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, 456, 457

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 (closed as 3/GUNREL)

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.

---

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 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)
• Option 3 - And I'm pretty shocked this has to be mentioned. They're a partisan political organization with a particular view and agenda. It's like asking if the Republican Party or Democratic party are reliable sources. Uh, no? If RS are covering an issue, and covers their viewpoint, they can be quoted as an example of said viewpoint. But not as a source on anything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Additional considerations apply: Per my comment below. Awesome Aasim 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 or, failing that, option 3.

In particular, I feel that the ADL should be deprecated with regard to antisemitism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the issues that most closely relate to that, such as pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. This would include resources like the HEAT map, as well as press releases and other findings published by the ADL that either have something to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or are somehow tainted by the ADL's unreliability on that topic, such as when the ADL cites statistics about antisemitism as a whole that are dubious because of the way it classifies pro-Palestinian sentiment. In addition to having a strong pro-Israel bias, the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt regularly promote falsehoods, stories that are later debunked, and make claims they don't independently confirm with forensic evidence, relying on their reputation as "the leading anti-hate organization in the world" to lend credibility to their claims.

Others have made a distinction between advocacy groups and academic or news organizations, but I'd like to add that the way the ADL markets itself as an impartial, "anti-hate" organization makes its bias and its false or insinuating claims especially misleading. Because the ADL launders its pro-Israel advocacy and bias through its reputation as an impartial and neutral anti-bigotry research and advocacy group, it can be particularly misleading when used as a source.

I think others have already brought up many of the major examples of egregious bias and misinformation from the ADL that I could find, but I'll briefly summarize my findings here. Please note that some of these are merely instances of egregious bias which function as arguments for option 3, while others are instances of outright misinformation or denialism that should be counted in favor of option 4.

To bring up some pre-war stuff first, since I feel that hasn't been focused on as much, the ADL denied the Armenian Genocide until 2007, and didn't fully acknowledge it until 2016, which calls its credibility and consistency on foreign policy and international issues in general into question.

The ADL also opposed the construction of Park51 in New York. One of the few good things (in my opinion) that Greenblatt has done in his time was apologize for those positions, but before him, Abe Foxman was apologizing for the ADL aligning itself with apartheid South Africa. In other words, the ADL has a track record over the years of being wrong when it was popular and apologizing for it after everyone else has moved on, particularly on the issue of other forms of bigotry, like Islamophobia and anti-Black racism.

This impacts its credibility as a broadly concieved "anti-hate" organization, but beyond that, it impacts the ADL's reliability in reporting on any sort of bias, including antisemitism, in the context of international relations and US foreign policy. That the ADL somehow managed to support apartheid and the persecution of Muslim-Americans after 9/11 and deny the Armenian Genocide while acting as an organization ostensibly founded to oppose all bigotry calls into question its principled and impartial opposition to hate and discrimination, which is what supposedly gives it a level of credibility that openly pro-Israel advocacy groups don't have. So, to be clear, in addition to any false or misleading claims the ADL has published recently, we should take into account how the way it presents itself as an organization is misleading.

Now onto those false and misleading statements. The strongest examples I could find were:

1. The claim that student protesters were "Iranian proxies" and providing material support to Hamas/terrorism

2. Comparing the keffiyeh to the swastika

3. Equating anti-Zionism to white supremacy

4. Letting Elon Musk off the hook for some pretty serious antisemitism and comparing him to Henry Ford (you can't make this up) after he agreed to censor pro-Palestinian speech on X.

5. Promoting the 40 beheaded babies claim and other stories from October 7th that have since been debunked.

Now, these have all been statements from Jonathan Greenblatt. Other editors have pointed out that these statements have come from him in order to make the argument that those statements shouldn't impact the ADL's overall credibility. However, Greenblatt is speaking as a representative of the organization in these examples and the others provided; it does and should affect the ADL's credibility.

There is also a broader pattern in controversies over pro-Palestinian advocacy in public life of the ADL using sweeping language to describe incidents in a way that lends greater force and legitimacy to their claims than their documentation supports. This issue can't be reduced to a rogue CEO. For example, take the press release for the ADL and Brandeis center's expanded lawsuit against "snowballing antisemitism" in the Berkeley K-12 school district, which claims that During an unauthorized teacher-promoted walkout for Palestine, no teachers intervened as students shouted, “Kill the Jews,” “KKK,” “Kill Israel,” alongside banal instances of pro-Palestinian sentiment like hanging a Palestinian flag in the window and writing "Stop bombing babies" on a sticky note. A reader who trusts the ADL's good reputation might assume they have video of all this, but when you read the actual complaint, a lot of the most severe allegations, as well as nebulous claims like a teacher showing students "violent videos" are unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence. Some of the incidents the ADL is "documenting" here were apparently overheard by a first grader. Unbandito (talk) 04:30, 12 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.

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.

Part 2: antisemitism

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 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)

Germany also doesn't exercise apartheid over millions of its subjects GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:40, 19 June 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)

  @Zero0000 Perhaps you need to propose the same things for the GLAAD, NAACP, HRC, AALDEF, etc.?

  After all, you must think huge LGBTQ orgs should be unreliable on the subjects of homophobia and transphobia? And that huge black/POC advocacy orgs are unreliable on hate crimes against their communities as well? Since there very existence is tied to those matters, you clearly must similarly think they are going to lie to their advantage.

  I'd encourage you to open those proposals immediately if you truly feel that way.

  I'd disagree, but that's me. I find your assertion that they are unreliable on antisemitism because their mission is antisemitism-focused nonsensical and not based on facts. I think it is an insulting insinuation to imply that minority advocacy groups are here to profit. I think it's offensive to imply that they manufacture non-existent plight, rather than to respond to and highlight real matters.

  To inherently argue that an org must be unreliable on the cause they focus on is ludicrious. The EPA's existence is tied to the environment for instance, pretty reliable on the environment. SecretName101 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Seems like a classic #2. 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)

  Thoughts about it, seems the definitions matter in some reliable context; simply stating that a symbol is antisemitic without providing the context of why its antisemitic and how the usage today has some hallmarks of the original context probably matters.

  I am thinking about the incident with Greta's octopus plushy being considered antisemitic by pro-Israeli critics backsearching to find antisemitism. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:40, 20 June 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)
• Additional considerations apply: Per my comment below. Awesome Aasim 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per BilledMammal, Mistamystery and Coretheapple. O.maximov (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, because of I/P considerations. Typically, the further the ADL's analysis get from the I/P morass, the more reliable they are on the issue of anti-semitism. However, this means it would be an Option 2, because it's a mix of Option 1 when it comes to domestic anti-semitism but Option 3 when it comes to foreign policy. Sceptre (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: They are a political activist organization with an agenda. They are not neutral journalists or scholars or historians, but people trying to actively shape society. No, they should not be cited even for anti-semetism. If their views are covered by the mainstream press, and are relevant to an issue, they can be cited as a viewpoint, in the same way a story may cover an event and the views of any organization or activist group. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. Based on evidence presented above, it appears ADL is a leading source on antisemitism, so long as it does not concern anything related to Israel and zionism (which is discussed in section above). They appear to be quoted as such in reliable (including scholarly sources). See also this discussion with Vegan416.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 and the only reason I'm not going straight to 4 is that 4 should be reserved for the worst of the worst. The false conflation of criticism of Israel and antisemitism has poisoned discourse about Israeli war crimes for years. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 but ok with Option 4 – ADL's entire premise of existence is use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to fight for zionism and defend the zionist project. In particular, ADL particularly targets Black, Muslim, and Arab people and accuses them of antisemitism for doing the most banal things such as waving a Palestinian flag or calling for a free Palestine. It ironically saves some of most vehement ire for Jewish people. ADL labels as anti-semitic anyone who dares to point out any evil done by a Zionist person or a Zionist institution, no matter how real and plain to see. ADL doesn't even care about antisemiticism and only cares to defend zionism at any cost, even at the cost of Jewish lives. ADL cannot be trusted at all on the topic of antisemitism because its support for zionism is so strong that ADL support clear racist anti-semites simply because they support zionism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  ADL particularly targets Black, Muslim, and Arab people - Yes, because members of those groups are disproportionately likely to hold antisemitic beliefs. Partofthemachine (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Partofthemachine do you have a statement for that claim? Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  [39] Partofthemachine (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  What you are claiming is actually racist and bigoted. The fact that you feel comfortable stating such a racist viewpoint on Wikipedia is shocking and a major failing of this community. Your racist claims are also ignorant of the fact that many Black people and Arab people are themselves Jewish. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per the source K.e.coffman cites, which shows that many ADL claims about antisemitism are about Israel-Palestine. We now have a GUNREL consensus for the ADL on the latter topic, and evidence that it’s intertwined with their coverage of antisemitism, so the latter seems generally unreliable to me as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. It is clear that they are wildly biased and unreliable in relation to Israel/Palestine, but this has already been litigated. Outside of their positions regarding Zionism, the ADL propagandized against Nelson Mandela and defended the 1983 SA constitutional reform that further disenfranchised black people, strongly denied the Armenian genocide and lobbied against its recognition in order to protect Turkish cooperation with Israel (imagine if an organization vocally denied the Holocaust and slammed against recognizing it to protect an alliance), and has a history of espionage. Furthermore, as argued above, many people credibly accused of antisemitism (e.g. Donald Trump or Elon Musk) are ignored or even praised by the ADL if they support Israel. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Of the three examples, only denied the Armenian genocide is a reliability issue. However, according to your source they didn't deny the Armenian genocide; they opposed a congressional resolution that would have condemned the Armenian's deaths as genocides. It's unclear whether this reasoning applies to the ADL, but the source says Several major Jewish groups, like the American Jewish Committee, oppose the resolution, arguing that it is not the best way to persuade the Turks to examine their past.

  It's a contemtable position, but it isn't a factually incorrect one.

  The other issues you raise are both too old to be relevant here - 39 and 27 years respectively - and not matters of reliability but of bias. Further, per your source the ADL corrected their position on Nelson Mandela decades ago. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article for the ADL actually has a very well-developed section on its Armenian genocide denial. I apologize for not using a perfect source, you can find many others showing how they labeled it as "massacres" instead of a "genocide," and firing staffers for calling for it to be recognized here. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 They conflate criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism so not reliable for the topic of antisemitism. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: The discussion on whether the ADL is reliable for Israel/Palestine topics has already closed, and it was declared an unreliable source in that regard. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 For the reasons stated by others, repeated conflating of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Zellfire999 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment ADL is considered unreliable for conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, based on part 1 of this RfC, as this would come under Israel/Palestine conflict. The issue with this part of the RfC is that most of the arguments that ADL is unreliable is based on IP, prior to IP based content being deemed unreliable. In hindsight these parts of the RfC should have been one at a time, to avoid this confusion. I'm not sure whether these arguments should be ignored, or whether this part needs a re-do based on recent established consensus, as it's unclear how those who argued for unreliable based on AZ is AS arguments would now vote or argue. Ideally the this part would have been "antisemitism (unrelated to I/P)", even if it was assumed by some such as myself, it's not by most. This has made this part quite messy it seems; based on votes and arguments alone, ADL is probably GUNREL; but based on arguments not related to IP, it's probably GREL or MREL. CNC (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Option 2 is also fine If we went by "bias" that would rule out 95% of all sources on political type matters. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 it's not really feasible to distinguish between ADL's unreliable coverage of Israel/Palestine and ADL's coverage of anti-Semitism at this point in time. Maybe it was in the past, or will be in the future, but clearly not in current circumstances. TocMan (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - not seeing any convincing evidence of unreliability on this topic. Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. As the above section shows, the ADL has repeatedly inappropriately conflated anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli positions as anti-Semitism, so at the very least, it should not be used in that context without attribution and other RS coverage. This also brings in the rest of the work into question, though at this point not beyond the level of attribution (which IIRC is already the standard). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pyraminxsolver: Why do you believe that is the best option? Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 (would also be perfectly ok with option 4). As many editors have shown with plenty of examples, ADL tendency to conflate any criticism to Israel with antisemitism (especially in the last couple of months) makes them unreliable on this topic. Also, not sure if it has been shared already, but here is an analysis showing their flawed methodology. - Ïvana (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or preferably 4 or Blacklisted, "The Anti-Defamation League has made a startling confession: It is now including pro-Palestine marches in its count of antisemitic incidents in the United States.". link --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or (ideally) 4, per Supreme Deliciousness. Also, there's a bunch of sources in the Anti-Defamation League article that say they say criticism of Zionism is antisemitism, which, well... that has been criticized enough in this discussion, I can't add much that hasn't been already said. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)i

• Strong option 1. Unpersuaded by the arguments asserting unreliability on the subject. Seems as though this is motivated by an overall attitude of skepticism towards Jewish orgs and individuals when they call out what they consider bigotry, indifference, and denigration that the believe impacts Jewish people. options 3 and 4 would be a mockery and travesty for this project (effectively silencing the largest voice/advocacy for Jews from having any weight on matters of anti-semitism) SecretName101 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Many other editors seem to arguing that Wikipedia should heavily silence the ADL's voice in coverage of anti-semitism because the ADL's view on antisemitism perhaps differs from their own personal biases/opinions/views about anti-semitism. SecretName101 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ADL views pro-Palestine marches as antisemitic incidents: https://newrepublic.com/post/177993/adl-abandons-pretense-tracking-antisemitism-honestly-palestine-rallies --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That New Republic article grossly mischaracterizes the content of the article by The Forward that it is purporting to be citing. SecretName101 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Prove it, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• @SecretName101: - editors’ personal biases? Or mainstream academic opinion? CNN on this RFC “ADL’s leadership has taken a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” said James Loeffler, professor of modern Jewish history at John Hopkins University. starship.paint (RUN) 10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  SecretName101, a different way of looking at it is that, ironically, it's this unreliable, unscientific "Seems as though this is motivated by..." way of thinking that landed us in this mess at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There is no value in these kinds of statements in these kinds of discussions. Information about motive is not available, so there is nothing useful to say on the matter. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am posting on behalf of the ADL as an unpaid consultant. I work for WhiteHatWiki. This matter did not come to my attention until last night. The ADL had been the leading organization in the United States to document and expose anti-semitism since 1913. Tens of thousands of news articles, books and academic journal articles have been written about the ADL’s research into anti-semitism over the past 111 years, continuing to the present day.

A quick review of this discussion reveals that most of it has been an ideological debate rather than a serious discussion of the reliable sources policy as it relates to the ADL and its research, including the for Anti-Semitism Research, which has developed a peer-reviewed process to uphold best academic practices and accessible analytics. The Center for Anti-Semtisim Research has 30 Fellows in 2024, and 9 staff members. Fellows all have distinguished academic backgrounds and most have senior academic appointments at leading universities, as you can see from the 2022 fellows’ bios. academic backgrounds,

In the survey, and the Discussion below this survey, some editors have done partial accountings of the top-tier press sources and academic articles that still routinely rely on ADL research. Given that User: The Wordsmith says they intend to reach a decision within a day or so, I do not have time to do a comprehensive review of the media coverage and academic literature relying on ADL research, including citation counts from its published research. What has not been brought out in this RfC is that over the years, there have been hundreds of reports about anti-semitism and extremism released by the ADL, such as [40]

Even the very partial review of secondary sources in the survey (and especially the Discussion below the survey) makes it clear that the vast majority of editorially credible mainstream publications [41] and academic journals [42] continue to view the ADL as a highly credible editorial source. There are thousands of media references and hundreds of academic journal references that could be documented with a systematic review if I had the time to provide the evidence. As per WP:USEBYOTHERS: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.”

It seems obvious enough that Wikipedia articles that cite to ADL research on campus anti-semtisim can also attribute the criticisms to the research from sources like the Nation or The New Republic which question the methodology. WP: Due and WP: Balance have provisions that allow opposing viewpoints – which can be debated in the context of specific claims in specific articles. There’s no need to silence one point of view, especially one deemed highly credible by most top-tier editorially credible sources. For example, the ADL Campus Report Card, written by the researchers at the Center on Antisemitism Research, was peer reviewed research. Without any change to the status of ADL as a RS, the study can be attributed to the ADL and critqued by a media outlet that disagrees

It is understandable that during this time of highly inflamed passions that people are drawn to ideological debates. But unfortunately, too much of this has carried over to this Wikipedia discussion, with many editors relying on inflammatory, misleading rhetoric posted by other editors. For example, the ADL does not deem peaceful protest against the state of Israel, calls for a ceasefire, or wearing a Palestinian flag, as anti-semitic. Representations to the contrary pervade this discussion - and since editors rely heavily on the representation of other editors when making their own judgments, the large volume of misinformation has poisoned the well for a fruitful consensus discussion. For this reason alone, this RfC should not be used as the basis for reaching a decision on the reliability of RfC research.

Finally, I should note that User: ScottishFinnishRadish already closed this discussion on June 18th, but there have been about 14 RfC survey responses from new editors since then. Some editors followed the closure rule and stopped participating while others didn’t see it or disregarded it and voted, perhaps alerted to the likelihood of imminent decision by the closure discussion on ANI. Either all of these votes must be disregarded or the discussion re-opened again before a decision is made. Given the closure of the antisemitism section was never even debated at ANI, I am going to start an ANI discussion over whether the close was proper. I apoologize for the Wall of Text but the ADL deserves its say. Since 1913, it has been one of the leading civil rights orgnizations in the history of the United States and it is misguided to let short-term passions override the existing, sensible Wikipedia policies on balance and due that are designed precisely for these types of disagreements. BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 20 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. [43], [44], [45], 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)

  To be fair, the entry for ACAB specifies that its usage is not inherently a hate symbol but that some far-right skinheads have been recorded using it. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:50, 19 June 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. [46] [47]). 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)

There is no fact checking other than ADL themselves, the posts are seemingly written annonymously, and they don't explain their criteria. It seems that if anyone, at any point, does something associated with racism it is now 100% a "hate symbol" for all time. For the Bowl cut page, someone at some point made a Waffen-SS insignia patch with Dylan's hair, and that is enough. Is this literally 1 person? 2? 5? So if someone makes a post on discord or twitter once something is now a "hate symbol" for all time? They seem like fishermen dredging the depths of the internet dredging up anything and everything that is said or posted by online hate groups. They will make blanket statements like "100% is shorthand among white supremacists for "100% white,". Well, maybe, some, at some point in time? These examples seem very niche and trivial. And of course, given ADL's mandate, mission, and need for donations, they massively benefit from an ever growing menace of online hate groups, so they have every incentive to pad things out. Repeat they are NOT a neutral news organization like AP or Reuters and should not be treated as such. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 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)
• Additional considerations apply: The ADL is an advocacy organization and it may be reliable for information about itself and some other cases of antisemitism, but it must be used with caution, especially within the IL-PA and A-I conflicts. It could be used for attributed opinions and possibly for information about colleges, but it should be used with care like many other religious advocacy organizations. Awesome Aasim 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Rhododendrites, BilledMammal, Zaathras. O.maximov (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Dcpoliticaljunkie has a good point on WP:USEBYOTHERS O.maximov (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1; this would be peak "throwing the baby with the bathwater". One of the least objectionable things that the ADL does is compile the list of anti-semitic dogwhistles. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Had they botehred to consult experts, that may be the case. However, they didn't, don't cite authorship, and get even the basics wrong, often spreading misinformation, as clearly and explicitly outlined above. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 on average. Reliable for the existence of a symbol and its use as a hate symbol. Not reliable for the history or meaning of a symbol outside its use as a hate symbol. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4. The little real information on that page drowns in serious errors and bizarre claims, which have been brought up by several editors. In the few cases where an ADL classification itself has impacted the perception of a symbol, we need secondary sources for that to be mentioned in an article. If anything, we should make an effort to go through every symbol the ADL lists and make sure any coverage of it on Wikipedia has a serious source that is independent from the ADL's description of it. Ffranc (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 4 - A source that considers a sticker of the Palestinian flag placed literally anywhere as a hate symbol cannot be taken seriously. An organization that counts the red triagle as a symbol of hate cannot be taken seriously. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't part of the hate symbol database, this is part of the Glossary of Extremism and Hate, as confirmed by the categorisation of this symbol under glossary rather than the database in question [48]; thus unrelated to this RfC. The ADL also doesn't directly describe it as a hate symbol, more so as possible extremism it seems. Off topic, but just for context; "can signify support for violent Palestinian resistance against Israel", "can be used innocuously in general pro-Palestine social media posts", "is now used to represent Hamas"; I personally think isn't far off the mark for it's current usage (ie broad in nature). CNC (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

