engages in bad faith, and hides context regularly. I don't want them used as a source for this topic. I do not find the arguments for option one convincing - The Telegraph being biased may not immediately mean a source is unreliable, but they regularly post hoaxes as facts. -- Carlp941 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Apart from the brief comment I'm unsure how users can acknowledge the clear bias in the Telegraph while voting for option 1 instead of 2, I'll briefly note the evidence I've presented in the RFCBEFORE:

• The Telegraph has been recognizably homophobic since the 70s, was protested even then based on that fact, and supported section 28.[186]
• Chess's, lengthy comment, much like the Telegraph, somehow ignores the context that Thoughtful therapists (formerly the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Association") is a pro-conversion therapy group (see gender exploratory therapy). Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs, he was fired because his employer asked him to stop publicly campaigning against bans on conversion therapy using their organization's name - because he holds the WP:FRINGE view that conversion therapy does not include gender identity change efforts.[187]
• Here is them running an entire article misgendering a transgender teenager and complaining that the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to.[188] In that same article, they use a euphemism for conversion therapy and misrepresent medical information to claim it's a beneficial treatment.[189]
• Here I presented multiple academic papers criticizing the Telegraph's bias, homophobia, and transphobia. [190]
• Here I analyzed the Telegraph's reporting on James Esses of "Thoughtful Therapists" and showed that the WP:DAILYMAIL covered it first with less bias and misrepresentation - unlike the Telegraph, the DailyMail 1) actually provided a definition of conversion therapy 2) noted that Esses tried to convince transgender children they weren't and 3) campaigned against bans on conversion therapy for trans kids [191]
• Chess continues to insist that the Telegraph's reporting of the Cass Review was correct: I previously noted the issues, which the Cass Review noted in its own FAQ, chief of which is the Telegraph said the Review called for slower transitions for those under 25, when the review explicitly did not comment on trans healthcare for those over 18 ... [192]

TLDR: FFS they platform WP:QUACKS on trans topics all the time (specifically the conversion therapy promoting kind), say patently untrue shit, and academia has agreed they have an anti-LGBT bias for decades. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted some editors seem to think "journalistic objectivity" means every single article about trans people should quote transphobic quacks (without even getting to the fact the Telegraph disproportionately gives weight to the latter)... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I'm not sure what incident between James Esses and "his employer" you're referring to, because as I said in my original comment, he was expelled from his master's degree before he could become a therapist. [193] Digging through your comment, I can assume you mean his volunteer position at Childline, something I have not brought up at this RfC. [194]

Calling my comment a WP:Wall of text (you linked WP:WOT which I assume was accidental) and coming up with fictitious scenarios in which I am wrong undermines everything you have said, especially since your entire !vote is cited to other comments you've made (which makes it difficult to verify the sources) instead of reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Quoting your original comment, Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess You're right, I made some mistake, so for the record:

• Chess claims James Esses was expelled from his masters for his GC beliefs, neglecting to mention the GC belief in question was the FRINGE GC view on conversion therapy.[195][196]
• I did mean to link WP:Wall of text instead of WP:WOT - your comment was over 1,600 words.

My point still stands that you left out the context that he was fired for advocating a form of conversion therapy. You have not addressed any of my other points, only half addressed that one, and those diffs have the sources in them - you are free to click them. If you have more to address, please do so in the discussion section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't simultaneously criticize me for posting a WP:Wall of text and say I didn't include enough context. Virtually all of the sources summarize his views as "gender-critical" including the two you linked, so that's an accurate summary. [197] [198] The UK College of Psychotherapists also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy. [199] How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a WP:DAILYMAIL (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a chilling effect on psychotherapy. [200] You also have a Wikipedia article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.

Anyways, you have now added some more context on James Esses' beliefs. How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? You haven't even attempted to answer that question beyond pointing to a single article from the Daily Mail that supposedly is more balanced than The Telegraph. Your reasoning is seemingly that for The Telegraph to be more reliable than the Daily Mail, every article ever published in The Telegraph must be of a higher quality than any article ever published by the Daily Mail in its history. That's not how reliability works; a stopped clock is right twice a day. A deprecated source putting out a really good article now and then doesn't reduce the quality of an article from a reliable source.

I have also said above that regardless of Esses' personal beliefs, quoting him in a news story doesn't mean that The Telegraph endorses his views. They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. Even if James Esses' is unreliable, that doesn't make The Telegraph unreliable for quoting him. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid Ah yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids.[201] - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya WP:FRINGE.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not it impugns a source's reliability to publish more blatantly biased pieces that omit information than the WP:DAILYMAIL. You think that's an excusable issue, I think it's a profound indicator of unreliability.

There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy. FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on gender exploratory therapy in the article conversion therapy...[202] And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.

How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? - In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline.[203]

They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. - I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU, and nowhere does this MOU say that "gender exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy. Here's the PDF: [204] It calls out ‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’ by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy.

You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.

Meanwhile, the Mother Jones article says nowhere in its own voice that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. It quotes Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project as saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position.