How many of these poorly-made ADL databases are out there? Here it is again: No author attribution (who wrote this, contractors?), no sources provided, or no dates or context. They've just a slapped together bunch of stuff that cannot be verified: we're just told to trust whoever put this together at the ADL, an advocacy group. And it's likewise just a sloppy, poorly researched mess. For example, their entry on "fasces" for example makes no mention of how most people in the US will encounter it: by way of its widespread use by the US federal government ([49]) . The entry on "Jera Rune" doesn't even tell us why it's listed there ([50] — and I would like to know why because this is not a symbol widely used by any neo-Nazi group that I know of). We have to use better sources than this. It repeats the same garbled and confused nonsense about the "life rune" I discuss above ([51]). It again totally incorrectly refers to the Wolfsangel as an "ancient runic symbol" ([52]). Those are just a few I took a look at—this is similarly not at all reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. What is not mentioned about the use of the fasces symbol by US government institutions could fill volumes. That's pretty bad omission, or selective cherrypicking of context. If anything, the actual widespread usage in a US federal context – including being emblazoned (twice!) on the senate logo – makes it a presumptively patriotic symbol in the US. Somewhat relevant context. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 – The ADL's hate symbol database should only be cited as a source for a statement like "This symbol is in the ADL's hate symbol database.", or for well-attributed quotes of their database. It's clear that the ADL is a prominent voice in the field of hate symbols, and it likely will make sense to mention their opinion in Wikipedia in many/most articles about hate symbols. But, it should be clearly marked as their opinion, and other sources should be used to back up the history/usage/etc of the symbol.
  Citing ADL should be avoided not just because of possible bias or inaccuracies, but also for the simple reason that their data is very surface-level. Most hate symbols only get a paragraph or two of information on their website and there's no indication of how they sourced/acquired the info. We also rarely cite Merriam-Webster, but not because MW is considered unreliable; it just lacks much depth. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 – All of the entries on the database seem to actually be hate symbols (obviously within context, discretion should be used to determine if a "Coor's" tattoo is racist), but it is clear that the backgrounds for these entries are unsourced and often times untrue, and should not be used as a reliable source. Although they are not the same thing, the related Glossary of Extremism and Hate should be seen as unreliable due to branding several organizations as "hateful" or "antisemitic" merely for being anti-Zionist. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 (I am opposed to deprecation on principle). No one has managed to refute :bloodofox:'s excellent arguments above. Who is writing this? Is there any fact checking process? Where do they get this information from? All those questions don't have good answers, in addition to the concerning inaccuracies highlighted above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I keep repeating the same thing again. ADL is not a neutral third party journalist trying to report on the news like Reuters or the Associated Press, which are typically considered the gold standard for reporting. They're an advocacy organization with a view on how the world should be, and they are trying to advocate for it. As such, they should be treated like any other political and advocacy organization. If there's some dispute over something, and enough reliable sources cover them, then they can be included in the article, as a particular viewpoint. But we would be citing a news article by the New York Times, or the Miami Herald, or USA Today, etc. In short: They are not journalists. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per :bloodofox:. ADL is entirely devoid of authorship and editorial specifics and chooses instead to rely on vague descriptions of experts and such. It has no business being used as a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. Per a lot of the arguments above. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Reliable sources on this topic, journalistic outlets, the SPLC, and others usually cite their sources, document their reasoning, include publication dates and authors, and so forth. As it stands it seems like many things claimed in the ADL database would likely warrant independent verification before we should be using it as a source, at which point it counts as a poor source in itself. TocMan (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 to be consistent with my vote in two previous sections. I think this is also an incorrectly framed RfC. Three parts of the RfC (the conflict, antisemitism and hate symbols) can not be voted separately because they are related very closely and described in the same publications (e.g. [53]). I was also surprised that someone brought the issue to AN. I believed it should not and explained why [54]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  You say they can't be voted separately, but many people did (including me, the RFC opener), to the point where the consensus on this section is likely going to be different from the consensus on part 1. Loki (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - USEBYOTHERS can only go so far when considering the opacity of authorship and fact-checking that Bloodofox and TocMan raises about the database. starship.paint (RUN) 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 symbols can be cited by other reputable sources. If we agree they are biased, how can we trust their reporting symbols to be unbiased? Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 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. [55] PJ Podesta, writing for the Electronic Intifada say that Such calls to action do not include that we opine on Palestinians’ methods of resistance., [56] 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. [57] 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 [58] 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,[59] a terrorism researcher listing ADL's HEATmap in a list of useful databases on extremism,[60] and a review by a criminologist of various hate crime monitors that discusses ADL as a source precisely for this.[61] 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.[62][63][64]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.[65] She cited the ADL in testimony she gave the House last month too.[66] 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.[67]And there are so many other examples.[68][69][70] 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[71] 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. [72] 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. [73] 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)

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.

Closing the RfC

This is already long enough. Go to WP:AN to challenge the closure if you'd like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First section of the RfC was closed by a non-admin participant. I think it was an inappropriate closure for several reasons: (1) one must close the entire RfC, not a section, this is all connected; (2) given the nature and the scale of the discussion, the closure should be done by administrators who have enough experience; and (3) the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) WP:AN is where you can go to challenge a closure. nableezy - 14:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, it can be appealed there by anyone, but I would like to hear opinions by others. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) There was an unsuccessful discussion on the closers talk page, so no, you’re not the only one. I’m not a fan of him having a quote about the topic by a person who voted in the RfC on top of his talk page, that’s not what we are looking for when we want an uninvolved closer.FortunateSons (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) he provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful: By way of clarity, it was not "just" a headcount. The closer explicitly referred to the relative strength of arguments as well. I'm also not sure OP's impression that the closure of one part of a thread is unprecedented is quite right. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Well, the closer provided the following justification: I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too. With all due respect, I think this is an insufficient justification for a big RfC, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Already raised with the closer, so just take it to AN, although I can't readily see how that could be overturned, personally. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) A close as “no consensus” is quite plausible IMO. While there are multiple arguments that I read closer to a dislike of the source or it’s bias than to an actual sign of unreliability, I’m not sure we can exclude enough of those to get to a “pure” additional considerations, but I haven’t counted, so I’m could be wrong. FortunateSons (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Well, when you close it, you can make that argument, while at AN that argument won't even be listened to. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, indeed, the actual arguments at AN would be involved closer making a close of insufficient quality, which I would consider to be quite clear. FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Challenge to Part 1 closure at AN

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.

---

Zanahary has opened a thread at WP:AN challenging the closure of part 1. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:46, 18 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.

Challenge to closure of parts 2 and 3

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.

---

I have posted a challenge at ANI to the closure of parts 2 and 3. Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Contested RfC Close BC1278 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

They are not closed? Selfstudier (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, in I/P, closure doesn't need to have happened to be disputed. 😅 (And really, why limit that to I/P? I'd like to take this opportunity to dispute how the RFC we're going to have next month about ABC News will be closed: the closer of that one will clearly have been biased, weighing the arguments for the proposal too heavily compared to the arguments against the proposal, whatever the proposal ends up being. </attempt at levity> -sche (talk) 21:05, 20 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.

Warning of meatpuppetry

Potential meatpuppets incoming: Article in Israeli website --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also The Independent etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: is this discussion subject to restrictions? If so, do we want to put a box over the still-open sections, like the ombox over the WP:AN discussion? (Also worth considering, if we think it's going to get brigaded, is re-archiving it and letting it be closed from the archives; I'm not sure why it was moved out of the archives, anyway.) -sche (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I filed a close request for a different RFC that went in the archives without moving it from there tho it took awhile, maybe editors think they need to be moved out to get a close, idk? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It should have been left in the archives to be closed, other RFCs have been closed that way. I would move it back to the currently empty Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439, but that would be contentious at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Part 1 is obviously related to Palestine-Israel, but the other two are not as a whole (although some comments may be relevant to that topic area). If part 1 is reopened then we should add a box to it (there's not much point while its closed), but I don't think its justified for parts 2 and 3. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Removal of edit. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it probably falls under the same restrictions as the AN discussion, so WP:PIA, limiting to only EC editors. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Also...

Please see this AN thread. The ADL has recommended to send emails asking the WMF to "launch an investigation" into "attacks by some editors" against it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:03, 21 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)

Jump to:

Survey

Discussion

Proposed moratorium

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[74] 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. [75] 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)

At least 3 editors have independently brought the !vote out of the moving/collapsing now. I hope that we can take that as consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Given editors are taking Loki's claims at face value, apparently without reading this - probably because it is collapsed - I'm uncollapsing it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I highly doubt that and have collapsed it again. The biggest chunks of rebuttal text, including Chess's (the most cited!), are outside of this !vote. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

See Daveosaurus' !vote. Regardless, there is no basis for this collapse under WP:TPO; please stop. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it was caused by this !vote being collapsed due to the overwhelming amount of Option 1 arguments others have referenced, but whatever. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 18 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. [76] 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?” [77] And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. [78] 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. [79]

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. [80] [81] 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 [82], 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. [83] 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 [84] 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 [85] and the Education Secretary of the UK [86]. 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 [87] 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. [88] 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[89] 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[90] 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. [91] 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[92] quotes Dr. Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, saying that the study compared unathletic trans women to athletic cis women. [93] 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".

[94] 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 [95] 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 [96] 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 [97] 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 [98](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) — LunaHasArrived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The claim that anybody has ever identified as a cat appears to be culture war bullshit. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/01/30/how-furries-got-swept-up-in-anti-trans-litter-box-rumors/

The Telegraph has reported Birbalsingh as a factual source on this thoroughly-refuted bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 17 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 2 is also good.North8000 (talk) 22:28, 18 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)

You make the point for us. It's an opinion. A fringe one, that screams out of every single word of coverage on the topic. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 17 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[99] 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.[100]
• 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.[101]
• 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.[102] In that same article, they use a euphemism for conversion therapy and misrepresent medical information to claim it's a beneficial treatment.[103]
• Here I presented multiple academic papers criticizing the Telegraph's bias, homophobia, and transphobia. [104]
• 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 [105]
• 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 ... [106]

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. [107] Digging through your comment, I can assume you mean his volunteer position at Childline, something I have not brought up at this RfC. [108]

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.[109][110]
• 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. [111] [112] 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. [113] 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. [114] 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.[115] - 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...[116] 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.[117]

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: [118] 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. [119] 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[120]

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. [121] 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. [122]

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[123] SAMHSA and the Trevor Project says its conversion therapy. These academic RS say its conversion therapy.[124][125][126][127] Here's one that notes it's been described as conversion therapy and notes there is no evidence whatsoever it is useful or effective.[128] Here are more RS calling it conversion therapy.[129][130] Here is the Southern Poverty Law Center calling it conversion therapy.[131] And here is a reliable source noting NARTH (the original pro conversion therapy lobbying group) endorses "exploratory" therapy and works with those pushing it.[132]

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) [133]

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[134]

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 [135], and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner [136]. 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)

  Additional comment: While I was origionally open to the notion that the source was biased, discussion below has lead me to reconsider this. Editors had argued that the source was engaged in targeting and fearmongering based on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting".

  Additional research has found that the opposite is true. As proven with sources below "watchful waiting" is in fact a highly respected model of care, and the Telegraph was likely following best practices with that article by aligning their reporting with the mainstream medical guidance the child had been recieving. Given how incorrect this argument of bias was I'm no longer convinced by the other arguments; I would oppose adding a note regarding bias to their RSP entry. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Watchful waiting" is not a (major, anyway) part of the argument that they are biased. The argument consists of them misgendering, deadnaming, and asking anti-trans groups for opinions on nearly every article related to trans people. And that's disregarding the opinion column. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  The misgendering appears to fall under the same topic; the gender they used was aligned with the medical advice provided by the treating clinician in accordance with the "watchful waiting" model.

  My overall concern is that the arguments being made for this source being biased are themselves WP:FRINGE. In this case, we were able to prove that - but many of the other claims are not as easy to objectively assess, and it is a very realistic possibility that many of them are just as incorrect as this one was. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Still, Loki has presented a plethora of secondary sources as well (see the last sentence in their !vote) that believe the Telegraph's biased against. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looking through those 6 sources, three are from Pink News, which has its own bias on this topic. Of the other three, one is an IPSO ruling which rejects most of the concerns raised by the complaintant (which, interestingly, are similar to concerns raised here by editors about the same article), upholding only one minor issue which it notes that The Telegraph issued a correction for promptly. It doesn't say anything about bias.

  The "Critical Discourse Studies" article appears to say that the perspective on Mermaids changed to a collectively negative one - and that while the Telegraph led that change, it was aligned with the rest of reliable sources in doing so; the majority of coverage ... is negative. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased.

  I don't have access to the "Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies" book.

  As far as I can tell, those sources don't support a claim of bias. BilledMammal (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think they're deep enough to warrant moving, I won't object if anyone does. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did just mean any further discussion, rather than moving the whole thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  The "Critical Discourse Studies" paper studies in-depth how the Telegraph and most of the British press covered Mermaids with a strong negative bias. Nearly the entire British press is biased, yes, but we have a neutral, British academic standpoint here that directly says the press uses Mermaids as a weapon against the very people they seek to support and argues that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.
  You also have [137]. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because on Wikipedia, "bias" typically means they don’t align with the average position of reliable sources. Both those articles appear to be saying that the Telegraph does align with that position, and so aren’t biased. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do British newspapers have a monopoly on rs about this topic. Because it seems that (some) British newspapers went out of step with rs. Having a quick look both the BBC and the guardian (just using their website, searching mermaids and ignoring anything not about the charity). I saw that they discuss that the times and the telegraph both seemed to be digging up dirt, and that the charity commission where investigating (and openly said this does not mean any wrongdoing happened). So it seems that a couple of RS went out of step with the rest and then academics criticised this as a 'hit job'. This sounds like bias LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.
  Plus, we're supposed to have a global standpoint. You can't see all this evidence talked about in the overall analysis of headlines in the paper and think that fits the global standpoint of neutrality. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  fits the global standpoint of neutrality I don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been
  an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to British news media. The Council of Europe criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of transphobia gaining traction in British society. YouGov noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while Ipsos found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for gender-affirming healthcare in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.
  — Transgender rights in the United Kingdom

  So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the Ipsos survey is limited to 30 countries, mostly Western or otherwise progressive on these issues; in Africa it only included South Africa, in Asia it only included South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Japan.

  Further, even within the six metrics of the Ipsos survey, the United Kingdom was closely aligned with the average on three, and even on the other three it wasn't significantly off - roughly 10% less support/more opposition.

  I tried to find a true global survey, but was unable to. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't find a true global survey, shouldn't we go for the widest-encompassing? And I don't see why you think that 10% is a very small number when the people behind the report clearly emphasize that this is way below average. I don't trust either of us to know what every 1% actually means nominally.
  And again, from the evidence presented in the T&F paper above, don't you think that the Telegraph seems biased based on your personal experience of the things you've read? Yes, this is obviously original research just like your conclusion from the 10%, but in the latter case the people who came up with the figures actually published their say in the matter. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Critical theory (an offshoot of Marxism) is without a doubt one of the most leftist subsets of academia there is. Something being in an academic journal does not mean it's neutral or even scientifically based. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  The article in Critical Discourse Studies, an academic journal that per WP:SCHOLARSHIP constitutes one of the best sources for Wikipedia to cite, reports that the organization called Mermaids is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safety that is a reliable source of information and advice. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids, parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids (contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people and their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as as powerful, dangerous and controversial. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and linked) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The article is a primary source. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves
2. It presents it in a negative light without saying anything actually false. Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion.

I've sampled Loki's examples and discussed them here. You're welcome to add on to the discussion about them there. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Does any of this really add anything new to the RFC? Once again I urge that you make any new comments in the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This counts towards whether the closers deem a note at RSP on being a biased source fit. And again, I don't see the point of putting only some reply chains in discussion, but I will not revert if anyone does. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 20 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. EDIT: to add another point I recall making in the RFCBEFORE: I notice a lot of "1" voters reference deprecation. I tend to think there's a world of distance between deprecation and the thing actually being suggested by most other editors in the discussion. --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)

  Unfortunately, deprecation in a single area is not currently possible. Deprecation is for sources that fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:45, 17 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)

  Also per Teratix. I don't see the Telegraph presenting anti-trans slander as fact. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at the first three points at User:LokiTheLiar/Times and Telegraph RFC prep#Multiple issues, excluding the Cass review coverage, which have already been commented on by Void et al:
  This applies to many sources here. As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.

  Makes directly false claim that XXY or XYY "does not alter a man's biological sex"

  Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome. Same thing for XYY.

  claims binding is significantly more dangerous than it actually is

  The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.

  misleading about breast binding

  As Luna correctly pointed out above, this (breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation, more than 97 per cent of adults who use [breast binders] suffer health problems [(which refers to any health problem such as slight pain)] as a result) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.

  citing Maya Forstater as a reliable source on the issue

  It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.

  Misgendering an individual is certainly a factual inaccuracy. If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?

  In the particular article you're talking about I'll grant you it's less clear because the person in question is underage, and therefore can't legally change their name or gender. But in principle it's the sort of thing that any reliable newspaper would correct if they got wrong.

  Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, "Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome." Same thing for XYY.

  Both of those are listed on our list of intersex conditions. I'm not claiming that they make a man into a woman or anything like that, just that the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex". (Though you're right that I should have been more clear about that.)

  It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source.

  It doesn't say "political" campaign group, and in fact doesn't give any information about the nature of the group. It just says "campaign group". It also quotes her opinions at length without a rebuttal and clearly in a way that endorses what she says. Shortly thereafter it quotes a "think tank" that is actually a major conservative think tank, again without saying it's conservative.

  And I'll note here explicitly that the things she says are pretty obviously not true? Like, no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion" or "harmed patient care". Loki (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?

  thanks for the morning laugh . Well, if a reliable source decides to call me Dave while acknowledging my real name, I don't think that should count towards excluding the source for its davery.

  the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex".

  I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. The first result for whether these are intersex said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as disorders of sex development instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.

  It just says "campaign group".

  Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".
  (and I still think undue weight is bias, not inaccuracy. I'm sure that we can find a good portion of sources contrary to the Telegraph's biases, especially if the outcome of this were to prefer alternate sources.)

  no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion"

  Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 11 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)

  I think the larger problem is the "the telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe" statement, these points are generally made in the telegraph's news sections and are statements made by the columnists (not just their beliefs) LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:06, 7 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)
• Option 1 I'm convinced by the arguments of Chess and Void if removed: Loki's examples show, at best, that The Telegraph has a certain perspective or bias on these matters – which is perfectly acceptable for an RS – not that it is unreliable on the facts. Chetsford has also made an excellent comment which has undeservedly flown under the radar:

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.

I don't trust reliability assessments based on a single editor (who will naturally have their own biases) unsystematically compiling a list of examples. (1) They're just too easy to consciously or unconsciously skew and (2) it's a level of scrutiny no major source would withstand. – Teratix ₵ 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or very good 2 regarding everything that can be cited (as something that is not MEDRS), I'm seeing framing and reporting in poor taste and bias, but no clear indication of unreliability. Some additional concerns regarding due and framing are valid, but not enough to significantly impact reliability to the degree were editorial discretion cannot be trusted to exclude the minimal number of articles that should not be cited or only cited with attribution. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if that makes the vote one or two, and it probably shouldn’t have to be said, but: depending on coverage, additional considerations should apply to BLPs, with the phrasing being along the lines of “additional caution should be applied when using the source about living people” FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4(changed my mind, elaborating below). Loki has proven that The Telegraph should NOT be used on trans issues. "Bias is fine for a RS"? Really? Maybe if it's stuff like a newspaper supporting a sports team over an other, but not when it comes to basic human rights. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Changing to option 3. Maybe deprecating the Telegraph entirely for their (admittedly awful) reporting on trans issues is a bit much, considering they can be okay on other issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, bias really is fine for an RS. Read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. – Teratix ₵ 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, but not the point; the issue is that a biased source such as in this case should not be used to state something in Wikivoice, especially if it is the sole source. For example, instead of "X is a fact" it should say that "AB, writing in the Telegraph, claimed that x is a fact". Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Our ordinary guidance on the matter is we already shouldn't be treating seriously contested assertions as facts in any case, not just those which writers in The Telegraph may make. So I agree with you we definitely should be attributing perspectives on controversial issues or contested assertions – but this should be ordinary practice, not Telegraph-specific. – Teratix ₵ 11:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  When it's actively harmful? No, a bias isn't fine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  (1) Writing an encyclopedia requires we write neutrally – giving all perspectives their due weight, including perspectives we consider harmful.