If we rank up the evidence, we have someone from the Trevor Project and an inconclusive talk page discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy saying gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. On the other hand, we have the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy and the interim version of a systemic review saying otherwise. Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? Because the burden of proof for WP:FRINGE isn't that it's just an alternative theory. You have to show that his views are pseudoscientific quackery, not just controversial, because as you said, a newspaper frequently quoting WP:UNDUE WP:QUACKS on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.

And I'm unsure if you're interpreting this article correctly. [205] It clearly says As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there and later The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns" The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. Either way, his views played a part, so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like James Esses was kicked out of Childline for publicly discussing his employment there end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece.

And the Daily Mail is unreliable for facts, so the Daily Mail asserting that James Esses said something isn't proof he said that thing. You need to provide a corroborating source to show that what is said in that article is true if you want people to believe it. Even so, the best two aspects of the Daily Mail are that Esses supposedly treated kids with gender exploratory therapy (which has nothing to do with him leaving Childline) and that the Daily Mail gave specific ages.

If you're asserting that the Telegraph misled readers by omitting these facts, how was the reader misled? What false belief would someone have by reading the Telegraph that they wouldn't get by reading the Daily Mail? Because it's not just about saying that the Daily Mail was more interesting to read, you have to show that the Telegraph was less reliable because it omitted those facts. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU - 1) they withdrew their signature after signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids[206]

You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy. - I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.

Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt? - WP:FRINGE applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read conversion therapy#gender exploratory therapy, which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the SAMHSA criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) NARTH (yes, that NARTH) endorses it...

how was the reader misled? Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often. Here's a big issue: Either way, his views played a part - nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (immaterial of what position was advocated). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident. OK, so how is that evidence of WP:FRINGE? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. [207] Specifically, that At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of WP:FRINGE views. I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors. [208]

Anyways, according to WP:RSPWP, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, because anyone can edit it and so you're just citing the result of a discussion on a talk page elsewhere on this site. That is why I have repeatedly asked for the underlying sources for your claims, given how contentious this topic is. Despite your repeated assertions that basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", you have only been able to provide that article, the Trevor Project, and now SAMHSA (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO.

The reason why I asked how was the reader misled? is because the goal of the WP:Reliable sources policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Wikipedia.

All of the stuff above matters only to the extent it impacts The Telegraph's reliability, which is why I asked to see a connection between the Telegraph euphemizing conversion therapy and an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? Keep in mind that WP:MEDPOP already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it.

So far, you've only provided one claim you say is false that could be cited to The Telegraph. It's that The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on WP:Verifiability already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that directly supports the claim made, "directly support" meaning the information is present explicitly in the source.

It's already impossible to cite the implication you're referring to in an article, so what harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chess, I think you've posed the most important question. "What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?" That really cuts to the heart of the matter. Pecopteris (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

1) There is a discussion section so the survey section doesn't get bloated. If you want to leave a few hundred more words in reply to this, please use it - otherwise I won't respond and make this even more difficult for the poor closer.

2) Since you refuse to click the links at Gender exploratory therapy: WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and the USPATH say its conversion therapy[209] SAMHSA and the Trevor Project says its conversion therapy. These academic RS say its conversion therapy.[210][211][212][213] Here's one that notes it's been described as conversion therapy and notes there is no evidence whatsoever it is useful or effective.[214] Here are more RS calling it conversion therapy.[215][216] Here is the Southern Poverty Law Center calling it conversion therapy.[217] And here is a reliable source noting NARTH (the original pro conversion therapy lobbying group) endorses "exploratory" therapy and works with those pushing it.[218]

3) Here's a Telegraph piece saying the UKCP dropped out because of their support for "exploratory" therapy and this led to calls to change the board. Funny enough, it repeats the false claim wrt the Cass Review that "The former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found that no one under 25 should be rushed into changing gender." (so your breakingnews argument from earlier doesn't apply) [219]

4) I should have said The telegraph impliesoutright says the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy - they say Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor on the same grounds[220]

5) Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy? - See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning").

6) What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? - we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, if there was a good reason, but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as you asked. The only specific use of the Telegraph you say is preventable by designating unreliability is point 4) as point 3) falls under WP:MEDPOP and I've argued 4) above.

Re: point 6), evaluating it on a case-by-case basis would be WP:MREL (use sometimes), not WP:GUNREL (use almost never), contradicting your !vote. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.

A local consensus arrived at by derailing discussion onto the FRINGE board trying and failing to establish UKCP and NHS England's service specification and the landmark Cass Review as FRINGE.

Please stop misusing WP:FRINGE in this hyperbolic way. It is exhausting. None of what you're complaining about is FRINGE. The Cass Review explicitly highlighted the weaponisation of discourse around "exploratory therapy" and "conversion therapy" and specifically stated that the continual conflation of the two was harmful.

Using any of this longstanding medical dispute over highly contested terminology to argue for the unreliability of a source is well out of scope for this RFC. Void if removed (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 (sorry for the lengthy !vote). u:Loki has made 3 main arguments 1) coverage of the student-identifying-as-a-cat story 2) "going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things" and 3) secondary sources criticising their coverage. Re 1) I agree that they could've done a better job covering this story (see my comment 08:36, 12 May 2024) but if it's the worst thing they've done it doesn't justify a downgrade. Re 2) I think that the provided examples indeed show a bias but nothing more than that. Are you suggesting that platforming anti-trans groups makes a source unreliable? Also, they did not say that James Esses was a therapist in the linked article. Re 3), I've reviewed the article by Bailey and Mackenzie and haven't found where they say that the Telegraph is unreliable or give examples of falsehoods (but I may have missed it). The IPSO ruling is from 2021, and has a bit of hair-splitting feel to it (see item 22 in which the inaccuracy is described). Anyway, all British newspapers have had IPSO rulings against them, so by itself it's not a disqualification. Since the whole thing is voluntary, it's actually a positive sign as they have subjected themselves to an external regulator. Alaexis_¿question? 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 I do not find the defense of the Telegraph's reporting on the cat identifying controversy convincing. From what I've seen it was obvious that the discussion of the students did not involve someone literally identifying as a cat (it involved a student using that as an example to criticize people identifying as another gender), and I don't think any of the quotes from that discussion support that someone literally identified as a cat when those quotes are taken in context. Whereas The Telegraph reported it as if someone was actually identifying as a cat [221], and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner [222]. Taken with other questionable reporting relating to this topic, I think it should be classified under Option 2, as its reporting may sometimes still be useable.--Tristario (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess and others. As for the cat story, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat". This is true; there is a tape recording of students being reprimanded for this, which is a different claim from the one editors above are concerned about, that a student did identify as a cat. BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you aware of the concept of a presupposition in linguistics?

  In short, "students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat" makes all of the following claims:

  1. students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat

  2. students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat

  3. a classmate decided to self-identify as a cat

  (plus several trivial claims like "the students exist" and "the classmate exists")

  This is obvious if you consider a sentence like "The queen refused to accept the prime minister's decision to resign". Obviously this sentence asserts that the prime minister decided to resign. Loki (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, your hypothetical differs from the quote; the equivalent hypothetical would be "The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime ministers resignation", which would imply that "the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation", and that implication would in turn imply "the prime ministers resigned". The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

  Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Wikipedia, why does it matter?

  Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections. Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication? BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.

  No it doesn't. (Arguably its truth value is indeterminate if the prime minister didn't resign but see the article this is a huge tangent.)

  Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat".

  We absolutely could. Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements.

  Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections.

  Known for sure, yes that's true. Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.

  Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication?

  The claim the source makes is false. Presuppositions are claims by the source. You cannot defend a shoddy source because it puts its false claims in subordinate clauses. Loki (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. and The claim the source makes is false

  You're assuming that a sentence can only produce one set of presuppositions; that isn't accurate. Take the hypothetical provided above; if we insert a presupposition trigger on the attitudinal verb "chastised", we get at least two possible presuppositions:

  1. The queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation
  2. The king believed the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation

  So long as one of these presuppositions is true, the statement is true. The same is true of the second order presupposition "the prime minister resigned".

  Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements

  By definition, presuppositions are a type of assumption - see the article you linked.

  Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.