  (2) I'm not comfortable having you, me or any other editors making binding calls on what perspectives count as harmful. It's far too easy for conscious or unconscious animosity towards a source's perspective to seep in and bias our assessments. – Teratix ₵ 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  There’s a difference between including all significant viewpoints and uncritically including misinformation. “Homosexuality is evil” is a notable opinion, but we don’t put it in the same “weight class” as the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and harmless. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is well-known that news articles should not be used to source science details and can only source science reactions at most. I also don't see how the Telegraph treats opinions as fact. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  If bias on trans issues disqualifies a source, I guess Pink News should be marked unreliable, then. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  When has Pink News said anything documentedly false about trans issues? Loki (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  The libeling of Julie Bindel, settled in Bindel's favor, for one. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Settling libel claims in the UK is not convincing, since the UK's libel laws are tilted very heavily towards plaintiffs. Loki (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not familiar with Pink News as a source, but on a quick search I found this:

  The review also claimed that, while research suggests that hormone treatment “reduces” the elevated risk of suicide, there is “no clear evidence” that social transition has any positive or negative mental health outcomes.

  This statement is inarguably false. See pages 33 and 186–187 of the Cass Review:

  86. It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.

  Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review.

  15.43 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.

  This kind of falsehood is what should be presented to call into question a source's veracity—not casting aspersions or equating bias with unreliability, as has largely been done here. Astaire (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Article from April 10, WP:RSBREAKING. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  RSBREAKING is a warning to editors to be cautious when including breaking news. It is not an excuse for the sources we use to be inaccurate. Astaire (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news.

  -from a post by User:Chess in this RfC Flounder fillet (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Inaccuracies in breaking news stories impact a source's overall reliability less than other types of inaccuracies. But they should have an impact all the same. The Pink News example I cited is particularly egregious. Not only is it directly contradicted by multiple parts of the Cass Review, it clearly shares wording with the first quotation I gave from the review ("suggests", "hormone treatment", "reduces", "elevated risk"). So the PN writer likely read this basic, easy-to-parse sentence from the review and somehow reported the complete opposite.

  Regardless, we are getting off topic since this is not a Pink News RFC, so I will stop here. As it pertains to this RFC, the relevant point (that has been made more eloquently by Chetsford and others) is that cherry-picking negative examples does not provide a true picture of a source's reliability, particularly when these examples are cases of disfavored framing or phrasing rather than actual inaccuracies. Astaire (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In practice, when dealing with the popular media's summary of breaking medical news, their articles have problems. You can easily find examples from any newspaper summarizing some new medical research related press release that fail to understand basic facts of the science.

  For this reason, we already discourage the use of breaking news in articles when a better source later on is available. Ditto for the popular media without corrobation from more academic RSes.

  This is relevant because the examples presented of The Telegraph being unreliable can already be removed under our existing policies as we already have "additional considerations apply" in those areas. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to what Flounder has said, I also think quoting the summary only is a little misleading, since the Cass Review mentions a full systematic review which does find that gender affirming treatment reduces risk of suicide and then dismisses its conclusions for methodological reasons.

  Or in other words, the Cass Review did find research that suggests gender affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. That wasn't the conclusion of the report, but they do report on the other research that does come to that conclusion. Loki (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  That interpretation not only pushes the bounds of believability in terms of how we commonly understand language, it would actually make this sentence worse—going from sloppiness to outright misinformation by failing to report the Cass Review's findings. It is also contradicted by the next clause in the sentence, which is clearly discussing the review's conclusions and not the research itself.

  If someone tried to state in wikivoice that "research suggests that X treatment has Y effect", citing a systematic review that discarded that research for being low-quality, they would be shut down immediately. Astaire (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am inclined to suggest that PinkNews should use in-text attribution in many if not most cases, but that not being the source we are currently examining, I have not looked at it in sufficient detail to make such a statement. It's a little odd it's tagged green but the blurb says additional considerations apply. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dtobias: The whole reason why this RfC is happening is because editors on Cass Review don't like The Telegraph and want to strip out citations to it, in many cases with Pink News. [138] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, when you put it that way, this whole thing looks like a tendentious POV-push time sink. Pecopteris (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you kidding? Colin, the editor making that edit, been arguing with everyone else for the reliability of the Cass Review! He's also one of the main editors behind WP:MEDRS, so the idea that he's some sort of POV-pusher is absurd (and despite disagreeing with him on the underlying issue there I have defended him against accusations he's trying to push some sort of anti-trans POV). Loki (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was more started because people disliked how the previous RFC was conducted (from what I gather there were 3 similar one at the same time and accusations of canvassing). The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review, mainly misinformation about how the follow -up service will be done. Also of note is that currently that page has 1 reference to pinknews and 2 to the telegraph so any supposed povpushing has been very ineffective.LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on the misinformation The Telegraph has provided about the Cass Review?

  (Also, I think you meant "had no point" instead of "has been very ineffective".) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  They consistently misinterpret the recommendations of Cass for transgender people in the ages of 17-25, according to the telegraph, Cass says these people should go to a different service to over 25s. In actuality it if one received care before they were 17 they are initially seen by a "follow on" service. As well as there seems to be some confusion as to the provision of hrt to these 17-25 year olds.

  (I was making a small joke that if editors were povpushing and replacing the telegraph with pinknews, those editors have done a very poor job of doing so considering the references) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please cite the exact article text from the Telegraph that you say is a misinterpretation? I cannot find evidence to support your claim that The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title "Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times", but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? Astaire (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability?

  hit ctrl+f on your keyboard and type "Cass". Flounder fillet (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper, with the editorial content mildly to the political right. Sure, you can no doubt find an article or series of articles where the reporting does not support your viewpoint, because the reporter either selected a different range of sources or drew different conclusions. Or sometimes reporters even make errors in reporting the facts. But this is true of any newspaper reporting on any topic; we all know that a newspaper article produced to a deadline may not be the whole truth. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The other options proposed here are attempts at censorship for political ends. JMCHutchinson (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper none of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable now. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still generally reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you are misunderstanding my wording as "as reliable as ALL British newspapers", no, I meant as reliable as the best-quality British Newspapers such as the Times and the Guardian. I don't notice any particular decline in its quality and nor do I note general agreement in these comments about that. JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Jmchutchinson, you consider The Times, a newspaper that went out of its way to deadname Brianna Ghey (1, 2), to be one of the best British newspapers? I guess even the "best" are awful when it comes to trans issues. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If deadnaming makes a source unreliable to you, then enough said; but listen to yourself! JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A little bit up on this page, I was asked to come up with actual factual falsehoods perpetrated by Pink News if I was to assert that it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source due to its bias. I could ask the same of you with regard to The Times; "deadnaming" does not constitute factual falsehood as the name was accurate, and the question of whether they should have printed it or not is a matter for debate under moral philosophy, not a matter of whether they are saying false things. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Wikipedia, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Wikipedia's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Wikipedia to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 (Option 3 for BLP material) reviewing the above that's not just bias, that is bad reporting (so bad, there are confused accounts even above), also for much of this topic, we should never use a newspaper for almost anything, and further individual's lives require much more care under WP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - there are plenty of sources available that publish neutral information on this topic; we can safely avoid one that, per the sources presented already, publishes information obviously intended to advance a particular point of view, and publishes outright conspiracy theories as though they are factual. Furthermore The Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic, there's no reason why Wikipedia needs to publish anything that they say about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: What outright conspiracy theories are you referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3, , Thryduulf put it very well. Option 3. I think Loki and others have established that they promote quackery on the subject; a source that promotes quackery is, by definition, at least generally unreliable (so, option 3, not my earlier "2/3"). This isn't about political disagreement. DFlhb (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) edited 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2: I am not convinced by the arguments to designate "generally unreliable", but the bias is evident. I am not familiar enough with RSN's procedures to decide whether that warrants "additional considerations". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess and others. AndyGordon (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I wish the presentation of this matter had more clearly differentiated examples of the Telegraph having an anti-trans editorial stance from the equally numerous examples of said publication resorting to unethical practices in furtherance of that stance.
  I advise to pay the most attention to the cases listed at User:LokiTheLiar/Times_and_Telegraph_RFC_prep#Bad Articles, where many such examples may be found. Points of note include the Telegraph consistently using quotes to skimp out on journalistic integrity and put forth untrue and unverified statements, e.g. the milk article; and the case of James Esses, whom they consistently quote implying he is an expert, which he in no way is.
  In all of the Telegraph's coverage I have reviewed, there arises a certain common thread: the use of misgendering language and terms like "transgender ideology" in the publication's own voice. While some may argue that the choice of terminology is a matter of preference, I think otherwise. Using the term "transgender ideology" implies that such a thing exists, which is not in accordance with any actual research. See also Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#As_an_ideology. Use of misgendering language similarly makes a claim about gender that is far outside what is accepted as fact, vide Trans man and Trans woman. Some may say that what gendered words to use about someone is subjective; that, however, implies the existence of some knowable objective truth outside of the consensus of reliable sources. That lies outside Wikipedia's remit. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  You state that one must not claim that objective truth exists, and you also state that the Telegraph's statements are contrary to truth, which seems rather contradictory. Ah, but you're not saying that "objective truth" says that one set of language is correct and another set is not, or that there's no such thing as "transgender ideology"... just that reliable sources say that and Wikipedia must fall in line. But then when some sources say otherwise, you use this as evidence that they're not reliable. Seems like a No True Scotsman fallacy, and a circular argument. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the above logic no reliable source could ever be deemed unreliable (as everything a reliable source says would be reliable). What Maddy seems to be suggesting is the balance of sources says that misgendering is a refusal to acknowledge the fact of trans people as their gender and because of this the telegraph publishes against fact (but I'll stop putting words into their mouth). LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Care to provide any RS describing transgender ideology as anything other than a nebulously defined buzzword to attack transgender people?

  If it helps, unreliable sources that define it include:

  • The Christian Institute - Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created. [139]
  • Abigail Shrier in the City Journal - This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.[140]
  • Fun fact, all medical organizations and human rights group acknowledge the existence of gender identities, which have been evidenced by conversion therapy failing to work on trans people.
  • The Heritage Foundation - They don't define it, just take it for granted people will be mad when they make the title Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids and suggest conversion therapy as an alternative The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.\[141]
  • The Family Research Council doesn't define it but sure as hell want you to fight it! After all As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country.[142]
  • Project 2025 vaguely defines it as the think they want to charge people with sex offenses for - Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered[143][144][145]

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Maddy from Celeste: Again, instead of just handwaving that many such examples may be found, it would be helpful to provide specific quotes from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?" It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist has brought up examples of other sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph.

  In order for The Telegraph's usage of the term transgender ideology to be an issue, you have to show that they're using it in an unreliable way. Control+F on Loki's page reveals the only non-opinion article by The Telegraph using the term "trans ideology" to be this one, so I assume that's the one you meant: [146] As far as I can tell, the piece doesn't define "trans ideology" in any of the extremist ways that YFNS cites. The only specific example of trans ideology in the linked page is the use of the term chestfeeding instead of breastfeeding. It would seem to me that the type of person that uses the term "trans ideology" would agree that the term chestfeeding is an example of that, so it doesn't appear The Telegraph is inaccurately applying the term.

  I'd also ask whether or not usage of buzzwords (see: every newspaper calling everything artificial intelligence/AI) ever been a reason to declare a source unreliable? The reliable sources policy exists to ensure citations aren't used to support false claims. It seems to me you're saying that "trans ideology" is just a vaguely defined and ultimately meaningless ideograph. If the term is devoid of meaning, nothing can really be cited from a source's usage of it. So, I'd also ask, are there any examples of The Telegraph being used to cite false information about the term "trans ideology"? Or is this just hypothetical, in which case, what are you seeking to prevent by declaring The Telegraph unreliable? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Y'know, it's not hard to Google things.

  They do use the phrase in articles but usually they're either quoting or implicitly quoting someone else, see here and here. Neither of these are good articles, though: they clearly exist to smuggle dubious opinions into the mouth of a quote.

  Like for instance, here's a whole article on Sex Matters having an opinion. Is that opinion based in fact? Very much no, it repeats a bunch of debunked pseudoscience like the social contagion theory of gender dysphoria. And they do no fact-checking whatsoever of this opinion. It's not news, it's not a noteworthy opinion, the opinions expressed are verifiably false, and they don't bother to fact-check them at all. Loki (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Debunked pseudoscience and the opinions expressed are verifiably false are hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "This is potentially the most contested explanation" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that.

  As the European Academy of Paediatrics Statement puts it:

  The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.

  Branding entirely legitimate POVs taken seriously by MEDRS as "debunked pseudoscience" when they are very much unsettled questions is improper. An RFC like this should be based on actual, provable misstatements of fact not differences of opinion. Was there actually a child who identified as a cat in a classroom? Provably, no. Is peer contagion of gender dysphoria a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence in teenage girls? MEDRS disagree, but on the whole it is treated as controversial, as-yet unknown and worthy of study, and very much not "debunked pseudoscience".

  Additionally, the claim you point to is irrelevant because we would never use The Telegraph as a source to establish this as fact, but what you seek to do here is exclude it as source generally on the grounds it lends credence to a POV you consider false, and handwaving at the ROGD page to back that up. This is tantamount to saying: a local editorial consensus is fact, and any source that disagrees is not reliable. That is a dangerous route indeed if permitted. Void if removed (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 per ColinFlounder fillet (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess. Lynch44 (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Per many examples presented here, The Telegraph stubbornly refuses to accept new information, perspectives, and research. Alone that would be a 2. When a source elevates active misinfomration and harmful hate speech, as The Telegraph now does, we should stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. Too much of the defense of this paper here seems to be based on inertia instead of Wikipedia policy. Coasting on past accomplishments and stodgy British Connservatism - name a more iconic duo. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess and Barnards.tar.gz. I also think there should be a moratorum on "WP:RELIABLE source on trans issues" RFCs. IIRC, they've all failed and for good reason. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - per the numerous examples shown by many users above; Maddy summarized well that the Telegraph using terms that are commonly used as anti-LGBT rhetoric in their own voice implies an issue on the topic and we have many other more reputable news sources on the topic, so removing coverage from the Telegraph isn't a big loss to Wikipedia as we can lean on other RS that manages not to disparage people while reporting on them. Raladic (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess and others. 111.220.98.160 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC).
• Option 3 - per all the sources above of the issues . User:Sawerchessread (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, per Loki and other sources above — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the sourcing and Loki's's terrific input here but also per what's got to be an exhausting amount of good work by User:Chess at playing devil's advocate. Arguably, it's worked too well because this thread has gotten input from editors who, despite being known for their intelligence and who certainly do not have reputations for transphobia, sadly seem to have been swayed away. But no matter: a healthy majority of participants here are getting better in real time at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people and it's thanks (mostly) to Chess, who I believe would not stand for any sort of mistreatment of those different from them. City of Silver 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  What leads you to believe that Chess is arguing against his true position for some demagogy reason? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Same reason that I appreciate City of Silver for acknowledging that their central point is a) The Telegraph is transphobic, b) people that are against declaring it unreliable are (possibly unintentionally) supporting transphobia and c) we should WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by declaring The Telegraph as unreliable because d) a !vote declaring it unreliable is advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people.

  The role of a devil's advocate is to strengthen an argument by pointing out factual errors, despite my agreement with your underlying value system. Since you're acknowledging that I have an exhausting amount of good work, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - it’s generally reliable, although biased. Are there other sources that are better for reporting on trans issues? Yes. Blueboar (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Would you support an Option 2 that recommends using alternate sources? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  No need… Instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  RSP isn't a page that's intended to be read in its entirety, so I don't see how CREEP applies here. If we have consensus to prefer sources other than the Telegraph, I think it's best to reflect it in a place accessible to newcomers. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  We can always replace one reliable source with another we think is even better. You don’t need to specify that this applies to the Telegraph. It applies to every source. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is, there is no existing documentation on whether editors consider Telegraph less reliable. This RfC aims for much more than a per-page consensus. There's also precedent of putting such words at RSP to no negative effect, and this would probably benefit newcomers. For example:

  No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.
  — sole line of WP:ARDA

  The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.

  Aaron Liu (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:ARDA links to wikiproject Middle-Earth. Flounder fillet (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Weird. It's supposed to be WP:THEARDA. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• option 3 - per springee. ltbdl (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Editor was topic banned from gender related disputes for this !vote and subsequent comments. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I said option 1. Springee (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  i know. ltbdl (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on that? FortunateSons (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. ltbdl (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  This sounds borderline WP:ad hominem. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Whether it is or it isn't an ad hominem, it clearly isn't a nuanced position arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ltbdl seems generally rude, flippant and uncommunicative in their edits and ignores advice and warnings. I’d recommend either ignoring or reporting them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  A formal warning was given 2 hours after my reply, and he expressed guilt. I think if one were to discuss it, it should be somewhere else instead of this section. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Option 3 I’m just going to throw in my 2 pence (cos it’s British, get it) and say that, no, a conservative-leaning non-expert publication from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals is not reliable on transgender topics. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  The UK is one of the least transphobic countries in the world, see here. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use media from ~180 countries in which the situation is worse? Alaexis_¿question? 16:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That article is about the legal rights and opportunities, not necessarily how the public treats the subject. See the last paragraph of Transgender rights in the United Kingdom. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  And trustworthy as that travel blog filled with caveats is, I present the ILGA 2024 report[147] which says (among many other criticisms of the UK):

  • Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination) p 161

  Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you're citing UN Independent Experts, note that Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, takes an opposing view on these issues. Also note that the UN investigation against the EHRC resulted in a finding that they should retain their status and had not violated any UN rules. At any rate, if you're arguing strenuously for a source being unreliable because it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals", then perhaps you are the one whose views are "fringe"? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, can you quote where Reem Alsalem as said anything about the growing transphobic climate in the UK and where this climate is coming from. Also one country can have a widespread view and that view be fringe, that should be non negotiable. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  She certainly disagrees with what should be labeled as "anti-trans": 'She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.' [148] *Dan T.* (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, so she has nothing to comment on the fact that is rising transphobia in the UK and therefore does not take an opposing view on those issues. Otherwise you would have said something about that instead of quoting from an opinion piece LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  In Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it". [149] This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women.

  The standard that Dronebogus proposes and YFNS seemingly endorses is interesting. Would DB support declaring Al Jazeera as unreliable on transgender topics because it is illegal to "impersonate a woman" in Qatar? What other sources can we ban from the Global South?

  The substance of your !vote is that we should ban this source because it is from a transphobic country. This is a position that would be called culturally imperialist if it was taken on any country other than the United Kingdom. And ILGA's reports on LGBTQ rights that YFNS cites have been criticized for that exact reason by academics.[150] Either you think the United Kingdom is uniquely transphobic in a way that countries with legally mandated conversion therapy are not,[151] or your rule would ban uncivilized (read: non-Western) countries from opining on transgender issues on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  1) Is there evidence that Al Jazeera is unreliable on trans topics? The UK Media has been criticized as transphobic and biased, that could be true regardless of the laws there. Do not conflate "the media has a recognized bias in this country" with "I just don't like this country's laws"

  2) This article[152] raises good points, but you're missing a key one. It doesn't say ILGA is wrong, just that it left out the context of how Western imperialism shaped global homophobia/transphobia and didn't criticize the Western powers enough. If you're arguing the UK is the victim of western imperialism, and issues with transphobia in the media there should be discounted on that basis, then I really don't know what to say.

  3) The UN expert on LGBT topics still criticized the UK media. Attacking ILGA's reliability is silly, as that's not the source of the claim.

  4) That BBC article you linked for Alsalem[153] notes This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards. and Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of [the expert] who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue.