  My understanding is they reached out to the school, and the school must not have clarified that a student didn't actually identify as a cat - possibly they didn't know, given that people do actually identify as animals. However, even if they hadn't reached out to the school, "failing to get clarification regarding an implication of an implication" wouldn't suggest any reliability issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is literally semantics of the truth-conditional variety. If we can just start backtracking from any statement in a newspaper article to find logical presuppositions that might be wrong, even the slightest contradiction implies that an article has lied about every fact in the known universe due to the principle of explosion. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Option 2; it seems pretty clear that they have a decently strong [transphobic|gender-critical|whatever] bias, but I remain unconvinced that this bias impacts their factuality or reliability in a meaningful enough way for gunrel. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 – it's gone far beyond just bias in my view, and the Telegraph, at least in this subject area, is firmly in the realm of disinformation. The thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it's always been reliable" isn't helpful here; if we were analysing a source that did everything the Telegraph is doing here but didn't have the pedigree, it would be deprecated pretty damn quickly. Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Ignoring all the reportage on trans-related matters because some of it may be considered unpleasant by a few editors is antithetical to the interest of providing information to the general public and Wikipedia reader. The Telegraph (Daily/Sunday) has "more than 400 journalists and editors on staff" -- if a handful of writers and columnists don't sing the tune some editors like to hear, well then ... too bad, so sad. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• But here lies the question. Why use a newspaper with such a determinedly anti-trans viewpoint when there are multiple reliable sources that don't have that baggage? We wouldn't use a newspaper that was openly pushed racism or religious bigotry such as Islamophobia (hello Daily Mail). I can't help thinking that, even at Wikipedia, "gender-critical" views are the last piece of bias against groups that it seems to be OK to have. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a question of WP:DUE, not reliability - and it is better assessed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 I've already explained in the earlier discussion and would go further and say The Telegraph is generally unreliable for any topic that has become the focus of its editorial culture warring. It has zero interest in fact checking and accuracy on these topics. The fact that so-called reliable sources influence WP:WEIGHT gives me additional concern because the Telegraph isn't just biased, but is determined to publish anti-trans stories on a continuous basis out of all proportion to proper journalism on the state of our country or planet. We'd have blocked User:Telegraph for WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. They are not here to publish journalistic facts on these issues like we expect of a reliable news story, but are at the level of some kind of wingnut blog. -- Colin°^Talk 08:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 No source will be 100% unbiased on any topic but I see no substantive evidence to persuade the Telegraph is biased on trans issues. But even the framing of this as being a 'trans issue' rather than a women's and girls' rights issue lends undue and unnecessary bias to this RFC right from the start. Zeno27 (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Now there's an interesting comment, as its subtext is exactly what the Telegraph does on regular occasions - insinuates that trans rights and women's rights are incompatible, despite that being obviously untrue. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The rights of (non-trans) women and trans people can be at odds, like the rights of any two groups. For example, if you think that a male-born person who looks exactly like a typical man, declares himself a woman without making any external change (surgery, hormones or even makeup and dress) to look like a woman, has a right to use women's bathroom then it might be at odds with the right of women to feel comfortable in their bathroom. Vegan416 (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• And of course, by using the most extreme example possible (how many times has this *actually* happened?) you're doing exactly what the anti-trans culture warriors at the Telegraph are doing as well. As can be determined by reading their transgender articles linked to above, it goes far further than bathrooms, which is only a small part of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how many times it happens. I don't even know in how many places such a person as I described would actually be allowed legally in women's bathrooms. It was a hypothetical. What is your position on this question by BTW? But in any case that example shows that trans rights taken to the extremes, can be at odds with women rights Vegan416 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Precisely - "taken to the extreme". On that basis, the rights of any group could hypothetically clash with the rights of a given other group. But what the Telegraph and and its collection of culture warriors are doing is trying to limit trans rights without any criteria, purely because of their status as trans people. How do they do that? Well, with tropes like the bathroom one and the ones about what kids are taught in schools (like the one mentioned above, often spectacularly false). It's insidious and - along with its sudden fondness for climate change denial - it's not worthy of what used to be a well-regarded newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you show an example of the Telegraph saying that trans rights should be limited without any criteria, just because they are trans? I don't think I saw examples for this in this discussion, though as it's grown so long so fast I could have easily missed them. Vegan416 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Take your pick, though some are far worse than others. This is what happens when you employ a "gender critical" extremist. But it doesn't stop with her; every one of those articles is 10 days old or less. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 I, too already explained my position in earlier discussion, though the accumulation of evidence since has persuaded me to drop a peg further down from my original !vote of "aditional considerations apply". Bias per sé is not a problem, but it is a problem if it leads to issues with factual reporting. I think the way "not caring about the facts" is expressed in the telegraphs regular reporting is mostly(!) through imprecision, but imprecision is still a form of inaccuracy. If a paper presents a story in a way that is intentionally misleading the audience, it is being unreliable, even if technically no counterfactual claims have been made. A lie by omission is still a lie, in this case. Proper editorial process also means making sure you're not presenting facts in a way that is misleading, and I think that's the part of the process where the telegraph fails the test. Regarding some of the comments above: while columns can't be used for factual claims and newspapers can't be used to support medical information without attribution anyway, I contend the following: A. most of this topic area's problems are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of medical information; B. Nothing stops a paper that misrepresents medical information from also misrepresenting other information, and C. in a similar vein, a newspaper not caring about the accuracy of information in columns can still be a sign of a paper not caring about the accuracy of information, generally. In conclusion, I don't think the telegraph's editorial standards survive scrutiny. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. The problems with the Telegraph in this subject area are obvious. The folks in favor of Option 1 haven't (so far as I've seen) answered what ought to be the obvious question: why and to what end would you want to cite the Telegraph on trans issues? Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • It is possible that one may cite the Telegraph because per WP:NPOV: the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are fundamental questions about notability and how we refer to subjects that depend on how they are referred to by assessing coverage in the majority of WP:RS, even if we don't actually cite those sources to construct the article. In this specific area there is a huge amount of controversy and polarisation, with epithets like "anti-trans" and "woke" and "transphobe" and "far-left/far-right" and "TERF" thrown around willy nilly. By making The Telegraph generally unreliable, or even deprecated, its coverage cannot then lend weight to legitimate debates about where the most neutral tone lies.

  This is particularly important given specific lines of argument made by the opener about tone and which POVs it chooses to seek comment from. In one specific named example, if the charity Sex Matters is deemed "anti-trans" by editors, and thus that a source engaging with them is a basis for deeming that source unreliable, then that is going to irreparably skew all coverage of that charity in any page where coverage may conceivably appear. Any source which offers quotations from representatives of this charity can - and will - be challenged. Seeing as these debates of "unreliable on trans issues" have not restricted themselves to The Telegraph, but also encompass other sources like The Times and The Economist, I urge extreme caution about the wider impact of this.

  • Telegraph quotes group x
  • Assert that truly reliable sources don't quote group x because they are "baddies"
  • Ergo Telegraph is not a reliable source

  Its a kind of no-true-scotsman ratchet. Any source which does not outright dismiss certain disfavoured groups as "anti-trans" could by this logic end up "unreliable" - and thus one particular POV will be insurmountably entrenched. Void if removed (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, bearing in mind that this is for sources which are 'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’ and that 'It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the Telegraph. The objections to the Telegraph in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - in my view, Astaire, Chess, and Void if removed have, in detail, persuasively rebutted Loki's initial claims of unreliability. The rest of the evidence raised by other users seems to be lacking. Particularly, opinion articles are not an excuse to render news articles unreliable, for example, we list The Wall Street Journal as generally reliable, and this refers to their news articles, not their questionable opinion articles or questionable editorial board at The Wall Street Journal. In any case, we should not use any opinion articles for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 I cannot consider a situation in which we would want to use the Telegraph for an article on trans issues. It has a clear, fringe, bias against trans people and is, at the end of the day, just a newspaper. For anything actually notable a better source can always be found. Let's never use this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  How would the WP:DEPRECATION edit filter know The Telegraph is being cited on a transgender-related topic? It isn't technically possible to implement deprecation for a single topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm open to logical arguments along the lines of it being overly sensationalistic and tabloidish and needing of more scrutiny and possibly putting it in a lesser category, but the arguments above are more of the sort "it doesn't agree with the properly favored views as handed down by Gender Study departments in academia, so obviously it's not a reliable source." It's on a slippery slope that's destined to lead to demands for other news outlets, even quite respectable ones like The Times (of London) and The New York Times to be deprecated if they dare to depart from the party line. Try installing the "Shingami Eyes" plugin in your browser; it's an eye-opener, revealing what is labeled "transphobic" these days. Hint: Both the London and New York Timeses are in red there, as well as The Guardian. No dissent is brooked. If the ideologues have their way, only Pink News and queer theory academic papers will be acceptable sources. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Correcting myself... on a re-check, it appears Shingami Eyes isn't actually putting either the London or New York Times in red any more, though The Sunday Times is, as is BBC News and The Guardian. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Shinigami eyes is a plugin that anyone can access that allows people to vote sources positive or negative. There's been lots of discussion even within the community that know about it about it's accuracy and about how because anyone can vote this accuracy is extremely dubious. That you're trying to use this as a point in a slippery slope argument that could be used against making any source unreliable is just a plain rubbish arguement. As for the first point a lot of people are arguing that, alongside embracing fringe positions, the telegraph has started to publish more tabloidy misinformation (I'm honestly shocked any UK paper reported on the cat incident) and advocate for conversion therapy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, though since their extreme bias on this topic is probably the least controversial aspect of this discussion, that's a good place to start: update the RSP entry to be clear about that. However, the extent to which The Telegraph has let that bias get in the way of factual reporting and lead them into distortions and inaccuracies (as has been been discussed to death in the pre-RFC thread and again, above, in this one) is unsettling. Whether they're so often unreliable as to make defaulting to scepticism / 3 the best approach, or simply defaulting to caution, to something like 2 or even a '1 but be cautious', is something reasonable minds can (and clearly do!) differ on. For my part, I conclude based on the evidence presented that for the topic area this RFC is discussing their journalism is sufficiently shoddy (inaccurate or misleading in such a way that if we source statements in articles on it, we'll find ourselves having to correct them later when reliable sourcing becomes available), sufficiently often, that it generally can't be relied upon: i.e., option 3. -sche (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Reliable reporter of facts. The cat story allegation has been exposed as a beat up. Other objections are WP:I don't like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC).
• Option 2 (or 3). It's abundantly clear from this discussion that The Telegraph (a publication that has been on a slow downward trajectory quality wise for some time) is at the very least considerably biased with regards to transgender topics, to the extent that inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum. How much this bias impacts their reliability is complicated and seems non-uniform - sometimes it has resulted in distortion and misleading presentation that is firmly in unreliable territory, at other times it's merely partisan framing that is exactly the sort of thing that "additional conserations apply" is designed for. In short, in this topic area, it is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable but rather it is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable so we should never be using the Telegraph as our only source and should evaluate its reliability on a case-by-case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, or option 2 possibly extending to other topics such as climate per Colin. I'm not sure how everyone else is assessing things here, but imv the Telegraph of today is not the same Telegraph that broke the MP expenses scandal. It may have had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the opinion pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, same as the source as a whole. First, we have long said that bias doesn't mean not reliable. We certainly are happy to cite sources with a strong biased that is the opposite of the one discussed here. The original claims used to say Option 3 have been thoroughly address by Chess and others. Barnards.tar.gz's comment about people becoming so embedded in a POV as to that POV as objective fact was also an important observation here. Finally, Void if removed's comment about trying to declare source that cites a disfavored source (16:07, 4 June 2024) is also a very legitimate concern with respect to violating NPOV over time. Like many of the media articles on this topic, we should treat all of these with caution and care but the justification for any sort of global downgrade of this source on this topic simply isn't supported by the evidence presented here. Springee (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, as per the rest of the newspaper. 2 at a push. I'm afraid I'm not seeing a great deal more than an opposition to the newspaper's political positions here. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Queen of Hearts with the consideration being to prefer alternate sources due to its bias. I would be uncomfortable citing them, but many above such as Void have demonstrated that arguments on factual unreliability remain unconvincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 they seem to have a clear editorial view on the issue, which should possibly be considered when using it as a source. But the "deprecation" proponents do not make any compelling argument; the fact the Telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe "trans women are women" is not an argument for deprecation. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Much of what you've said could be interpreted as a strawman - having opinion columnists with an opinion is indeed not an argument for deprecation, but almost nobody is arguing for deprecation, and their issue isn't that the opinion columnist have an opinion it is that facts are being distorted and/or misleading presented to favour/promote that opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it is a strawman. Loki (the proposer) is saying this should happen because examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women. Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think replacing "deprecation" with "generally unreliable" changes the argument in any way. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 per Thryduulf, with particular support for the inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum suggestion. I'll also echo the update the RSP entry to be clear comment by -sche. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues)