  5) Also, the irony of saying the UK is a victim of trans cultural imperialism even as it overrode Scotland's gender recognition reform is palpable.[154]

  Every day, I tell my friends the funniest arguments I've seen on Wikipedia - the UK is the victim of trans cultural imperialism is hands down the winner. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm addressing the point that The Telegraph is unreliable because it's from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think "it doesn't violate any UN rules" should be used to evidence that the UK media has low transphobia. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Um, J. K. Rowling and pals? Anyone? Even the Guardian, the bastion of British progressive journalism, occasionally platforms transphobic viewpoints. Even some British Wikipedians have expressed the belief that obviously transphobic opinions are well within the overton window both on and off wiki. So yes the UK has an endemic transphobia problem. Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps some of these people disagree with your opinion on what is "transphobia"? As does the tribunal in R D Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Center, which found the labeling of the claimant as "transphobic" to create a hostile environment for people with gender critical beliefs: [Paragraph 214] 'MW then goes on to say “Transphobia exists in our organisation as do other prejudices”. The clear implication of this is that the claimant is transphobic. She then goes on to invite AB to file a formal complaint. In the view of the Tribunal this was clearly unwarranted behaviour which was linked to the claimant’s philosophical belief. It clearly had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant. She was being called transphobic and a promise made to a colleague that they would no longer have to work with her.' [155] *Dan T.* (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  As a crumb of context, the defendant had asked how to misgender a transmasculine worker named AB (who Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO, told could file a complaint), and campaigned for the right of service users to make discriminatory requests of the service (IE, that people should be able to specify they don't want to be seen by transgender women) at a clinic that's been trans-inclusive for over a decade. Frankly, my reaction about hearing about this case weeks ago was to wonder what's next: "I only want to be seen by white women" gets ruled a protected belief that clinics have to respect? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation of what the tribunal determined happened in this case. For anyone who is interested in the facts, the full judgment is here [156]. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.

The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex

Ms Adams has since gone on to work for Beira's Place (a clinic founded by JK Rowling which does not hire or serve or transgender women)[157] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals" in a certain country. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally WP:FRINGE.

  Reem Alsalems article notes how UN officials responsible for overseeing LGBT rights and human rights think she's anti-trans, and hundreds of feminist groups worldwide agreed. The UN's definitions of human rights for LGBT people (which include self-id) directly contradict her positions. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this continuing back and forth is adding anything to the RFC, I suggest moving any further comments to the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, since we're going with bolded !votes, but I'd broadly repeat what I said last time this was discussed. It's generally reliable in a newspapery sense. Newspapers select what stories they want to print, and how they want to write them, based on their audience, and the Telegraph has a... particular type of audience. I don't believe they are any less reliable than newspapers are in general, which is to say it's not great a source for all sorts of assertions; maybe I'm really saying 'Option 1.5', because other considerations always apply when dealing with newspapers. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, I've kept an eye on this conversation for a while, and I've seen nothing compelling to suggest that the Telegraph should be deprecated in any way. This has mostly turned into a discussion of whether or not editors like the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues, but you don't have to like what an RS says for it to be an RS. Pecopteris (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Boynamedsue etc. - I'm not comfortable mandating RS to hold certain political positions either, and that's basically what this discussion is. DoubleCross (‡) 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think it has been shown that the Telegraph is a (edit: generally) unreliable source, but it has been shown to be transphobic and biased on LGBT issues. Additionally, my understanding is that it should never be used as WP:MEDRS, an area in which many of its issues with reporting on trans issues arise. It should be treated as a right leaning, generally Anti-LGBT, source same as you would treat sources that center pro-LGBT activist voices. Gnisacc (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am updating my original vote to just solidly option 2 after some consideration. I think that articles like here which only quote anti-trans orginizations and the government official in question are obviously biased. It includes inaccuracies such as saying that the council "have also been criticised by gay rights activists", when who they mean is the LGB alliance who are considered an anti-trans organization and are not respected by 99% of other gay rights organizations. I still believe these articles could be used in balance with opposing view points and with other more neutral sources, but this source on this topic should be considered quite biased and used carefully. Gnisacc (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Gnisacc: - you missed that the Telegraph did quote a Westminster City Council spokesman The council supports festivals and celebrations… other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per summary by Chess. Biased, but not unreliable. Jevansen (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Chess and Queen of Hearts and others. I think that, if nothing else, this is yet another for the pile of case studies that RSP is silly and reductive; clearly it is biased, so it is dumb to make an official entry on the official list of official officialness saying it is "green" or "yellow" or "red". It is neither of those things: it is a newspaper. jp×g🗯️ 05:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess' and Billed Mammal's rebuttals and per Void if removed's and Sweet6970's comments, weak evidence of general factual unreliability, the "cat case" is not enough even for option 2. Cavarrone 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option it is biased but not unreliable. I guess you can call that option 2 if you want. I think (among others) Dr. Swag Lord and Jmchutchinson were right to point out that this is a fairly standard newspaper (of record); the editorial staff don't all leave the room when they find out the article is about this one specific topic. I also think that the claims that they publish incorrect statements of fact on this topic seem to be substantively untrue. They didn't "promote the litterboxes in school hoax", and don't appear to have even have made any incorrect statements of fact here (thanks BilledMammal/Chess), so it is unfortunate to have led with this example. The other evidence is generally about which opinions they present or which people/organisations they quote. That goes to bias, which they have, not unreliability. If this question was just "are there better sources we can use to write about the Cass Review?" The answer is yes, but unfortunately that wasn't the question, so here we are. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess and others. There has been zero evidence of actual unreliability. Some people do not like the fact that they report on factual stories with evidence (the child was disciplined for that reason, even if the reason itself was untrue), simply because those stories don’t support their personal narrative. Luckily, Wikipedia transcends (or is supposed to) personal narratives, and does not consider editors’ personal agreement with sources when determining if they are reliable or not - and there has been zero actual evidence of factual errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per the reasoning provided above by Chess and others. I do not dispute that the Telegraph is biased on this topic, to the point that it all but takes a stance against transgender issues. However, I do not think the cited examples against the Telegraph amount to the paper being unreliable in that topic area. There's a difference between being unreliable and being biased—and you'd be hard-pressed to find any newspaper that is not biased in any way. One needs to keep WP:BALANCE in mind when writing about controversial topics, and I don't think restricting a source solely based on its bias is a particularly good way to accomplish this. (That said, with regards to trans issues, if less-biased sources exist for a certain statement, I would use those rather than the Telegraph or any other biased source.) – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - per the claims of dishonest reporting and fabrication mentioned at the beginning of this discussion being themselves mistaken, as noted by a multitude of others. No problem mentioning they are biased, as that seems clear from reading the links provided, but that hasn't impacted the accuracy of reporting. XeCyranium (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 We're already well-suited to deal with issues of bias, which do seem to be present here. I certainly disagree with the Telegraph on some key things, but no evidence has been presented questioning reliability (as opposed to bias) and getting quotes from opponents or people charged in an article is standard, ethical journalistic practice, not something to be avoided. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, one of my objections is that they get quotes from supporters and not opponents, and often disguise that the supporters are activists instead of neutral experts. Loki (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can read just fine, thank you, but I reject that as significantly backed as a claim on a systematic basis. You've had your say already. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source. BBC, for instance, was also accused of being transphobic, but its reliability on the issue still stands, AFAIK. Brandmeister^talk 10:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think BBC is a bit apples-to-oranges. I mean, one, it’s just a single article; two, as I mentioned even the Guardian sometimes runs a transphobic piece; and three, the BBC isn’t really supposed to have an explicit editorial stance, but in any case it’s certainly not “synonymous with right-wing” like the Telegraph. Tl;dr I think British mainstream media has a problem with transphobia in general, but the British right is especially bad. Dronebogus (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the reason I made this RFC about the Telegraph and not about the BBC or the Guardian or even the Times is that the Telegraph is orders of magnitude worse than any of them.

  The BBC is guilty of a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE on trans issues, and occasionally does make factual mistakes, but is still obviously generally reliable. Notably they corrected the worst parts of their worst article on the issue, which is more than I can say for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I dunno, the Times seems far worse to me. From editing reporting on Ghey just to remove references to her being a girl to CNN claiming it only published negative articles in their sample. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  The only question for this discussion is whether the Telegraph is unreliable. Whether the Telegraph is or isn't the worst, or whether other sources are or are not (also) unreliable for trans issues are not relevant here. If you (or anyone else) believes that other sources are unreliable you are free to start a new discussion about them (although it might be wisest to wait for this to conclude first, and a discussion of more than one such source is unlikely to achieve consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I say this from compiling evidence on both, though admittedly the Times has a paywall so I didn't read nearly as many of their articles. The Telegraph's bias on this issue is really palpable just from reading them, while the Times is notably more subtle about it. The secondary sourcing is actually more conclusive on the Times, but I figured that the "just go read it" factor weighed in favor of starting with the Telegraph.

  Not sure how much that helped: on the one hand, there definitely is a consensus for bias here, at least. On the other hand, a lot of the negative votes are asking for secondary sourcing, which assuming good faith is more clear for the Times than for the Telegraph. Loki (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  A consensus for bias doesn't even make a source WP:MREL. The big edit notice when you try to add comments to RSN says Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's plenty of sources with a note at WP:RSP saying they're biased on certain issues. And of course, sufficiently strong bias can impact a source's ability to report the facts. Loki (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, while bias and reliability are not the same thing, they are not completely independent of one another. Three extracts from RSP:

  • Cato institute: Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR): Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
  • CNN: Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. This shows a consensus that bias can negatively affect reliability.

  Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bias can affect reliability, but you haven't shown that The Telegraph's bias does affect its reliability. Biased sources can be WP:GREL (CNN), WP:MREL (Cato Institute, CEPR), WP:GUNREL (Electronic Intifada), or fully deprecated. So, if all you can show is that there definitely is a consensus for bias here, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative, and therefore designating The Telegraph as WP:MREL or below will stop lies from getting onto Wikipedia.

  Nobody here has shown that. It has been shown that The Telegraph has a narrative and regularly quotes people that criticize transgender rights for their opinions, describing anti-transgender rights groups with terms favourable to their POV (gender-critical) and pro-transgender rights group with terms unfavourable to their POV (transgender ideology). The Telegraph also heavily emphasizes facts that fit their belief system, such as transgender women's milk potentially being unsafe and scientific issues surrounding trans women in sports. They also frequently say the definition of a "trans women" is too broad. None of these can be cited for untruths.

  The primary example of a bad fact-check alleged this entire RfC is the story about a student at Rye College who was reprimanded for not respecting another hypothetical student's identity as a cat. The only dispute is whether or not a real student actually identified as a cat, because nobody is disputing that the student was reprimanded.

  I've already discussed whether or not that really was a bad fact-check, but even if it was, one week of coverage on a singular story for a paper with an over 168-year history is not enough to demonstrate unreliability.

  Brandmeister said I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per WP:BIASED it looks insufficient to discard the source, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide your summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice. But it does say things all the time that are technically not false per se but are very misleading: see for instance this article, where the claim that this study is wrong would be quite dubious, but the claim that it's been criticized (by anyone anywhere) is technically true. (And this is a thing the Telegraph does all the time, like I wouldn't be surprised if they put out an article like this every single day).

  And some of the time, much more frequently than other news orgs, it goes further and actually does say dubious or even clearly false things in its own voice. When it does so, it almost never issues corrections of any kind. Some examples, in addition to the Rye College one we're all aware of:

  • This article says in article voice that "women’s rights across the world have come under threat by the growth of gender ideology". That's very dubious: it's at minimum pretty clearly not a fact, and is probably just false. It's not really true that women's rights have come under threat by gender ideology. It's dubious that gender ideology is even a real thing; we redirect it to a section of anti-gender movement, where we cite several academic sources that call it a conspiracy theory.
  • This article says Belgium and the Netherlands have called for puberty blocker restrictions. The Dutch parliament called for more research into puberty blockers, which is only dubiously calling for restrictions. Belgium, as far as I'm aware, has done nothing yet: the article doesn't say they did anything about Belgium calling for restrictions, only that a few doctors have and that a party that might win elections in the future might also.
  • Nearly every claim in this article has been extensively disputed by its subject. Most notably:

  • The Telegraph is definitely wrong that the Cass Report is a "report on the dangers of gender ideology": it's a series of systematic reviews about treatment of trans children. Also, as shown above, "gender ideology" is regarded by academic sources as a conspiracy theory, so it's concerning that the Telegraph is endorsing it.
  • The Telegraph is also definitely wrong that UKCP is a regulatory body. It's a professional organization. Membership is optional. It has no regulatory authority at all, not even the way a bar association might.

  Loki (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice grants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since WP:Verifiability prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per WP:MEDRS.

  The first article on whether transgender people are a threat to women is opinion leaking into an article (i.e. bias); it says a book new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine.

  You're saying that the second article makes claims about medical guidelines, so per WP:MEDRS there's no scenario in which we're only citing The Telegraph for that. Even then, the second article says Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate.

  On the third article (with the rebuttal by Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia, not Hilary Cass), claims about the Cass Review would have to be substantiated by the review per WP:MEDRS so The Telegraph's opinions can't be cited on their own. Even then, whether or not gender ideology caused medical practitioners to disregard a lack of evidence for healthcare in children is open to interpretation, the rebuttal by your advocacy group only asserts that this is false with no evidence.

  I won't rehash the discussion above of the term "gender ideology", so I'll only note that I don't believe you established they were endorsing an untrue conspiracy theory by using the term.

  Anyways, the only fact The Telegraph could be cited for is that UKCP is a regulatory organization. While UKCP has a voluntary membership, it's still a self-regulatory organization per their website. [158] They register psychotherapists, enforce a standard of ethics on its members, and can conduct disciplinary hearings to remove those that don't comply with ethical guidelines. It's like how the Independent Press Standards Organisation can take complaints and regulate newspapers despite being voluntary to join. Can you provide a neutral source (not one currently trying to remove the board of trustees of UKCP) saying the UKCP isn't a regulatory body?

  The other 3 disputed points by TACTT is it being unhappy with language such as "coup attempt", the accusation of "bullying", and that it "turned a blind eye to the safety of children". Only the term "coup attempt" was used by The Telegraph in article voice. The other two points are in a quote from the Chairman of the UKCP who said I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not apples to oranges when your vote contemplates declaring all of the British media something other than reliable on transgender topics. Asking whether the BBC is reliable under the standards of this RfC is a reduction to absurdity Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1/2 The Daily Telegraph is certainly overly biased on this topic to the point of being irrational at times, but so is PinkNews. I have noticed that the Daily Telegraph has declined in quality in recent years, but I have noticed that for a lot of reliable sources since the start of the pandemic. For topics like the Cass Review, I would prefer other sources, but I wouldn't fully rule out the Telegraph. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, too much instruction creep. We don't need carveouts for every single topic where a source may be subpar compared to their usual work. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Astaire, Chess, and others have thoroughly rebutted the claims on unreliablity here. Moreover, I rebutted some of these claims myself in the earlier pre-discussion to this RfC.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per BilledMammal. --Andreas JN466 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2, per my usual view of it depends on what test the cite is intended for, what the WP:RSCONTEXT is. It certainly is a major venue and seems a reasonable source from prominence and availability. I don't see any reason to believe that it is always wrong to mandate exclusion always and forever, nor that it is perfectly right and comprehensive, nor that something appropriate for every line is always there, so ... it just depends on what the article text in question is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Per WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The Telegraph is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against The Telegraph's general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just curious: have you actually seen a copy of the Telegraph in the last four years? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have in a library, but they don't circulate many copies where I am. Which may be a shame, as The Press Awards 2023 and 2024 awarded them Front Page of the Year for broadsheets, so the print editions might have more value add over the digital form than expected. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, there's a case on my talk page of someone voting for general reliability in the last RFC, then getting gifted a subscription to the Telegraph and apologizing because the problems with this source are so obvious upon reading it daily. Loki (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC isn't about The Telegraph's "broader reputation and editorial integrity". It is about a specific topic. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Correct! But as I just don't find the evidence provided against reliability in this topic area specifically to be convincing (Chess's reply is quite thorough in listing why), and the general reputation of the newspaper is quite good, I think it's reliable in this area. "Coverage of X topic area is WP:GREL" is sort of the default case when we have a WP:GREL newspaper, biomedical information aside. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per BilledMammal and WP:NEWSORG. The Telegraph is a strong RS and highly regarded. I do hope this isn't another go after a conservative-leaning source. I just see a simple case of WP:AINT here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. News reporting in the Telegraph may theoretically be considered reliable, if you can find it. But little, if any, of their coverage of culture insurgency issues is actually news: it's editorial, or at the very least heavily editorialised. It's not possible to read a single story without being acutely aware of the official editorial line. I concur with others above as to the extent of the evidence. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:NEWSORG. A source having a bias doesn't make it unreliable, and there is a lack of evidence showing this source to be unreliable. Let'srun (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. It is a biased source, and that bias disqualifies its usage to establish due weight in an article. It should be avoided for potentially controversial BLP claims relating to transgender topics, and likewise for any science-related claims. (Much of that already falls under WP:MEDRS, but that's often ignored when it comes to the intersection of science and politics, mostly because people interested in following core content policies generally find themselves unwelcome in the topic area of contemporary politics.) If there are certain straightforward claims that do not fall into either of those two buckets and do not create DUE issues—maybe, that a notable trans person was born in a certain year, or that a trans advocacy group is incorporated in a certain country—then sure, although usually some less biased source can probably be cited for the same claim. But its overall hysteria as part of the UK's great moral panic about trans issues makes it unsuitable for anything more complex than that. And if that seems unfair to conservatives, I would say the same about The New York Times's coverage of guns, to pick a hysteria on the other side of the aisle. Part of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability is using sources that have a basic grasp of what's being discussed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  NPOV says the opposite; A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not about conforming to my point of view, BilledMammal. It's about conforming to reality. We do not need to be relying on sources that think they are in some holy war against gender ideology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for trans issues because of its propagation of the "litter boxes" hoax.Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the numerous rationales already provided. Biased reliable sources are perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia does not exist to push the point of view that being transgender is an inalienable human right (FYI, a POV which I myself hold but what I think doesn't really matter here). We are supposed to provide a balanced view of a subject based on reliable sources, not cherry pick the sources we agree with. Eliminating every source we disagree with will only further make Wikipedia unreliable, untrusted and inaccurate. If two sources, one left-leaning and one right-leaning, mentioned a controversy regarding a right-wing politician with the left-leaning publication being heavily critical and the right-leaning one being heavily supportive, should I merely include the left-leaning source's arguments in an article, completely ignore the other POV, and revert any attempt to introduce the right-leaning source? Of course not, WP:NPOV requires both sides to be covered. I see absolutely no reason why trans issues should be any different to any other topic covered on Wikipedia. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess, BilledMammal and others. OK, they are WP:BIASED, but I'm not persuaded that they are also unreliable. WP:NPOV requires coverage of all the significant views - I think this is a significant POV and our articles about trans issues would be less balanced if it were excluded. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per BilledMammal and Gitz6666. If having a prominent, common POV on this issue (and I’m not convinced the even Telegraph does have a bias) is disqualifying, then… well it doesn’t matter, because it’s not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you can't see that the Telegraph has a bias then I'm not certain you have actually looked at the evidence. It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable, however even those most vociferously arguing for option 1 are not denying the existence of bias. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable

  Even if the Telegraph was biased, that is not true - WP:NPOV is clear that we achieve NPOV by balancing the bias in sources, not by excluding sources that have a POV we disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is possible for a source to be reliable despite having a strong bias because it doesn't let it's bias get in the way of factual reporting. It is also possible for a source to be unreliable due to having a strong bias because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias. RSP includes multiple examples of both. Those !voting for option 1 believe the first possibility above applies to the Telegraph, those supporting option 3 believe the second is a more accurate description of the Telegraph. Those supporting option 2 believe it's not clear cut. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias

  In which case the issue isn’t bias, but factual unreliability - which has not been demonstrated here, as implicitly conceded by the editors arguing it is unreliable solely because of what they see as bias. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Factual unreliability due to bias is an issue of both factual unreliability and of bias - and bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable. Whether it has been demonstrated here is a matter of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  bias alone can be the reason fora source being unreliable

  Can you link the policy that says this? As far as I know, the only statements policy makes on this say the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not "unreliable" as a Wikipedia term of art, factually unreliable. Bias alone can be the reason a source cannot be relied on for facts. That's not a statement about Wikipedia policy, that's just a fact. Loki (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  We’re going in circles, so I’ll finish my participation in this chain by saying:

  1. If a source can’t be relied on for facts, you can prove it by showing where it gets facts wrong. You can’t prove it by showing (or claiming) that it is biased.
  2. We determine whether a source is unreliable for use on Wikipedia by assessing it in the context of our policies. !votes that assess it in a different context should be given no weight by the closer, per WP:DETCON

  BilledMammal (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  The edit-notice you get when you edit this page (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though you might not see it using the reply tool) says very prominently that Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution. Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, directly contradicts global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, let's balance the sources on Litter boxes in schools hoax by adding a Telegraph source. It'll go wonderfully. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It has been refuted to death that the Telegraph did not claim schools made such accommodations. It at most claimed that a rhetorical scenario of a student identifying as a cat to be true, and nothing else. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours. I don't think evidence that an outlet platforms a particular point of view, or platforms authors with a bias, suggests that the outlet itself must share in that point of view or bias. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  If that is what you believe is the reason for people believing the Telegraph is biased then you either haven't read or haven't understood most of the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.
  That's my assessment of the evidence. Maybe you can settle on "Zanahary just doesn't understand what he's seeing" (in which case, please explain it or keep it to yourself), but I've read it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 maybe 2. Per the comments by Chess, BilledMammal, Void, and others. I'm convinced the Telegraph has a considerable bias against pro-trans stances, and also that this bias is seemingly shared with most other British newspapers. I'm not convinced that the reliability of the Telegraph is affected such that its continued use--in the capacity that we can use any newspaper--on this topic would cause harm to the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues)

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)

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)

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. [159] It covers a transgender judge and her resignation. Here's another one also published today. [160] 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)

• Comment: how do we feel about specific BLP coverage? Is there any past discussion about cases were the source was a) allowed to be used for BLP and b) shouldn’t be? FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone here can answer how common it is that Wikipedia treats a source as reliable except for a particular topic. What are other examples? I ask because it seems implausible to me that the newspaper editor says to their reporters that they consistently expect the highest standards of journalism, etc., except when it comes to trans matters when you can make up any old lies and we won't complain. I don't think that there will be journalists at the Telegraph who are specialising in trans matters; they will be covering a broad range of other topics also, so it would be strange if their behaviour was inconsistent between topics. OK, I could imagine that the editor of a propaganda channel like Russia Today might say to keep things honest except as regards Russia, but the Telegraph does not have any special focus on trans matters, so why should they treat it differently? Of course it seems more likely to me that the attention on trans coverage at the Telegraph arises not from a difference in how the Telegraph deals with this topic but from the focus and viewpoints of some of Wikipedia's editors. It would help to show that up if it turns out that these kind of topic-restrictions are unusual for mainstream media. JMCHutchinson (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are multiple sources listed at WP:RSP that have different reliability ratings for different topics, e.g. Fox News, Huff Post, Insider and several other entries that note more caution is needed in certain areas. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's valuable to know. I didn't spot any topic quite as specific as trans in that list, but it makes sense that some of those titles are considered unreliable about politics, for instance. JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have any precedent for designating a source with different reliability for something as narrow as "trans issues" though? I am wondering if this is a precedent we want to set. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose it depends in part whether you regard "trans issues" as narrow, but to my mind it is a precedent worth setting. If a sources is reliable or unreliable only in a narrow area we should (not) be using in that specific area as this will bring the greatest benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Thryduulf. It's not even that narrow even though it's the narrowest topic so far. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not even sure it is the narrowest. Cato Institute's listing at RFP says (in part) Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. and that's from 2015. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• More than once in Option 1 !votes there has been a claim that Option 3/4 !votes amount to requiring RSes to hold a certain 'political position' or 'political opinion'. However, this misrepresents many Option 3/4 !votes, which express not concern about support/opposition for X or Y law, or A or B party (which would be political positions) but instead about inaccuracies, misinformation, and deviation from academic consensus about trans existence and experiences (i.&nbsple., matters pertaining to reliability, accuracy, etc.). The claim by various Option 1 !votes that the Telegraph merely has a POV or bias is troubling because it reduces information to opinion, as if academic interpretations in science, sociology, and more have only as much weight as an opinion about, say, whether Kirk or Spock is the better character.
  In any case, I encourage the closer to remember that consensus is determined not by a simple counted majority but by the quality of arguments (and not necessarily their length either). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Many support Chess and Void's rebuttals of claimed informational inaccuracies, which don't appear to have been addressed.
  Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy. Most non-option-3 !voters believe that it's the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  which don't appear to have been addressed: They have been; see Loki's post beginning I think that this response, [that is, Chess's response] despite being long etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's debatable; much of that reply lacks substance. Of the five points they make in that comment only the first addresses reliability rather than bias, and that point is contradictory and makes little sense.

  In that point they argue that the "student identifies as a cat" story is akin to the litter box hoax because the litter box hoax doesn't solely relate to litter boxes but accommodations for otherkin generally. Even if we set aside the debate about whether reprimanding students for refusing to accept an individual identifying as a cat is an accommodation, that aspect isn't actually in dispute - it's an accepted fact that that the students were reprimanded by the teacher for this.

  What is disputed is whether:

  • A student identified as a cat
  • The Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat

  It appears, although isn't conclusive, that no student identified as a cat (Rye College has denied it, but the Ofsted report was silent on that question). However, the belief that the Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat is based on a misunderstanding of presuppositions; see my response beginning with "You're assuming that a sentence". BilledMammal (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  And either way, even if they did get that wrong, I don't think that's enough. Plus Chess replied to it anyway. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have found Chess—who continues to bloat the survey section rather than use the discussion section—unconvincing, so we seem to disagree and that may have to be that for now. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.

  Since it has been raised by a few editors I wanted to quickly address this point. Individuals have both gender and sex and on a purely factual basis it is equally correct to refer to an individual by either. This means that misgendering a transgender individual isn't a factual inaccuracy, but a choice to use sex rather than gender. Of course on a moral basis gender should be used - but that isn't relevant to source reliability.

  Further, it appears that the Telegraph generally doesn't misgender individuals, even in controversial cases such as that of Isla Bryson. When they do it typically seems to be under exceptional circumstances, such as in this provided example where clinical advice was to not affirm a teenager's gender. Usually, we would consider a source deciding that it knows better than an individuals treating medical professional to be evidence of unreliability; it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable for us to decide that the opposite is true in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, this is pretty clearly sophistry. Pronouns are not a reference to biology and this is obvious every time you don't look in someone's pants before you refer to them.

  Second, if you insist on continuing to make this argument: even the sex of a trans woman is not unambiguously male, assuming you're talking about an actual biological state and not essentialist ideology masquerading as biology. A trans woman could have a female-typical hormonal system (and therefore female secondary sex characteristics like breasts, softer skin, and lower upper body strength), a vagina, and no ability to grow facial hair or produce sperm. Not all trans women do, of course, and no trans woman has female-typical chromosomes, but surely you see why this makes arguments that the Telegraph is just going by biology pretty silly.

  (I agree the Telegraph doesn't always misgender individuals, but it does much more often than other similar sources.) Loki (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar, you say "...and no trans woman has male-typical chromosomes". Can you clarify or elaborate on that? Pecopteris (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Typo. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you're saying that trans women aren't biologically male, then your argument seems based on our POV rather than on factual inaccuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am in fact saying that. Trans women are neither unambiguously biologically male nor unambiguously biologically female. If you were a doctor evaluating a patient for a condition where sex was medically relevant, and your patient was a trans woman, you would have to ask them about their specific history of hormones and procedures, and then make a decision based on what specific condition you're thinking of. Loki (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  While some academics do hold the position that human sex is mutable, looking at recent scholarly articles they are still in the minority. We can't consider a source unreliable on the basis that they hold a mainstream view. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is absurd. If pronouns aren’t attached to sex, then there is no reason we should not, as a society, move to “they” exclusively, rather than “he” and “she. In fact, many languages do that - they do not have different pronouns and simply have one “third person pronoun”. But English does not - we have two. By saying that they’re not based on sex, that’s simply absurd - the concept of “gender” was equivalent to sex for the vast majority of history, including in the pre-english languages that formed these dual pronouns.

  Let me be clear - I support transgender rights more than a lot of people in my country. But it is absolutely not beneficial to that cause to try and make claims like “pronouns aren’t sex, they’re gender”, especially when a significant minority (if not majority) do recognize that historically, they were because of sex. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to make these kind of arguments - whether about trans issues or any other issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pronouns aren't sex, they're gender. Drag queens usually use "she" pronouns, for one, and for two if you think they're about sex then you should be looking in the pants or testing the chromosomes of random people on the bus. Loki (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we don't ask to see someone's birth certificate before calling them their name, either... Nor do we refrain from using pronouns for babies who have no gender identity yet and may not even have any social indicators of sex (unisex clothes, unisex name) at all--we just go by what their parents use. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to add that the "clinical advice" your saying the telegraph followed by misgendering a child is in fact conversion therapy as discussed above. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have reason to believe that beyond a comment by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, who claimed that the source was referring to conversion therapy because it used the term "watchful waiting", which they said was invented by an American-Canadian fringe advocate of conversion therapy?

  If not, you should know they were mistaken. It was developed at one of the largest transgender clinics and research institutes in the world, the Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria in the Netherlands, and is a highly respected model of care worldwide.

  The terminology is also widely used in mainstream academic sources, with most being highly supportive of it. There is no reason to believe that the child was being put through conversion therapy, or that the Telegraph was doing anything other than following medical guidance aligned with mainstream practices when they referred to them as a "she".

  This is emblematic of the issue with this RfC; the issues raised about the source are not ones of reliability but of disagreement with their POV. This is also leading me to start questioning the notion that the source is notably biased; if examples like this are representative of the other arguments presented for bias then they are in fact solidly mainstream. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  As the child in question is a teenager (near the start of the process) he has almost certainly started through puberty. The watchful waiting model says that if these issues persist into the onset of puberty to intervene. Whereas conversion therapists use watchful waiting as a kind filibuster tactic, the ignoring of the actual model and doing anything to delay any kind of transition points towards conversion therapy rather than actual good care. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry when I say "near the start of the process" above I mean near the start of the article (around 2019). Sorry for any ambiguity LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Question If this RfC results in a consensus of GREL, do we support adding a note to prefer other sources, per e.g. egregiously misleading presentation of a breast binding study? I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not an expert on MEDRS, but shouldn’t this be excluded anyway, regardless which mainstream newspaper published it? FortunateSons (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it would be a violation of MEDRS to attempt to use a newspaper/other non-medical source to represent the results of a study. That said, I haven’t looked at this specific link (it doesn’t work well on mobile) to see if the link Aaron has provided is truly an “egregiously misleading presentation”. If it is, it could be considered in determining their overall reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  It’s from @LunaHasArrived at 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) FortunateSons (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  So basically, in a news article, they have a mother raise concerns about breast binders to a school citing a certain study. They follow up the sentence with "97% who use experience health problems" to imply that her concern is valid, while the 97% figure cited includes all problems, such as "itchiness", regardless of severity. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewing the source, I'm not convinced the Telegraph article is a problem. While sources like The Telegraph aren't reliable on medical topics anyway per WP:MEDRS, what we would expect from a reliable source in that topic area is they accurately reflect the source without distorting it with their own contributions, even when they think those contributions are self-evident. In this case, the source says that 97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to binding and doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that.

  But even if they had, the impact would have been minimal, as excluding itchiness would likely have only changed the headline number from >97% to >95%. The difference is insignificant, and in my opinion couldn't amount to egregiously misleading presentation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would not call that “egregiously misleading presentation”. Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention. Is it slightly misleading in that it doesn’t specify that it’s any health problem including minor ones? I disagree it’s misleading at all, but I’ll concede it’s a small amount of misleading based on that. But it’s not egregious. Non-severe medical problems are still medical problems. And acting like they aren’t is simply a representation of POV pushing - patients have the right to informed consent and WP should not sugar coat information regarding the sequelae of treatments. If 97% of people experience at least some form of small problem (or big problem) from it, that’s a valid statistic to present in WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's misleading because when I think of health problem, I'd think of consistent pain (especially after now wearing it) or nausea etc, not "has some pain whilst wearing" or whatever. From a medical study it is important to consider these it's just when used in general speak it can be misleading. If I said I was too warm because I wore a fleece, would people say that's a health problem. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention.

  Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't think binding is a purely medical intervention - but some people do use it as a means to change their outward appearance to lessen their feelings of gender dysphoria. This makes it no different than, say, using KT tape for post-workout "healing" (even though that's still scientifically up in the air if it's actually beneficial for the vast majority of people using it). It's not a drug or a procedure, but it is something someone's doing for purported medical benefit - and so if they have experienced other problems related to binding, that's perfectly valid to consider a problem. In fact, I'd argue that by claiming that their claims are irrelevant (that they experienced itchiness severe enough to report it in a survey), you're diminishing the potential health concerns of it and trying to push the POV that it's safe without providing all the information. WP is an encyclopedia - we do not push a POV, we simply report on the facts, and the study identified some problems you may not consider problematic for you, sure. But that doesn't mean it's an invalid statistic, and to claim a source is unreliable for trying to ensure its readers understand that 97% of people had some problem they themselves found was related to binding... that's simply trying to censor a source because it presented information you don't like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) MEDRS is only relevant to medical claims, but not everything related to medicine is a medical claim. While the specific comment linked does reference a medical claim, not everything from the cited article would be.

  Regarding I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is, but it's odd for this. Would one consider the statement "most people who were high heels find them painful" a medical statement, would talking about changing pronouns in secondary schools count (after all social transition can be a thing). These 'soft' medical claims are an interesting area and I'm not sure where I would put them personally and these kind of things the telegraph do seem to be unreliable for. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  By my reading of WP:Biomedical information, technically speaking "most people who wear high heels find them painful" would definitely be a statement covered by WP:MEDRS, and arguably almost anything about trans people might be covered due to the presence of gender dysphoria in the DSM.

  However, needless to say this is not how most editors interpret this in actual practice, and I think if you tried to push it you'd get a lot of pushback. Loki (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wasn't certain where to put this but more evidence on only platforming one side comes from their recent coverage of the general election. Both the conservatives and Labour have released their manifestos and the telegraph covered their positions on conversion therapy here and here respectively. Notable is the only groups asked for comment are Sex matters, Christian Concern and LGB alliance. All these groups advocate for no further conversion therapy ban. The only description on any of these groups is that Sex Matters has a chief of advocacy and one of sex matters or Christian concern is a charity. The argument being made here isn't that a rs shouldn't platform these people, it's that the telegraph is Onlyplatforming this side. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  But are they platforming this one side with fact checking and accuracy? If so, then reliability isn’t the issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I mean they uncritically platform the view that a supposed ban would be harmful (brave coming from Helen Joyce who said that happily transitioned people are a huge problem for a sane world). She also says that most children convinced of an opposite sex identity grow out of it during puberty, this is just flatly untrue and based off of research considering any gender nonconformity as gender dysphoria. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also even if you think they are fact checking and accurate, WP:due becomes a huge issue because suddenly on the matter of conversion therapy: sex matters, Christian concern and LGB alliance are more important than anyone with actual qualifications. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DUE is not a standard we hold sources to, it's a standard we hold ourselves to when summarizing reliable sources. That's because we are not supposed to decide what is due, we are supposed to defer to what the sources see as important opinions. You're interpreting WP:DUE in reverse, which is that you get to decide what opinions are important, and then judge what sources are reliable based on who they platform. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're right in terms of including stuff in an article. I should have probably formulated this better. When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions. This is the consequence of the telegraph being an rs. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like it or not, the Telegraph does represent the opinion of a sizable group of people. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is arguing to exclude that opinion - there are plenty of other sources that represent it in a manner that is not misleading to the point that multiple independent sources question its reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Luna said When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions., implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite the opposite, according to the telegraph all other opinions need not being mentioned (except maybe a token mention that they exist). So only these opinions would be due (otherwise the others would have been included) LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  A POV can never be excluded by the INCLUSION of a source. A POV can only be excluded by the EXclusion of a source. This is because wp:due is never determined from using only one source, but by using ALL rs collectively. The argument you're making would mean we'd have to declare Pink News unrel too, since they also exclude views, but in the other direction. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, what IP is saying is a summary of WP:DUE: We only decide whether to include a viewpoint based on how many reliable source do mention it. The Telegraph excluding viewpoints that other reliable sources already cover enough won't cause these excluded viewpoints to lose their DUE. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is an argument to be made that because due is decided based on a balance of sources, one source being too far out of balance (and consistently being so) could affect reliability. However I know that I have not shown that above and to show it one would require a lot more research LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  You need a ton of reliable sources not including it to have it excluded due to DUE. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  What sources are you referring to?

  If you're referring to the sources provided by Loki, excluding the three from Pink News, none appear to question reliability. In fact, the IPSO report rejects some of the claims of unreliability that editors have repeated here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, judging by the placement of their comment, I think they're adding to the argument to add a note to prefer other sources due to bias. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your sources don't actually support your claim. In the first article, The Telegraph quotes Labour (a political party and a group advocating for a conversion therapy ban) at the end:

  Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chairman, said on Wednesday: "After six years of broken promises, the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to ban so-called conversion therapy. This is a craven failure to outlaw abusive and harmful practices. Labour will ban conversion practices outright."

  In the second article, the newspaper provides the entire manifesto of the Labour Party and quote them throughout. I suppose you'll say The Telegraph should've quoted a third-party group that isn't a political party, so I'll ask, why isn't quoting Labour enough to satisfy the need to provide both sides? The Telegraph certainly biased in how much space they allocate to gender-critical activists but their articles do not entirely exclude views contrary to such. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you hear the opposing view, just that there is an opposing view. I'd also disagree with throughout for the labour article (it's in one place but it is a short article). LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so your claim isn't that The Telegraph doesn't include any mention of opposing views, it's that they don't provide as much emphasis on them as they should? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  They treat it the same way we would treat a fringe view, mention it exists and nothing more. They've gotten 3 non experts and treated them like experts (no mention of all 3 groups being advocacy groups, just that sex matters has a chief of advocacy). I think treating clearly non fringe views as fringe and clear members of advocacy groups as potential experts is worrying. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reliability is about whether statements are true or false. Wall Street Journal readers want to know how the upcoming strike will effect investors and how management deals with it. Nation readers want to know how it will affect workers. ABC News readers want to know how it will affect them, the consumers.It doesn't mean that some of them must be unreliable, it's that they apply different weight. Editors then determine the overall weight in reliable sources and reflect what they say. They should not then purge every outlier. TFD (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like a partial narratives issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This Telegraph article on the upcoming play about Rowling seems pretty balanced. It seeks out the creators of the play to find out what their motives were in creating it, rather than just talking to the gender-critical people who dislike it without even having seen it. It also labels Breitbart "the far right US website" when it's referenced, going against some of the commentary here that implies that they're frequently referencing extremist views without labeling them as such. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" doesn't mean that every article they publish is bad. It's "unreliable for facts" not "they are liars". Literally, cannot be relied on. Loki (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As well as this it seems to much more be about theatre than transgender people, and the auther seems to mostly do theatre reviews for the telegraph. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Notifications (Telegraph on trans issues)

Shortcut to survey: #Survey (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)

• @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)

• @Red-tailed hawk, Masem, Korny O'Near, Gitz6666, The C of E, Tamzin, Crossroads, Sideswipe9th, MarioGom, Ficaia, Bowler the Carmine, Seraphimblade, The Four Deuces, Jayen466, and Rhododendrites: Notify editors who participated in the previous RFC, excluding editors who have already participated here or have been blocked/topic banned. Apologies if I missed anyone or accidentally pinged anyone who should have been excluded. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Notifying @JzG, who was not notified despite seeming to meet BilledMammal's criteria. Flounder fillet (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Notifying @Slatersteven and @Rosguill for the same reason. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  And @Genericusername57, who opened the previous RfC. That should be all. Flounder fillet (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Korny O'Neal is topic-banned from GENSEX. Also, several people in that list I've already pinged above. Loki (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed moratorium (Telegraph on trans issues)

As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support three years - but apply the moratorium to all discussions about whether British sources are reliable for transgender topics. The nominator has made it clear they wish to hold similar RFC’s on other British sources, but RFCs last year held that those sources were reliable and given this result it’s clear that another RFC on those sources will only waste the communities time. BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No pre-close summaries, please. As consensus in RFCs entails more than a straight vote, this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines. Numerous participants (full disclosure: myself included) aver that evidence of distortions and unreliability is there, WP:IDHT-esque replies and bludgeoning from Option 1 !votes notwithstanding. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that. I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like Taylor & Francis and Bloomsbury) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that all option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable" is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source is reliable.

I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around 7,000 words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) and Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) sections. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised Chess is the first example to come to mind, considering that Loki (on the "Option 3" side of the debate) contributed a similar number of words across 47 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that WP:BLUDGEON is too often misused. BLUDGEON is about repeating the same arguments in replies across many commenters like spamming, not responding to others without repeating the same arguments already brought up at length. I don't see how anyone here is bludgeoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Loki made approximately approximately as many comments (I counted 35 from Chess and 37 from Loki) but contributed ~4,000 words (counting the Survey and Discussion sections). Chess wrote nearly twice as much. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Even when limited to the "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, though I don't know why we would limit, you're missing some from Loki; they contributed ~5,000 words (calculated by copying and pasted all of their comments from those sections into a word document).