• Pinging everyone who participated in the above discussion. In order to avoid the ping limit, this will be broken up among multiple posts. I also intend to notify the following Wikiprojects: WP:LGBT, WP:UK, WP:JOURN, WP:NEWS. If I missed anyone or anywhere, please feel free to notify them yourself. (Also if you did not get pinged and your name is down there, please tell me, because that probably means I exceeded the ping limit.) Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Masem, LunaHasArrived, Hydrangeans, BilledMammal, Remsense, Barnards.tar.gz, Boynamedsue, Simonm223, Licks-rocks, FortunateSons, Aquillion, Silverseren, Black Kite, Chetsford, Snokalok, Spy-cicle, Crossroads, DanielRigal

Springee, Skyshifter, Fred Zepelin, Alaexis, JPxG, OwenBlacker, Colin, Sceptre, Carlp941, K.e.coffman, Cortador, Tristario, Bobfrombrockley, DFlhb, Adam Cuerden

Alanscottwalker, TFD, Void if removed, Chess, NadVolum, Raladic, Philomathes2357, North8000, Maddy from Celeste, Pyxis Solitary. Loki (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't vote here because I don't have time to study the sources about the reliability issue. But I have 2 comments to make: (a) It was said in other discussions that option 4 is technically not possible for specific issues because of the filter. So it seems to be irrelevant. b) the question of whether trans men and women are men or women is not a factual question, but rather a question of definition. Factual questions are if certain people feel they are a man or a woman, if they have a penis or a vagina, XX or XY chromosomes, etc. But the question of which of these criteria should be used to decide who should be called man or woman is not a factual question, but rather a semantic/legal/linguistic question of definitions. The meaning of the words "man" and "woman" is a social construct. And in fact many progressives think that the binary division to "man" and "woman" is wrong, and we should look at sex and gender as a spectrum. Vegan416 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is likely going to be a continuous RFC with many editors voicing their opinions. For the sake of ever getting a close can I suggest keeping the replies to a minimum in the survey section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• @LokiTheLiar: - per Template:Reply to, for a successful ping, you need to add new lines of text, plus signed by adding ~~~~ at the end of the message. starship.paint (RUN) 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Grr. Okay, I will redo the pings soon. Loki (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing pings: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Masem, LunaHasArrived, Hydrangeans, BilledMammal, Remsense, Barnards.tar.gz, Boynamedsue, Simonm223, Licks-rocks, FortunateSons, Aquillion, Silverseren, Black Kite, Chetsford, Snokalok, Spy-cicle, Crossroads, DanielRigal Springee, Skyshifter, Fred Zepelin, Alaexis, JPxG, Loki (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

OwenBlacker, Colin, Sceptre, Carlp941, K.e.coffman, Cortador, Tristario, Bobfrombrockley, DFlhb, Adam Cuerden Alanscottwalker, TFD, Void if removed, Chess, NadVolum, Raladic, Philomathes2357, North8000, Maddy from Celeste, Pyxis Solitary. Loki (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Having watched the last full RFC, and the RFC on this specific issue that happened shortly afterwards, their were several participants who felt the RFCs were rushed into. This meant they couldn't present their arguments properly, I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the extensive discussion at #The Telegraph and trans issues before this RFC was started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is correct. The last RFC was a rush job with no RFCBEFORE, which of course meant that the status quo had a strong advantage. Loki (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

[These were all responses to my !vote at the top of the thread. Moving them all here because there's a lot of them and they're clearly discussion. I intend to respond soon but not immediately.] Loki (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone point to a good article on trans subjects in the Telegraph? Because WP:RSOPINION can always be called to allow use of a generally unreliable source, but what are they bringing to the table that makes them a reliable source? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's one I grabbed today. [223] It covers a transgender judge and her resignation. Here's another one also published today. [224] I'm going to assert that these are good because they cover the story in a balanced way and the assertions they've made are true. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The first one is definitely better than average for the Telegraph but it still contains minor factual inaccuracies. The one I noticed immediately is that it says that the Cass Review warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support puberty blockers, not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study.