I think you're missing my point - if there was bludgeoning from some Option 1 editors, then there was also bludgeoning from some Option 3 editors, and it is inappropriate to focus just on the former. However, I agree with Aaron Liu that no one appears to have been bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why we would limit: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Could someone link to the Taylor & Francis thing? I can't seem to find it. The Bloomsbury book linked to by Loki is limited to a preview, and the search results from the bottom button don't contain anything other than reports of bias. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here. It doesn't say what they think it says, though - it makes no comment about reliability, and even on bias only says that it is aligned with the rest of the British press. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've seen that, but I mistook the giant Routlege logo (which apparently also says it's part of T&F) to be the sole publisher. 🤦 Thanks. I'd agree that these sources do not talk about reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply on Critical Discourse Studies centralized to #c-BilledMammal-20240616075000-Aaron_Liu-20240615155000. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, I would like to register my objection at your characterisation that my statement on this topic is the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing no clear consensus for any option, and no "inevitable and obvious conclusion". Involved parties should refrain from trying to influence the closer towards their point of view. Oppose any moratorium on discussions that present new evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The current vote count puts option 1 about 20 votes ahead of option 3+, and most of the option 2 votes are essentially "it is biased, but largely factual", which is what everybody who has voted option 1 says. The quality of arguments for 3 that are actually based in policy are exceptionally low, as last time. As for "attempting to influence the closer" to stop constant repeating of this nonsense... well, I don't think that is against any of our policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In case you need a reminder, this is not a vote. When you actually read the comments many (but not all) in support of both 1 and 2 are saying it's biased to the point that you need to be aware of it and explicitly consider how it affects issues like balance and reliability - if you read only the Telegraph's presentation you could very easily end up being mislead as to what actually happened or what opinions about a thing are from nutjobs and which are from impartial experts. That's textbook "additional considerations apply". Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but 20 more people thinking one thing than another is a reflection of a fairly strong consensus.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If you treat bolded words as the sole evidence of what people think that might be true. If you read what they actually say (i.e. treat it as something other than a vote) then that's not necessarily so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, "the people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closer's summary. People who choose option 1 are saying it can be used in our articles for factual information and attributed opinions where due.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously "people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closers summary because (most) people haven't cast votes, they have expressed nuanced opinions that may or may not include some words in bold. The job of the closer is to read the entirety of all the opinions expressed (not just the bolded words) and, based on those words and the relative strength of the arguments made, come to a conclusion about what consensus the discussion arrived at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that one ought to read only the Telegraph's accounts of the issue and never anything else? Getting a well-rounded view is best achieved by reading multiple sources with different biases and points of view. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ehhh, I'd rather have it per-editor instead of per the entire area. According to RSP (and links among some of the rationales), the last RfC was in 2022, two years ago. That RfC also had a lot less BEFORE, research, and arguments presented. This RfC unfolded quite differently. Until a ton of people decide that starting new RfCs that parrot the exact same arguments here is a good idea for them, I'd oppose a moratorium. Unless there is quite active harm done, I'd rather the rules to allow for the most scenarios, like if The Telegraph got bought out by the Daily Mail. I strongly oppose BilledMammal proposal for a hold on all British sources, especially not for 3 years. We do not know what the future holds, and I'd rather we block Loki from this page if it comes to that. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this moratorium wouldn’t stop an RFC being held on the Telegraph’s overall reliability, such as if it was bought but the Daily Mail. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Still, there are events much more plausible that could cause the Telegraph's factual reporting's reliability in just the transgender area to take a nosedive. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Oy, why me? I voted in the last RFC but didn't start it. Loki (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Part of BilledMammal's argument for the moratorium is your intention to hold more RfCs, trickster. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't on other sources if the Telegraph can't get through (because the Telegraph is way more blatant about this than any other paper), and I wouldn't hold another one on the Telegraph without new information sufficient to convince people who weren't convinced by the evidence above.

Or in other words, I'm not stupid. The definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, after all. Loki (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious oppose. Clearly there has been additional evidence of unreliability, as many more people have been voting options 2 or 3, and vastly more people have been acknowledging some degree of bias. Loki (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that the conclusion last time was not "biased but reliable", it was just "reliable", so there has already been a change in outcome here. Loki (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Every source is biased. Period. Biased but reliable is thus ultimately no different from reliable (without acknowledging the bias). You are on a crusade to have "biased" recognized as "unreliable", and that's your right - but you cannot claim that editors acknowledging biased makes it anything other than "reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many sources on WP:RSP that have a note about their bias. It's also a fairly frequent outcome here that a discussion is closed with a "reliable but editors think it's biased" or "no consensus but editors think it's biased", which is what leads to those notes on RSP. Loki (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And you're assuming there needs to be a note. From my reading, the consensus seems to be that while it does have a bias in what it covers, that there isn't a significant bias in how it covers it. You are on a crusade to get sources that aren't uber-friendly towards transgender persons removed from Wikipedia. And you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to do so. That's not permissible, and shouldn't be. This RfC has had so many people opine on it and virtually all possible relevant things that the Telegraph has reported be discussed - and nobody - not even you, should be permitted to continue opening discussions until you get the result you want - unless significant further evidence comes to light in the future - but not the past. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A bias in what it covers is a bias in how it covers it a la WP:UNDUE. Nearly all !votes above operate under the assumption that the Telegraph is biased in its coverage of trans topics.
And as I said above, I don't think anyone is bludgeoning here. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE applies to the content of WP articles, not to our sources. In fact, UNDUE was referenced by multiple people supporting Option 1/2 - we cannot simply ignore a source because it is biased in the things it chooses to cover. And again, bias in what a source covers does not mean it covers the things it chooses to cover in a biased manner. Many of the supporters of option 1/2 have also clarified that they do not believe the bias in choice of what stories to cover should impact the discussion. You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that. I simply said that it's clear that some editors are on a crusade to continue RfCs until the outcome they desire happens. That's not bludgeoning by definition, but new discussions should not be created over and over again to get the outcome one desires. If new evidence comes out in the future, fine. But the past has already been presented and discussed multiple times now (including the above), and at some point you, Loki, and others need to simply move on and accept that your viewpoint that WP should ignore sources that don't fit your worldview is not one shared by WP editors as a whole. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying with wikt:a la UNDUE is that covering the partial truth is biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP.

You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that.

You directly claimed to Loki that you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to [remove sources biased against trans-topics], unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again.
Also, I !voted for NREL with a reminder to prefer more unbiased sources if possible, not "ignoring" it. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant the fact that this is happening over and over in general, not to refer to Loki themselves unless they open another RfC without significant new information. Apologies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Twice is not "over and over again". Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There were two rushed RFCs on the Telegraph that left some editors unsatisfied. I hope that this one gets a clear close that, barring the seemingly inevitable closure review, brings at least some clarity to the issue. I would be against a moratorium, but I would hope anyone starting a new discussion would understand that editors could have little patience for it unless new and clear problems have arisen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support but unnecessary - there's already procedures for removing or speedily closing discussions that don't produce any new evidence. There is no need for a moratorium, but the noticeboard (as well as other places) should be watched by editors, and quickly closed if they are not presenting any actual evidence of misconduct/falsehoods that hasn't already been discussed to death here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that this whole thread is not based on evidence of falsehood either, but of bias. So we risk having another complete waste of time in 6 months based on, I don't know, a comment piece by Christopher Biggins and a news article collecting mean things said on twitter about JK Rowling.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Some editors thought the evidence presented was evidence of unreliability rather than bias. That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now. So the links presented and thoroughly discussed here shouldn’t be permitted to be rehashed in a future discussion. If new evidence comes out however, that should be allowed to be presented and discussed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s been thoroughly debated and refuted now. Thoroughly debated, yes. Refuted, that's not clear-cut - some people think so, others disagree. Please stop prejudging the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for the discussion of reliable sources, not other editors. So far apart from one off the wall comment this obviously contentious discussion has been quite civil. Yet somehow this particular thread has quickly turned to editors sniping at each other. To be blunt knock it off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, don't be a party pooper. There are editors who need a ruckus so that they can squabble, point fingers, and thrive in victimhood fire. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References

References

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)

Seems like we have a consensus that her bibliography is at least generally unreliable. If there's no objection, I'll add a note to WP:A&M/RS and start tagging existing references with {{Unreliable source}}. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done that, and I've gone through the first 40 or so articles in this list, cleaning up where possible and tagging with {{Unreliable sources}} where not. I'd appreciate the help of other discussion participants as there are a lot of them to get through. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would actually really appreciate it if work to replace the sources was done. In one case she provided a reference for an interview done in 2007, I could try to directly cite that with help finding the book or w/e. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this on a Studio Ghibli–related article? I currently have access to a couple of her books and can help with some of that work. I'm going to be doing a lot of that anyways for some of my project articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The more you examine, the worst it gets. She cites and quotes Wikipedia several times in Magic as Metaphor in Anime which is a huge problem as well. Here a K-On fan accuses her of plagurizing online sources that she relies upon. A 2010 review says her work is "unreadable" with "purple prose" while citing online reviews as if they were scholarship.

You see the same critiques over and over again with anyone who has read her work with a critical eye. Combined with no confirmed biographical background (not even confirmed to have any degree at all), a complete ban as unreliable is warranted as this isn't an isolated case with one or two books but a trend of consistent poor scholarship with her work. How does this happen? It just flies under the radar and only a few people are interested enough to dig deeper.

For English language sources on older anime series, it can be difficult, but we should still strive to improve the sourcing for these kind of articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing those links. There seems to be general agreement in this discussion that all citations to her work on Wikipedia are to be replaced or removed; a few of us have gotten started on that process already, and I'd appreciate your help with tagging or cleaning up the list of articles here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

She also wrote books on fine art as well as literature, medieval history, feminist thought, and Japanese animation? She has written way too many books, way too quickly, on way too many topics to be an expert on all these unrelated topics.

Some of the citations that use her books are minor, or just cite her analysis, but a few pages she's used extensively and would require major re-writes including several GA articles. For better sources I made a topic on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#English_sources Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm not an expert. Just here to say that in the case of Neon Genesis Evangelion Dani Cavallaro appears to me as a good source. Nothing spectacular, but honestly I never in my 10-years-long experience of writing here about NGE seen an error in her analysis, a plagiarism or inaccurancies. I want to be clear: I do not feel competent enought here to express a strong favorable opinion on her as a RS for now, but at least in basically the only field I work here on Wikipedia - again, NGE - I read her books on the arguments literally thousands of times, and her presentations of the series, the authors interviews and views, Japanese context, production notes and so on are accurate. Far, far more than your average Academic from Mechademia. Academics on Evangelion are sometimes alienated and without common sense: they do everything but checking the actual sources like Anno, Tsurumaki interviews, Evangelion Chronicle or even the basic Red Cross Book, but prefer to mention other academics instead of actually study the series, its context and the interviews of the authors. I strongly and firmly defend Cavallaro at least on this series. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey TeenAngels1234, unfortunately it's going to take quite a bit of proof of any of her good work on Evanglion-related topics to overturn the severe issues presented by other editors in this discussion; your word on her writing is not sufficient. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable doesn't necessarily mean always wrong, just that it's academically sloppy and not to the level of a source we should be citing. It leads to issues where you can't validate information she's presented, even if it's possibly correct. Just two examples. On Whisper of the Heart her book is cited for a Miyzaki quote, and checking her book, she sites a fan webpage. Said page does not explain where it came from, who translated it or when which means I cannot verify any of it. It means that small errors become impossible to cross reference and weed out over time. These fan sites shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia, and someone who cites them being used for a source also shouldn't be cited. It's effectively just self-published fan source laundering where these sources get "washed" and look more respectable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

TeenAngels1234 reverted my Cavallaro removals and tags in NGE-related articles. Like TechnoSquirrel69, I also have to insist on her unreliability on all subjects, your subjective good experiences notwithstanding. Charcoal feather (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Subjective good experiences" is a very misleading, if not false, statement. Limited and very good - to use an euphemism - experience, maybe: I write just on NGE, guys, so I can not speak for Ghibli or other works Cavallaro wrote about as I said, sorry. I'm agnostic on them, at least for now. So, yeah, limited, but not subjective: her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good, informative and accurate, especially compared to other academics. It's not a matter that Cavallo's works are just vaguely OK and enough accurate. I do not mention the first source I find on the matter, and I think anybody that ever read a NGE article I contributed to can see I'm very selective on the sources. Cavallaro has a 20-pages NGE-related chapter in her book Anime Intersections as well. I can mention some example to prove my point. What kind of evidence should I give? BTW. @TechnoSquirrel69 and Charcoal feather: you have all the right to express your concerns. You are far, far more into Wikipedia than me probably. I think I kept all the templates on the NGE articles: it's your right to express doubts and discuss here on Cavallaro, sorry if I could have looked aggressive or too drastic. Mea culpa, sincerely. I just re-inserted Cavallaro notes for now, since, again, I'm not the Wikipedian who uses the first source, and if I used Cavallaro until now there's a reason. I'm not gonna start a Crusade on her; if the consensus is that all the references have to be removed sine qua non, I will remove it. Most of the articles have 1, 2 or 3 notes from Cavallaro books at most, you know, it's not a big deal. For now, I just want to keep your legitimate templates. What evidence you want? I have to quote some passages from her books and reviews on the matter as well? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Like I mentioned earlier, you need to show how "her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good" (emphasis original), not just that you believe it to be the case. Do other academics who publish on the subject acknowledge Cavallaro as a high-quality writer on Evangelion-related works? If so, why? Should that evidence exist — and I don't think it does — we would still have to weigh those opinions against the demonstrable risk of coming up against text containing copyright violations and verifiably false or misleading information. Please also note that continuing to revert other editors removing citations to her work may be viewed as edit-warring, as you are doing so in contravention of an established consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234 Once someone has shown that they violate basic standard rules of scholarship, they can't be trusted. The kind of behavior outlined above would get her into serious academic problems if she did this for under-graduate essays for example and that kind of behavior should not be tolerated for professional writers either. Her books appear to be written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality, and to pick niche topics that few others have written about like anime, Gustav Klimt, or Angela Carter.

Since she's been heavily cited on some pages and it means those pages will require heavy amounts of re-writing but it's ultimately for the best. Also I think there's a consistent pattern of poor quality sourcing that plagues many anime/manga articles. This would be the first step towards rectifying that issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

These 4chan-like greentexts are cringe. Anyways.

@TechnoSquirrel69 Your answer is meaningless. WP:CCC. Consensus can change. I'm now part of discussion, which I did not read previously. I respected you, since I did not revert everything and kept the templates; you have to equally respect me now that I'm discussing here and do not insinuate I'm editwarring. I am now part of the new eventual consensus.

During the years Cavallaro looked to me as a respectable author regarding NGE. I'm gonna just briefly analyise just her Anime Intersection NGE chapter doing a comparison with sources that Wikipedians listed as Reliable Sources for a reason. INB4: thanks, I know that a comparison per sé does not means much, but it's an argument bigger than its singular parts and if you will see just the singular part and not the general scheme here you are missing the point. For example, she is one of the few writers to mention the fact that Anno wanted to do an OVA before the movies Death and Rebirth and End (Anime Intersections, p. 54). The first time I read, since no Wikipedia article or ANN news or Western academic ever mentioned this, I was confused. But it is something that Oguro, a person whose claims are ignored by every "respectable" academic and source listed in WP:A&M/I, discussed in his commentary. Her book was published in 2007, a time in which, as you can see from EvaGeeks, people believed that Evas were created after the Barons of Hell, but she actually mentions the actual inspirations of Yamashita (ibidem, p. 57). She is the only one English writer who mentions and seems to know Der Mond, Die Sterne (p. 61), even the Groundworks of Evangelion and the Filmbooks (p. 57), when people like Napier in her books mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library says that the series was released in 1997. While Napier in Science Fiction Studies said that Evangelion presents a “Gnostic notion of apocalypse” (p. 425, like what?) and the otherwise useful Mechademia – listed in WP:A&M/I - has a weird analysis about Zoe-Lilith-Eva Gnostic triad and its impact on the series (?) and other supercazzole, to use an appropriate Italian term for academic bullshits, she in 2007 was one of the few academics who touched grass and actually mentioned Tsurumaki comments on religious symbolism (ibidem, pp. 57-59). She is one of the rare academics to mention, even if briefly and quite vaguely, Aum Shinrikyo, which proved, as said by the unknown – by academics – Azuma, as an enormous influence on NGE. In the same page at least she mentioned Azuma and the possible inspiration by Godard. Her productions note on 3D use and Production IG involvement (p. 64) at least shows that she probably read the theatrical pamphlets, maybe even other Oguro materials: in any case, this proved that she at least with NGE did not write books with speed in mind "so that she can pump them out quickly". I bet my entire existence that Mechademia academics, Napier or Broderick or whoever you want do not even know what Ombinus Japan (p. 68) is. She is the only Western academic as far as I know who knows at least who Otsuki is and quotes his interviews (p. 67). And I'm mentioning just one of the Achille's heels of Western academics: the inability to actual study the series in its context and at least have a vague idea of who the author actually is or wanted. Something that, trust me, other "Reliable Sources" do not have. BTW. Nothing of what I mentioned was on Wikipedia in 2007: not even in the German version, or the Spanish one - see the oldids. Nor in other websites of NGE - not in EvaMonkeys, not in EvaOtakus, nothing in Japanese websites as well. Far from being the most reliable source on NGE, her prose is not exactly the best and she is more like a reporter than an analyst who theorizes things on the series, I think she's a respectable source for NGE.

For a period I thought she was not so respectable because she briefly mentions in her The Art of Studio Gainax chapter on NGE series the "death threats" to Anno, which were considered a myth by myself until Anno actually mentioned them in the official production documentary on the last Rebuild installment and I read Oguro materials - like the Japanese Eva Tomo no Kai. When that documentary was released on Amazon Prime, even the only possible error that I thought she mentioned proved right. Now. I'm not exactly sure she actually read the Eva Tomo no Kai, but mention me just one academic before 2020orsomething that did all of this, with all the knowledge of NGE production and not academics supercazzole, and I bet I'm gonna do a pilgrimage to Pompeii Virgin Mary. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're writing long winded replies while ignoring the key issues. In The Art of Studio Gainax she cites Wikipedia on four separate pages including the Rebuild of Evangelion page which brings up issues of WP:CIRCULAR which specifically says "Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." She also uses heavy amount of self-published anime fan sites as sources, which is also a major issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

....OK. So, compliments, you are missing my point. An annoying answer - you probably can not perceive it - especially considering I just actually answered to your comment: her chapters on NGE are not "written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality", as I showed you. I repeat: at least on NGE. So I proved you wrong. Anyway. I have now Anime Intersection on my desk, and at least regarding NGE she's just advising to read it as "potential companions of this study", but not using it as a source (p. 56). She basically list Wikipedia and other websites in her bibliography as such: "potential companions of this study". I had the full The Art of Studio Gainax, but not now, but it looks to me - I can be wrong - that at least one of the four instances you mentioned is the same (p. 226), and idem for the URL to the Wikipedia "mindfuck" page - she's possibly linking an article just to help the readers to see what a mindfuck is and other uses of this technique. Regarding the Rebuild part: yes, she mentions Wikipedia among other things. My point is: are you sure you gonna literally delete every helpful and accurate analyisis from her just because in a 52-pages analysis on the series more accurate than 99& of RS she said in a two-sentences paragraph "according to Wikipedia"? Do not get me wrong: I'm not questioning WP:CIRCULAR, and I still myself said that I have doubts about her being the best source, to say it with an euphemism, considering these Wikipedia mentions. I'm not gonna mention that passage on Wikipedia for all the gold of this world, and I did not. I'm saying, using common sense: if this author proved very accurate and more serious than 95% of the A&M/I on NGE, and if nobody mentioned in the NGE-articles her "According to Wikipedia" two sentences, are we seriously deleting all the other serious NGE analyisis I mentioned she provided? I bet that even CBR.com mentioned Wikipedia in its pre-2023 articles, but it still is counted as a situational source. IGN is also listed as a reliable source, but ironically in this Italian article it mentions Cavallaro and Wikipedia. For all of this, I strongly oppose this, and I think the best is to keep her as situational. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Citing and quoting Wikipedia is just one problem of many and in Anime Intersections she quotes or cites Wikipedia a whopping six times. These are not mere mentions, but instead direct quotations or citations. In case there's any doubts:

• "As the Wikipedia entry for A Scanner Darkly explains," (pg 101)
• "As the Wikipedia entry for the program points out" (pg 195)
• "As documented by the Wikipedia entry for the franchise" (pg 196)

It's a general pattern of bad sourcing. She cites an interview on a Ghibli fansite, which was translated from Chinese to English, which even has a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. I am not sure if the translation is accurate, or even what or where the original interview is to be found. Another time she cites a Geocities page which I can't even find an online archive of, for the source of a quote by Ikuto Yamashita. Presumably it was some kind of Japanese publication which was then translated by the fan or taken from somewhere. The main page is archived, but none of the subpages. The same quote is produced on the EvaGeeks page and guess what? There is no explanation where it came from! You see the problem with this? You run in circles trying to find the source for these quotes. And you should only give a translated quote if it was done by a professional translator from a major publication because we can trust it, versus an amateur translation.