The second one is bad mostly because it's not news. It's a news article about a tweet, and not a tweet by a significant figure but JK Rowling arguing with people on Twitter again. It makes few factual claims and they're hard to fact check because they're almost all quotes or policy positions of various parties. But even reporting on this indicates significant bias. Loki (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think this is news" is not an argument against something being RS. As for the Cass report, it recommends The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT). This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after more back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. -sche (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors love to hear the sound of their own voice. There's no cure for conceit and self-importance. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

[This discussion was originally under my !vote above. Moving it down here because it's clearly discussion.] Loki (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Heads up re Washington Post

Major changes in store for WaPost - current EIC is departing and being replaced by an editor from the WSJ through the end of the year, and then to a new EIC that is also going to oversee a division dedicated to more on-the-spot reporting including use of video and AI supported stories.
No immediate red flags, but one to keep on eye on as these transitions occur. — Masem (t) 03:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, worth keeping an eye on.

Would publishing "AI supported stories" affect your assessment of a source's reliability, or would your assessment remain unaffected unless the AI supported stories were of poor quality? Pecopteris (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My main issue with "AI supported" stories is whether that just means they used AI to write the structure of the article, but all the facts and quotes in it were still real and verified by the editors before and after or...if they just gave an AI some prompts and had it write an article wholesale with minimal checking. Those are two very different scenarios. Silverseren^C 03:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay seriously can someone make a [AI generated source] tag or something.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I’m of the view AI generated sources aren’t very good.CycoMa1 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out by Silverseren above, if by "AI generated stories" they mean that they use AI to craft a struture but a human editor validates facts and edits to be readable, that's not a problem. If they just publish what ChatGPL spits out without validation or editing care, that's an issue. Its impossible to tell from this change what WaPost will actually do, but its worthwhile to watch out for. — Masem (t) 04:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Tesla Full Self Driving, where it's OK so long as the driver has their hands on the wheel. What could go wrong? Or tools on Wikipedia where users initiate bots to process 500 articles that make mistakes and users are watching and fixing. What could go wrong? -- GreenC 14:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most bots do a perfectly fine job if they’re put in charge of something hard to get wrong. They make mistakes, but so do humans. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Get Ready to Rock (getreadytorock.com)

Hi all. I am currently doing an FAC for AC/DC. I don't know if this source: Get Ready to Rock: getreadytorock.com (ref #267), is reliable or not, since it's from an interview with Exodus members Tom Hunting and Gary Holt. In this interview, Holt cites AC/DC as an influence for Exodus. See Legacy section for context about this. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 05:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

While a blog, that they seem to have a fairly extensive staff (which works in their favor), and scanning a few articles, I'm not seeing much to indicate unreliability - everything's well-written and it's mainly standard music news/critical reviews. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 06:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The South African

I have a question about The South African as a reliable source. I came across this article and it seems they have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation (WP:ROYALCENTRAL). So I'm fulfilling WP:RFCBEFORE and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The World History Encyclopedia

Despite being notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry covering it, the World History Encyclopedia appears to regularly present outdated hypotheses and theories as fact, such as:

• claiming that the Bhagavad Gita influenced the Bhakti movement which influenced the development of Buddhism and Jainism, although the present scholarly consensus is that the Bhagavad Gita was composed between the 5th and 2nd century BCE and the Bhakti movement started in the 6th century CE, while Buddhism originated in the 5th century BCE and Jainism in the 7th to 5th centuries BCE, without any influence from the Bhagavad Gita;
• claiming Scythians originated among Celtic peoples despite the present scholarly consensus being that they were an Iranic people from the Central Asian steppes;
• claiming that the name of the Mitannian city of Wassukanni is derived from the Kurdish language despite the present scholarly consensus being that is was derived from an archaic Indo-Aryan language, while Kurdish is first attested in the 1st CE millennium at the earliest.

These are all examples of World History Encyclopedia presenting claims based on generally outdated scholarship that nowadays persist only in fringe groups outside of any presently reliable historiography.

Given that this source is sometimes cited on Wikipedia here and there, especially in articles relating to ancient history, I would request that more scrutiny be given to its claims by Wikipedia's users focusing on history. Antiquistik (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of social media analytic websites

Are social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer reliable for verifying an online influencer's statistics (i.e. followers, likes, reposts, views, etc)? — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of their RS-ness, but using such sources could be considered not inline with WP:PROPORTION, dependimg on context. They have no WP:N value of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you can find some discussions in the archives, but in general if it's relevant (which isn't an issue of reliability) I don't see why you wouldn't use the primary sources. If the primary sources don't display the information I would be sceptical of the any secondary sources stating they have the information. I know some of this kind of site do 'ratings' as well, they would never be due for inclusion in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, the most-subscribed YouTubers list relies on it to verify statistics. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It should probably use the primary sources instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

why wouldn't you just go to the social media directly? I'm pretty sure articles here only look at followers/subscribers, views, likes, the basic stuff Freedun (yippity yap) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I suspect such sites inhabit the murky fringe of influencerdom, where I wouldn’t rule out shenanigans. I’ve got low confidence that they care about accuracy. Their business seems to be selling influencers and brands to each other, so more views means more business. The incentives seem all wrong. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

would they really fake views tho? Freedun (yippity yap) 01:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Dani Cavallaro

Regarding author Dani Cavallaro, there has been discussion recently about Cavallaro being a reliable source or not. See links to discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 76 § Dani Cavallaro (October 2023)
• Talk:Angel's Egg § Focus shift: Dani Cavallaro (June 2024)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Cavallaro (June 2024)
• Comment on my user talk page

Regarding Angel's Egg, there appears to be a local consensus not to cite Cavallaro. If Cavallaro is questionable as an author, then there should be a wider consensus about whether or not to cite them. They are cited multiple times elsewhere on Wikipedia as shown in the search results here.

Does the author meet WP:RS, judging from their publications, those who have cited them, those who have critiqued their works (positively or negatively), and the criticism leveled against them? (On the last point, should criticism be from reliable sources? Are the criticism pieces reliable to consider here?)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion; the reliability of this author has been something I've considered for a while, and was reminded of when TompaDompa brought it up again at Castle in the Sky's FAC. There are multiple academic reviews of her work which I believe are a good place to start when weighing opinions on her writing. I'm quite busy off-wiki right now, but should have a chance to look through them in more detail next week. I don't think consideration of the blog posts written about her would be appropriate in this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this. The website / blog in question (Anime And Manga Studies) published a two-part critical review about Carallaro in 2014. Looking at the site, it does appear to be written by scholars for scholars and, according to their about us, is used as a resource by multiple universities. It would therefore appear to satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS if we only consider reviews by reliable sources when evaluating Carallaro. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the last sentence of WP:EXPERTSPS? "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." While it's not being used as a third-party source within an article, it seems to be used as one to evaluate this person. Unless I'm not reading it right? I guess I am in the mindset of using agreed-upon reliable sources to qualify or disqualify a source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Mikhail Koulikov, who writes the Anime and Manga Studies blog, is not an anime and and manga expert, but earned a master's in library science and is apparently employed as an analyst at a law firm. While he has published some academic work on anime and manga, they're mixed in with work on several other topics. I don't believe this website is a reliable source in general, and should not be used to assess the reliability of Cavallaro's work. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified WikiProject Anime and manga. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In this blog post PhD and university lecturer Jacqueline Ristola dismisses Carallaro's work as "rudimentary", "hidden under the shambles of academic jargon", and accuses her of plagiarism, including rephrasing portions of Wikipedia entries. Ristola also praises the post from Anime and Manga Studies. Again, this is just a blog post from a subject-matter expert. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The plagiarism point was brought up by a GoodReads commenter. The Wikipedia text was added to the Magic Knight Rayearth article in this revision in May 2010. CLAMP in Context (ISBN: 978-0-7864-6954-3) was published in January 2012, and I confirmed the excerpt the commenter mentions is indeed in the book. This is pretty damning evidence of close paraphrasing from Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we are done here. I would support formal deprecation due to the high risk of WP:CIRCULAR and other copyright violations. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get input from RSN regulars (if there is such thing). It seems like a major step to strip all references to one author out of Wikipedia completely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that full deprecation might be jumping the gun a little since this discussion is not an RfC, nor is it exactly well-attended. However, I agree that a deep dive of her work is likely unnecessary to come to a consensus on its reliability. The plagiarism above proves even (seemingly) uncontroversial factual statements cannot be relied upon, and Mark Bould's comments on her 2000 book Cyberpunk and Cyberculture ("disturbingly dishonest", "more interested in neatly patterning synopses of assessments and investigations made by other critics than in conducting its own") indicate that her analyses aren't much better. I'm in favor of designating her bibliography as generally unreliable, discouraging editors from adding citations and phasing out existing ones where applicable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I love Mamoru Oshii's films, so I wanted to find more sources, and was delighted someone had written a full print book on his films so I began to read it. After a few chapters, I found the book laden with jargon and convoluted writing which didn't sit right. I did some searching, and indeed other people were raising questions as to who this person was, whether they were qualified to write at all, and failing to find even basic biographical information (the most we can get is 2 sentences on a publisher website). One major critique is that she mostly cites self-published blogs, and yes, indeed I double checked her references and it was true then it all clicked. This alone is enough to not use her books, as the sources she cites would never be considered a reliable to begin with, and would never be acceptable in an academic book.

Taken together, the publisher and author have not proven that they are experts to begin with (as the burden lies with them), and I would support a complete ban. I consider her works low quality and removed them from the Oshii articles that I could find, but she's cited in other pages as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

References