I could spend hours finding issues with her scholarship, and the more that I look, the more issues I find, but I digress. There's a lot of these sloppily written books published on niche nerd interests like video games or anime, and we really should hold standards of scholarship. Though, truth be told, some of the sources she cites are perfectly fine, such as Wired, or Ars Technica, or Newtype USA. So why not just cite those directly and cut out the middle man? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat. I'm not gonna read in depth articles full of spoilers on other anime, sorry, but just discussing NGE. I support her as situational just and just for NGE - I have no competence to judge her on other matters. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding here; it's been an incredibly busy week for me. I'm going to concur with Harizotoh9 on this one; the fact that Cavallaro mentions this or that is not entirely relevant to our discussion here. You might be impressed by the detail of her research, but there are legitimate reasons that other scholars may not be citing the various interviews you mentioned — not the least being that they might consider them relatively unimportant, or that they may be prioritizing writing their own analyses instead of quoting other works. Harizotoh9 also brings up a good point: if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman, they can simply be cited directly as long as they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

She's just grabbing whatever online source she can find and because it's paraphrasing fan sources, it will quite often be correct. For the above quote by Ikuto Yamashita, she cites a now dead website, and this is being used Evangelion page right now. So as of now I can't verify this quote at all. If I had to wager a guess, I would say the quote is likely real and is sourced to some sort of Japanese guidebook. But I don't know that, and I certainly don't trust she did due diligence to double check it, or assure the quote was accurately translated. We need to have standards and to start somewhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally agree 100% with you on "if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman". That's what I always supported and said. The problem is, Techno: recently a user said that direct interviews were not enough for the NGE Angels article. So I have to mention other secondary indipendent sources, like Cavallaro, to keep it as a GA. See the talk page. That's why, as I said, I used her for NGE articles just for 2 notes per article at most until now. I'm very confused about Wikipedia in these days. BTW, if I am not mistaken, that Yamashita quote simply comes from the VIZ official manga translation: I verified that quote a long time ago. I can give you the Japanese text, the English VIZ translation, there's no problem. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I confirm: Yamashita's quote comes from the VIZ manga translation. It's literally in the NGE manga, at the end of the volume. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're looking at it primarily through the eyes of a fan, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which operates on rather rigorous scholarship standards. The many many issues outlined above show that Cavallaro's scholarship is sloppy and low quality, if not paraphrasing and plagiarism. Ergo, she should be exercized from any article she's cited even if it's several GA articles related to Evangelion and Studio Ghibli. We are supposed to go backwards from the sources to the article and our viewpoints don't matter because we don't actually write the articles but summarze reliable sources. For an example, I expanded the Project A-Ko article with several English print magazine sources, and I know damn well the movie is a whole plot reference to Macross but not a single source I found mentions that, ergo it's not in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

*"She got in to the English programme at Westminster, when it was run by Dani Cavallaro," Westminster about us

I now have some honest to goodness third party source on her life and background. I checked the wayback version of the Westminster site from 1998, but the site was very basic back then without any information on faculty. So it seems she ran the English Studies department at Westminster University in the mid 90's. Likely means she has a masters or phD in English literature. There's likely some web page on the wayback machine somewhere giving a faculty biography. Her first book was a collaboration book on Fashion published by Bloomsbury appears to be a legitimate book when she was employed at the university and became a freelance writer on anime later. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If you google this name there seem to be a lot of people named that (and this post from a few years ago wondering who the heck this person was due to having no visible online footprint). Is this the same person?? jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that stuff like this is the real Achilles' heel of Wikipedia, where we are forced to maintain a sort of perfunctory deference to academic sources, insisting that bloggers are inadmissible because they aren't serious enough... even when the academic sources are themselves citing those same bloggers. I mean, do you need to have a PhD to figure out which Keion! is the coolest? For something like, for God's sake, animé opinions, I really don't see what we get by citing a book of some person's opinions, when someone like https://karmaburn.com/ a) has better opinions and b) is more rigorous in the first place -- I am quite sure that among Wikipedia editors we have sufficient expertise as well -- we might as well allow ourselves to use it,jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not about who has the "best" opinions, because that's purely subjective, but to create an objective overview of reliable sources which means avoiding self-published sources like blogs at all costs. Cavarallo's works have the surface level appearance of proper academic books but are extremely lacking. Academic books published by university presses are considered some of the best sources, because they're written by experts with heavy amounts of peer review. Below are two examples of such works which discuss anime media or anime fandoms as examples:

• Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice: Cinemas of Girlhood Wayne State University Press (2002)
• Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World. Yale University Press (2012)

Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT)

Could I get a third opinion on this source recently added to open-source license? The grammar and some of the claims in the cited paper struck me as bizarre, but I am unfamiliar with the symposium:

• https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1620054
• https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/document/1620054

Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are bottom-level references, journals and proper books are better. They're better than blogs, but not by much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And more specifically, that's a workshop paper - it's not part of the main conference, and was probably written as an overview of a short presentation or discussion. Looking at the full text, the author's classification of licenses is not quite as nonsensical as the abstract makes it sound, but it's (at best) now 20 years out of date. The economic point it makes is not developed in detail or based on references. I wouldn't use it as a source. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The abstract here is really one of the least coherent paragraphs of text: Licenses of open source software (OSS) are quiet various but can be categorised into three. That is GPL (GNU general Public License) like, LGPL (GNU Lesser general Public License) like, or MPL (Mozilla Public License) like. Although there are numbers of licenses, most of OSS projects are accepting GPL or GPL compatible. In reality GPL is one of the most effective powers for distribution; self-reproduction system in it. More over it also has economic "positive network externality". This mean that open source software is better for basis of social infrastructure.

Uh... what? jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Japanese researchers trying their best to write in English. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's more than a grammar issue, the "categorized into three" thing makes no sense -- what about apache, mit etc (which I'm pretty sure are more used than MPL)?? jp×g🗯️ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They explain what they mean immediately after. GPL-like licences, LGPL-like licenses, and MPL-like licenses.

Either they aren't aware of MIT/Apache/etc.., or they consider them to be GPL-like / LGPL-like / etc.... I haven't read the full paper, so I don't know which of the two they mean. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Huffington Post on American politics

Currently HuffPo is list as "no consensus" or "unclear" reliability at WP:RSP. This was based on a 2020 RfC whose close and comments focused very much on the bias of the outlet's American political coverage. Recent practice here has been to focus on false reporting, rather than biased reporting, when evaluating a source. Is there any appetite for a new discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the current yellow/no consensus rating is appropriate. The Huffington Post is consistently biased. Name an issue in American public life, and I can tell you what the Huffington Post "thinks" about it, without consulting the paper. That's not good. For someone who is not deeply grounded in American politics, that bias could be misleading. However, I still think the paper is perfectly usable as a source in many contexts. I don't think changing it to either GENREL or GUNREL would be an improvement. Pecopteris (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if this affects anything, but reportedly some employees from BuzzFeed News were shuffled into HuffPost when the former shut down last year. Though who knows how many were shuffled rather than laid off anyway. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Huffpo is such a terrible online blog/site, and I really don't like it. It should be removed from every article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right, FFF; bias, even consistent, is not a good reason to downgrade reliability. Attribution also doesn't require WP:MREL; we have a few green-listed sources at RSP where attribution is encouraged. HuffPo does original reporting; for example they've recently done some very solid journalism on internal Biden admin deliberations regarding Middle-East policy, for which they've been praised by journalists working for "green" (WP:GREL) outlets; and I saw no issues with the articles from a journalistic ethics standpoint. DFlhb (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

DFlhb and by extension FFF are correct here regarding bias vs. reliability; IMO the distinction to be made here is between Huffington Post's original reporting, which tends to be quite good and doesn't appear to have reliability issues; and Huffington's Post's non-original reporting, which does. For example, I've been published on HuffPo as a "Contributor" based on licensed re-publication of my work on other sites (like Quora) that would *not* meet WP:RS standards. But in contrast, this obit of Howard Fineman from today seems fine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I honest-to-God think we should just remove the colors from the table so we are forced to read the text and risk using our brains to interpret what the consensus is about the sources. It seems like common sense that you would not write, uh, Democrats are better than Republicans and experts say you should vote for them.^[1] or vice versa and cite it to HuffPost or Fox etc even if they are reliable for other stuff. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

allmovie.com now using film descriptions and actor biographies from Wikipedia

The website allmovie.com, which previously contained independent summaries of films, and actors, has, apparently in the last month or so, switched to short summaries based on Wikipedia entries, headed "Description by Wikipedia". This would seem to make it an unsuitable source for these articles, but it's not clear how pervasive the change was (are there still some articles that are usable?) Can anyone throw light on what the changes have been, before its rating as a Reliable Source is changed? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that there needs to be a larger discussion again; Allmovie is used on about 10,000 articles, they've restructured their internal data so most existing links do not work, and they've dropped a lot of content like reviews and non-wiki descriptions. On a quick glance, the mirroring appears to be a massive copyright violation as they are not using the material under the correct license, nor are they crediting the authors as required. "Rhythm One" no longer owns this farm, it was purchased or transitioned somehow to "Nataktion LLC" in May of 2020. This seems to just be a very small, straight-up marketing company that is cutting material under license (from some other data stream) and cramming as many ads as possible on each page. It may be best to have separate discussions on Allmusic and Allmovie, as there still appear to be staff reviews on Allmusic. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think AllMovie is usually an external link template. If it meets WP:ELNO (which I believe it already did anyway), we can remove that template en masse. But if it's used in article bodies, is there a way to ensure archiving for when it was reliable before? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If Template:AllMovie name and Template:AllMovie title need to be removed from EL (and eventually deleted as these aren't citation templates), then they should be sent to WP:TFD so the correct bots can help. Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Enough other sites use Wikipedia as a source that there's a great danger of circular references when they site Wikipedia and Wikipedia cites them... wasn't there an XKCD comic about that? (Yeah, here it is.) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Good find. I think there needs to be a RfC regarding Allmovie. I've been dubious about it's reliability for actor bios even before it started using bios from Wikipedia as it had the incorrect DOBs listed. And there used to be fact sheets at the bottom of the actor pages. The actor bios on TVguide.com had the same things. So it looks like Allmovie was copying/pasting stuff beforehand. There actually hasn't been an official consensus on whether or not it's a reliable source. But even that doesn't stop it from being ref spammed on Wikipedia. Kcj5062 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Another issue I noticed during a recent AfD discussion is that the ratings on there are extremely questionable. It looks like they give every (released?) film a rating, even when they clearly haven't had someone watch it. For example, try looking up any lost film. I arbitrarily chose Across the Pacific, Within Our Gates, The Call of Youth, and Badger's Green, and all have star ratings on there. hinnk (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Orlando Figes

Talk:Orlando Figes (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see the Talk page on my entry, Orlando Figes. Archive evidence has come to light (the Stephen Cohen Archive at Princeton Uni. Library) that should be admitted as a reliable primary source (indeed, the only reliable source) about the role of Memorial in the cancellation of the Russian publication of my book The Whisperers in 2012. The evidence contradicts the reports in the press which suggested that Memorial was officially involved in the cancellation. This is not true, as confirmed by the head of Memorial, Roginsky, in a letter to Stephen Cohen, which also makes it clear that the "Memorial" report was in fact the report of a single researcher. This is also not reflected in the wikipedia entry. I have been told by the active editors that the archive evidence is not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy whereas an inaccurate newspaper report on the role of Memorial IS a reliable source. This is obviously absurd. I am posting this here in the hope of a resolution before considering my legal options. Orlandofiges (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not, how it works here. We prefer secondary sources over primary: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (from WP:OR) Best course of action is to find a better secondary source and persuade other editors the old source is outdated. Note legal threats (even veiled ones) may lead to a swift block (WP:NLT). Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the archive in Princeton, I understand that any content placed by an expert to a public domain is already a publication, obviously of WP:SPS nature. Hence, one can use it per WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS if it helps to clarify something and the author is a well known expert, such as Arseny Roginsky, telling something in the area of his expertise. It does not mean we should use it (such materials are typically undue), but I think we can. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think The Indian Express is unreliable for this deleted edit?

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackout_challenge&diff=prev&oldid=1227635674 with an edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is generally reliable. And “stolen territories”? The editor is User:Westernethinicity33. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Whether it's unreliable or not (it's probably OK), there are plenty of better sources [161] [162]. And the editor concerned is talking gibberish, there's probably a CIR issue here. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've reverted three edits that removed sourced content, and warned the user pretty sharply. Bishonen | tålk 19:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

@Black Kite At the moment almost all of their edits have been reverted, and I've asked what " the media from stolen territories insinuate." in two edit summaries means. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No response. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable and generally reliable. The Indian Express is a well-established news organization that regularly covers Internet culture as one of its many topic areas. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Sources for Muhammad

These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.
• Rodinson, Maxime (2021) [1961]. Muhammad. NYRB Classics. Translated by Carter, Anne. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Russ Rodgers' book is published by the University Press of Florida, and our WP:OR policy states that "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources." Rodgers is the command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history. There are currently only two biographies of Muhammad written by military historians: this Russ Rodgers' book and Richard A. Gabriel's book published by the University of Oklahoma Press. I believe their perspectives are crucial given that Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was filled with battles, including the Battle of Badr (which was demoted from featured article status, apparently in part due to a lack of sources from military historians [163]). Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [164] (not just random blogspots or websites). As for Maxime Rodinson, he was for many years a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études at the Sorbonne and, after working several years in Syria and Lebanon, supervised the Muslim section of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris [165]. Some reviews of his book include [166] [167]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think these sources are RS per wikipedia's definitions. If anything, attribution would help to put some context if not an obvious claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with these sources. University of Florida Press and New York Review of Books are highly reliable sources. Vegan416 (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Any claim that appears exclusively in one of these two books should not be included in the article without in-line attribution. These are popular works that don't generally engage with primary sources; there is no reason to believe that they make unique claims because of unique information. Muhammad is the subject of thousands of books. Very rarely is it productive to discuss claims in terms of their sourcing in such an article, because anything that deserves inclusion will be replicated across many valid options. You guys seem to be fighting over specific content. Each conflict should be an RFC on the Muhammad talk page (post notices wherever) with however many sources, arguments exist for each side. Don't waste everyone's time trying to win narrow and presumably well-sourced content disputes by end-running on process. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The UF Press book doesn’t look like a pop-history coffee table book. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad was a historical figure, like Napoleon, Buddha, Constantine, Joan of Arc. As such, the highest quality material we should be using are academic books published by historians because they are written by experts, and go through extensive peer review, and are written a very neutral and factual manner. Thus they typically represent the best sources. If you look at FA quality pages on figures such as al-Musta'li or Theodosius III they extensively use university press published works. The second book is published by the New York Review of Books, which is a publisher I am less familiar with and am not sure about the quality, but it appears to be less academic. So it may present slanted information. On any article with any kind of hotly debated or controversial topic, we should rely more on the highest quality sources (typically academic books by university presses) more and more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think New York Review of Books or New York Review Books was the original publisher of Muhammad, that was probably something French. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Close RfC We have absolutely no context on why the books might be unreliable at the first place. I have read Rodinson and his views, though scholarly, are now-antiquated; so, it becomes a question of DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace - Russ Rodgers is a U.S. army military historian and not an Islamicist or any authority on Islamic studies. The University Press of Florida is indeed a reliable source but as Harizotoh9 noted, we should use the highest-quality sources as possible. Rodgers' most famous book is Nierstein and Oppenheim 1945 about World War II and he has written only around 3 books related to Islam. As i highlighted on the article's talk page, people like David Bukay (an Israeli political scientist who is known to be an anti-Arab and Islamophobic person), Russ Rodgers (a U.S. Army military historian), Ram Swarup (an Indian leader of the Hindu revivalist movement), William E. Phipps (a ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are nowhere close to WP:RS. This article should contain the work of classical Islamicists and Orientalists such as W. Montgomery Watt. I'm actually surprised how dedicated orientalists like Watt have so less citations now than people like Bukay, Rodgers etc. FA articles such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, Amr ibn al-As, Mu'awiya I, Yazid I, all of whom are controversial figures between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, but nevertheless these articles are written neutrally neither from a Shia point of view nor a Sunni point of view and having reliable orientalists and Islamicists such as Fred Donner, Wilferd Madelung, Meir Jacob Kister, Patricia Crone, Hugh N. Kennedy, R. Stephen Humphreys and not anti-Arab political scientists, Hindu revivalists or U.S. military historians. ProudRafidi (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. As others have said, the New York Review of Books is not the original publisher of Rodinson. The book was originally published in French in 1961 and subsequently published in English (translation by Anne Carter). The New York Review of Books has reprinted the book. I've updated the citation to clarify the situation. I can't speak to its reliability, but sixty years is a long time in academic publishing on a major topic. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• These sources have been the subject of contention since late 2023. For context for those unfamiliar, back in 2023, Kaalakaa decided to rewrite the Muhammad article, using primarily the two books mentioned in this RfC for references. On the talkpage, the reaction to Kaalakaa's rewrite and to these sources has been mixed to say the least. I don't really think anybody other than Kaalakaa would object if the article was reworked to rely less on or remove these sources, but the fundamental issue is that nobody seems to be able/willing to do this (I don't feel comfortable doing this due to lacking in depth knowledge of the source material) leading to people just arguing in circles. Does anyone have recommendations for recent up to date scholarly biographies of Muhammad? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane, M.Bitton, and R. Prazeres: might have thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC This completely ignores both the instructions in the noticeboard header and the edit notice. Discussions should take place before starting an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Discussions have taken place, examples include

  • Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Suspect_sources
  • Talk:Muhammad#Maxime_Rodinson_is_not_a_valid_source
  • Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Russ_Rogers_statements
  • Talk:Muhammad#Revise_the_sources

  An rfc doesn't seem like a glaringly WP-bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but no discussions at this board. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a "must"? Anyway, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_413#Sources_for_Muhammad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's better, still, looking at that and then this, seems more like a discussion that ought to be at the article talk page, along the lines of what are WP:BESTSOURCES for the subject. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  This matches my opinion, this appears to be about what sources to use and what content should be included in the article.
  Also the question of this RFC Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? is a non sequitur, using different sources in the article would not 'deem' these sources as unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Discussion of sources by all means, don't need an RFC for that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Russ Rodgers' claims "about military history" may or may not be reliable (since he's a military historian), but whatever he has to say about other scholarly subjects regarding Muhammad is obviously irrelevant. Maxime Rodinson's book was published in 1961, which makes it unsuitable for claims that have since been superseded and redundant for everything else. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Replace Rodgers because it's a WP:FRINGE source. The OP is the only person in past discussions on Talk:Muhammad who considers the Rodgers book reliable, because he assumes, wrongly, that merely being published by a university press is a rubber-stamp of reliability, and that parroting the words from WP:OR is justification for including it. That is emphatically not the case. While publication by a university press is a good indicator of reliability, it is by no means infallible, because University presses can and do publish fringe views deliberately. This is one example. Rodgers is the only source available for certain extraordinary claims about Muhammad, and extraordary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as multiple corroborating sources. He seems to be more of a hobbyist author with an interest in history, and his book is ignored by academia with very few citations to that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anachronist (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just for an information, @Hydrangeans appears to have shown that @Anachronist's essay above contradicts the sources used in it [168]. And @Just Step Sideways and @AndyTheGrump agree that the essay "belongs in user space" [169][170]. @AndyTheGrump also put @Anachronist's understanding of WP:FRINGE into question [171]. Furthermore, if one looks at the article, many statements cited to Rodgers also have supporting sources. Moreover, that Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources [172] [173] (not just random blogspots or websites). So this seems to be yet another instance of @Anachronist misunderstanding our policies and guidelines, aside from what has been listed here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: it is important to distinguish three kinds of reporting in these, and all other sources about the prophet Muhammad:
  • Objective statements that are not disputed (eg Muhammad ordered raids on Meccan caravans)
  • Objective statements that are disputed (eg Muhammad recited the satanic verses)
  • Subjective statements (any statement that seeks to pass any kind of judgement on Muhammad)
• It goes without saying any statements that fall in the latter two categories should always be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Whether these statements belong in the main article Muhammad, or subarticles like Criticism of Muhammad depends on weight and editorial discretion about what constitutes encyclopedic material.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: On the second kind of report, It does seem like Rodgers at times misrepresented the primary sources he quotes. One example is, On page 145, he uses a statement by members of Banu Qurayza:

  "We have no treaty with Muhammad"

  as proof that no treaty had taken place. His source was Sirat Ibn Ishaq page 453. But when actually reviewing Sirat Ibn Ishaq, it is made clear that this was a satirical statement. To use it as actual historic proof for his narrative seems quite like deliberate distortion. QcTheCat (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - vague RFC, no specified flaws and no proposed edits shown - WP should mention all the major views and these appear to be prominent ones. The RFC has just not shown an article cite where any of the WP:RS principles are deficient, let alone such sweeping removal for 100+ cites, nor any basis to believe there are replacements for those 100+ cites. For example, in one place is a mention that Rodgers infers something and in that WP:RSCONTEXT it seems obvious that a Rodgers book is the best cite. Without reasons to change and without actual edits proposed I'd say clearly no. Try one-by-one and not a vague unfounded want. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Rodgers' views are far from "prominent", in fact they stand out as extraordinary claims unsupported by other sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd have to read both books, and be more familiar with general scholarship about Muhammad, to really have a strong opinion. But the books both have the imprimatur of respectable publishing houses. They look very usable. Even if they express minority-held views, they're still of value, because showing our readers multiple scholarly points of view on Muhammad is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the concern is that the books are over-cited in the Muhammad article, I think it's better to achieve due balance by adding more sources, or by putting more information in the article from previously-cited sources, not by removing sources. Pecopteris (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• With respect only to the Rodgers source, the author bio blurbed by the publisher got me wondering what being a "command historian for the US Army" means, which led me to this quaint 1990s era autoethnography, which indicates that for the most part they're history PhDs and only some are mentally handicapped. I didn't find many reviews of Rodgers 2012, but this one by a self-described "Islamicist" found it impressive and better than expected if sometimes speculative, and specifically praised its incorporation of hadith materials. The Rodgers source is TWL-accessible via Project Muse, and while the ten-page bibliography feels scant at first blush, apparently the entire enterprise is a more accessible extension of an earlier Rodgers work, Fundamentals of Islamic Asymmetric Warfare (2008), which according to the publisher's blurbed reviews, has excellent sourcing, which we can believe the author did not forget about entirely in the course of the production of the 2012 book.
  Having said that, this whole RFC feels off, with a framing intended to produce blanket approval for the sources listed, where the issue in practice appears to be an imbalance of sourcing (my bystander take, having not edited articles citing these sources, unless perhaps in forgotten gnoming). Add to that an arbcom case request (my route to here) filed by the RFC initiator against an editor who has taken issue with the use of these sources, and my feeling is mostly bad RFC. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh incidentally I was not able to confirm anything about University Press of Florida's peer review process a decade and a half ago, although Internet Archive have a fairly complete snapshot of the site at that time. The earliest snapshot of their editorial board is from 2021. Then, as now, they have several historians on the board, including at least one named chair, which I always like to visualise as a literal named chair. Of course, that any of them concentrate in mediaeval Islamic texts is an improbability, but anyway I'm not sure if I have a point to make. Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, the self-described "Islamicist" is John Walbridge, professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University, Bloomington. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There are plenty of academics who devote their careers to studying Muhammad, and even more historical specialists in the field of the Middle East in Late Antiquity. Russ Rodgers is not one of them. His work seems to be well-regarded, so it's probably good to use for the narrow field of analyzing Muhammad's military command, but little else. I wouldn't call it unreliable, but it's overused in our current article. The Rodinson source shouldn't be used at all. Historical knowledge and methods have changed a lot since 1961, there's no reason to use a source that old except in the few fields where nothing more recent has been published. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: While I raise my eyebrow at Anachronist's circular skepticism of university presses, starting this RFC seems pointy, in the sense of trying to score a point and 'shore up' OP's defense of Rodgers's book rather than seeking resolution to a question. I share Red Rock Canyon's sense that citations to Rodgers and Rodinson are overrepresented. Rodgers's' Generalship was relatively well-reviewed in H-Net, by John Walbridge, but military history is just one aspect of the topic's life. Walbridge's own review notes that Generalship is inattentive to the religious dimensions of the subject, which is frankly something that needs to be front and center in Wikipedia's article, since the source's primary notability comes from his influence in religion and status as the prophet of Islam. Military history in general seems overrepresented, with Richard Gabriel's Islam's First Great General also being cited more than 30 times. As is, there are very relevant authors who are minimally cited or entirely uncited. Only two citations to anything written by Karen Armstrong, for instance, one of the classic biographer's in English?
  As for Rodinson's book, religious studies has changed a lot since 1961. A historian or biographer's in-depth study might cite Rodinson in order to understand the historiography over time, but for Wikipedia's encyclopedic overview purposes, we really should be citing something much less outdated. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment, Hydrangeans. However, one thing to note is that Muhammad's life is divided into two periods: his life in Mecca and in Medina. The Medina period is when reports about his life are clearer and more organized, because it was after he moved to that city that he gained many more followers, particularly from the Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws. His life in that city was filled with battles, so much so that he was reported to have ordered raids at least 95 times on trade caravans and surrounding tribes. It was also during this time that the major battles with the Quraysh (Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, Battle of the Trench) and the Jews (Siege of Banu Qaynuqa, Invasion of Banu Nadir, Siege of Banu Qurayza, Battle of Khaybar) occurred. That is why many statements are cited to military historians like Rodgers. Regarding Karen Armstrong, there have been several discussions questioning her, primarily seemingly because Karen only majored in English, which is unrelated to the topic [174][175][176]. Some even argue that if Karen Armstrong is used, then Robert B. Spencer should also be used [177][178][179]. It might also be worth noting that Kecia Ali, in her book The Lives of Muhammad, published by Harvard University Press, around pages 189-190, points out that Karen Armstrong references a primary source, Tabari, for a particular statement, but that statement does not align with what Tabari actually said [180][181]. Meanwhile, on page 270, Kecia Ali states, "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad." Jonathan E. Brockopp, in his book Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities, 622–950, published by Cambridge University Press, on page 28, seems to classify Karen Armstrong among modern authors who "misrepresent the earliest period of Islam" by "downplay[ing] the confusion of the early community on how to be a Muslim." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there were plenty of battles in his life, but that doesn't mean there wasn't also plenty of religion. One might well say that, say, George Washington's life was filled with battles, before his presidency, but I'd consider an overemphasis of military history, over and against political history, in the George Washington article just as much of an issue.

  Fair enough that Armstrong doesn't have as many academic credentials as certain other authors, but it remains that her biography, A Prophet for Our Time, was published by a major mainstream publisher, HarperCollins. Meanwhile, Robert B. Spencer shouldn't be cited is because his axe-grinding interpretations aren't part of mainstream scholarly thought, weren't published by major mainstream publishers, and if incorporated into the article would likely violate WP:NPOV.

  Also, you bring up Kecia Ali and Jonathan Brockopp for a couple of errors on Armstrong's part; yet Ali is cited only once, and Brockopp only 6 times. If we can agree that Ali and Brockopp are academically published authors of WP:SCHOLARSHIP about the topic, why are they so underrepresented, especially compared to Rodinson's sixty-year-old book? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Kecia Ali's book, The Lives of Muhammad (note that the word used is not "life" in the singular but "lives" in the plural), does not discuss the life of Muhammad but rather the works of various authors, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who explore Muhammad's life. As for Brockopp's "Muhammad's Heirs: The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities," as the title suggests, it discusses "The Rise of Muslim Scholarly Communities." There are indeed many books about Muhammad, but those that specifically chronologically discuss his life from birth to death by reliable secular authors and publishers are very few, and the books by Rodgers, Rodinson, and Richard A. Gabriel are among them. Others generally only discuss specific aspects of his life (or other matters), like this book, which only discusses stories about Muhammad's meeting with a figure named Bahira. I am not saying that religiosity is not a part of Muhammad's life; I am saying that Muhammad's generalship is an important part of his life and the spread of his religion. If you look at the article (which is quite long), many other sources besides military historians are also cited for other statements. As I write this comment, the total citations in the article are 419, while the citations to Rodgers are 43. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for quantifying the underlying issue, which was never one of reliability but always one of weight, dueness, onus and a hint of ECREE. There is no way Rodgers accounts for, or is owed by way of use by others, a one-tenth weighting within the corpus of relevant biographies. Nor is Glubb worthy of 30+ citations, or Rodinson 50+ citations. That's a quarter of the total referencing lent out to sources now at the margins of the body of modern scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

erenow.org

Pages at erenow.org are cited in 14 articles. When I tried to view one of those sources, I got some odd website behavior that made me think the domain had been hijacked. I can't find archive.org versions of all of those cites. Before I remove the ones that I can't replace with archived urls, could someone else validate whether there is really a problem with that domain or it's just me? Schazjmd (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing no issues with the website. I followed the links in the first five articles in the search results at your link, all without any problems. I searched the site using it's internal search engine for "Canada" and "Malta" and viewed the first three hits for each, again without any problems. I didn't check whether the articles verified what they were being used for, but the title did match in all cases where it was given. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the double-check, @Thryduulf, I must have browser issues or malware unrelated to the site. Schazjmd (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just in case, I've gone through and made sure archive.is has a copy of all 14 (although I've replaced 1 with a copy of the book at the Internet Archive library). Archive.org seems to be forbidden by the site's robots.txt but archive.is doesn't respect that so it works. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggested additions

Suggested additions to reliable source list

• ABC News Australia (I was surprised it wasn't already there?)
• SBS World News (also Aussie)
• Channel 4 (UK)
• France 24

MWQs (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone is disputing it, there is a presumption of reliability for well known newsorgs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@MWQs, the perennial sources list isn't a "reliable sources list". It just captures community consensus for sources that have been repeatedly questioned/discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As Schazjmd said, generally we don’t add things without there having been a discussion. RSP isn’t a complete list of RS, but an index and summary of previous discussions.

In the case of France24, they are generally reliable but I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources from Africa

Our perennial sources list seems to be missing an entire continent? They're are several huge English speaking countries in Africa, e.g. South Africa, surely we can find a few sources to include? MWQs (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They're assumed reliable if they have a reasonable editing policy and seem to be talking sense. They're only put in RSP if there's been questions about them a few times. NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSPCRITERIA and WP:RSPMISSING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

But when people are arguing toward a consensus on controversial international issues they often skim the perennial sources green list, which is severely skewed to UK / USA. We need to fix this somehow? MWQs (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that English Wikipedia has a lack of editors who are familiar enough with those sources to be able to make a determination. It's a known problem when writing articles about Africa among other under-represented regions. If you're interested in helping to correct this systemic bias, one good place I can think of to start is with WikiProjects. A bunch of the larger ones maintain lists of what they believe to be reliable sources for their topic area, such as WP:VG/RS. These don't have any official standing, but they're often a good starting point for discussions. It might be worth reaching out to either WP:AFRICA or other country-specific WikiProjects to set something up, since they have editors who understand and are interested in those regions and might be able to help come up with a list. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The lack of familiarity is why we need some suggestions. And it is not just for stories about Africa, we very often cite European and North American sources for international issues as if these two continents represent the global consensus (I've even seen people claim this based on sources only from the USA and UK). A couple of recommendations from elsewhere would really help, and South Africa would be a good start. MWQs (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is simply not what the RSP is for, and if editors are misusing it this won't solve that issue. Instead this is something better worked on within projects, see for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources.
The RSP is not, will never be, and should never be considered, a list of all reliable or unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify a source should only be on the list if it's reliability has been repeatedly brought into question, so if a source is reliable and no-one has ever doubted it's reliability it shouldn't be on the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The Mindway Corporation

A friend of mine recently remarked that all mention of this organization seems to have been scrubbed from the web. Curious, I looked for them on Wikipedia, and found that archived webpages from them were used as refs on articles related to '90's industrial/electronic band My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. This is the context I would have expected, but Mindway Corporation was a fan club that sort of developed into a cult centered around the band. They probably should not be being used a source even for simple things like track listings, which I assume would be available elsewhere. (note that there are a few other organizations with the same or similar names that do not seem to be related to this group) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Blue Virginia for WP:POLEND

Blue Virginia is a popular political blog covering Virginia politics written by Lowell Feld (arguably a subject-matter expert in Virginia politics) since 2005. I view Blue Virginia as a reliable (albeit biased) source that is self-published by a recognized expert so requiring in-text attribution in certain uses.

In addition to content written by him and a team of writers, they also provide daily news roundups with granular updates added by Feld in the comments (see for example, yesterday's roundup and comments section), arguably a limited form of coverage. These comments are used extensively in Virginia political articles as citations for endorsements (see for example, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia).

WP:POLEND requires that for endorsements by individuals, they should "only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources".

While Blue Virginia/Feld is reliable and (in most cases) independent of the candidates/endorsers involved, is simply reposting endorsements is sufficient coverage to meet the WP:POLEND standard or should such endorsements be removed?

(FWIW: I think WP:POLEND should be adjusted so that endorsements from notable figures in a district can be included with reliable sourcing even if not independent, but I am not sure how or where to go about getting consensus for such a change.) Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Field appear to be an subject matter expert per WP:SPS, so would be reliable for non-BLP content. I don't see that simply reposting endorsements would be secondary coverage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical on using Blue Virginia (sitelink) for BLP content. Its stated goal is to be a group blog with the goal of electing a specific type of Democrat. It could be run by an SME (I don't have time to dig in on that). But, even if it were run by an SME, "X endorsed candidate Y" is almost always going to be making a claim about a living person when the endorsement is in the context of a U.S. House race, so that sort of exception seems inapplicable here.

If the website is merely re-hosting some sort of press release, then one could reliably cite the original press release as such, and use via= field to identify the source. But the existence of a release is not sufficient for inclusion under WP:POLEND, which requires that Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. After all, simply reposting endorsements is plainly not independent coverage of the endorsement itself.

(As an aside, if a single partisan political group blog is the only place covering a particular endorsement—even if the endorsement was made by a notable person—it's probably not something that belongs in an article for reasons that proceed from the principle of due weight. That being said, such a determination may well be outside the scope of the reliable sourcing noticeboard and might be better handled on the talk page of the relevant guideline.)

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Red-tailed hawk + @ActivelyDisinterested. This was also my view which I started to implement but I self-reverted given how many of these are sourced entirely to comments in Blue Virginia.

On the aside: I may at some point open a wider discussion on the WP:POLEND criteria for individual endorsements on the relevant talk page but understand concerns about weight. That said, even with local news becoming hollowed-out in a lot of the world, I think there's some inherent weight to a notable local politician in a locale endorsing in a race (ie., state sen Lashrecse Aird endorsing state sen Jennifer Boysko in the VA-10 primary is, I believe, due despite the sourcing given that Aird is a state senator representing the congressional district in question). As you said, not the right venue for that discussion though. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The apparent occidental preoccupation with "endorsements" to the side; WP:DUE is always "per the sources", never "despite the sourcing". Rotary Engine ^talk 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Daily Tribune

Hi, I am concerned with the reliability of this source https://lifestyle.tribune.net.ph/nhcp-celebrates-90-years-gears-up-for-centennial/

Kindly comment whether the source is reliable or not. Thanks

Best Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The source is used in the linked article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Provincial_Building Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Tribune appears to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, the lifestyle section may not have as much editorial oversight as the news section but I see no reason it shouldn't be reliable. I do wonder if the content it's supporting in the article is due, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Predatory journal for Doha Corniche

Elspamo4 (talk · contribs) keeps reinstating a citation to a predatory journal in Doha Corniche, e.g. [182].

The so-called "American Journal of Environmental Engineering" (why an American journal would accept a Qatari submission is already a red flag) is published by Scientific & Academic Publishing, one of the more horrendous predatory publishers out there.

This is not a reputable source, nor a peer-review outlet, and the defense that its author is a head of departement, and that the paper is hosted on a university website, does not make this paper reliable.

I move that this paper is purged from Wikipedia, just like any other SAPUB papers, per WP:PREDWHEN.

If it's true that the Doha Corniche "role as a gathering place, often referred to as the "urban majlis", is integral to Doha's identity and social fabric", then there will be other, actually reliable sources, that will talk about it.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to self-revert since you raise a very good point that a non-predatory source should be easily found for such general statements about a prominent landmark. I won't re-add this reference or journal. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see if this is a predatory journal. I see some blog websites talking bout SAP, but not better sources on it. Perhaps I am missing something. If it is predatory, it does not hurt in finding another source like a magazine or article saying similar things. It is getting harder to track these publishers. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

SAPUB is obviously predatory [183]. It's a junk outlet with fake impact factors. There's a reason we have them on our edit filter list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why a source by a subject-matter expert published predatorily is not considered reliable, when an expert’s self-published source is? (Not necessarily related to this particular case). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically a SME could publish in a predatory journal and be considered reliable, it would be judged as a self-published source. So per WP:SPS they would need to have been published as a SME in the relevant field by other reliable independent sources first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also the fact that an 'SME' who mostly publishes with predatory outlets is very likely not an SME at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

metalshockfinland

Is the site metalshockfinland.com a RS for heavy metal and/or biographies of musicians? The source of the dispute rests in Articles for deletion/Troy Stetina (2nd nomination) where an editor argues the source is a “respected source of info” and it is cited over 50 times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, as I'm unsure on the reliability question, the particular article mentioned in the AfD is an interview so wouldn't count towards notability as it's not independent of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

liverpool daily post

is this source reliable? it is used for a dyk nom and according to its respective article, it is a tabloid. more info here. thanks! Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From 1966 and for football coverage I'd say yes, it was one of the two local newspapers in Liverpool at the time. I wouldn't say the article referenced counts as the type of 'tabloid journalism' Wikipedia is concerned about. Orange sticker (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable generally speaking. Not a tabloid in the sense of our rules.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PubPeer as (additional) source

PubPeer is a postprint peer review website with WP:User-generated content. It came up four times in the archives WP:RSN "pubpeer".

This discussion [184] ends with User:Hemiauchenia saying: "Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like Retraction Watch or something like an expression of concern is published."

Earlier, User:Hemiauchenia also wrote [185]: "When academics complain about peer review I don't think that it is a rejection of review entirely, it is simply that having a public review of a paper where many people can contribute like PubPeer is better, rather than only a few reviewers."

A concrete case in which this source has come up again is a BLP of an academic [186]: a journal has issued an official statement of redundant publication and there is more information on PubPeer, posted by an anonymous user, but which is verifiable. Someone at WP:BLP/N suggested asking advice here. Perhaps @User:Hemiauchenia can weigh in?

My reading is that this particular combination of sources is sufficient (after all, what more sources can one expect to find in a case like this?), which aligns with the archived post, but is there consensus on this? SocialEpisteme (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained to you by mutiple editors at BLP/N, PubPeer is ruled out by WP:BLPSPS and the original journal statement is ruled out by WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is true that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source", but you don't have the reliable secondary source which is essential for this debate to even begin. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:JFHJr suggested asking about it here, which is what I did. PubPeer has come up a few times, so it would be helpful to have a general view on this, also for other cases. SocialEpisteme (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

SocialEpisteme: it looks like you have a resounding NO WP:CONSENSUS on two fora. Sorry for the delayed response; work is nonstop and this little farm needed me more. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as last time. Comments made in PubPeer are self-published and not appropriate as sources. It is not enough for sources to merely exist, they must demonstrate that the issue is significant enough to warr mentioning in the bio.ant Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable as it's user generated content, so it can't be used for any verification purposes. This is doubly so for BLP articles, where even if it was reliable it would still be unusable per WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the posters above, PubPeer is anonymous/pseudonymous, self-published user-generated content. I dont see any way in which this could be a WP:RS even if some accounts can be linked to well known people. Basically no, PubPeer cannot be used as a source. --hroest 11:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The South African (3rd time of asking)

(Restored from unanswered archived): 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) 18:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• A lot of their web content looks AI-generated. The "Furry Fun Fact of the Day" [187] is not exactly fun, because it's about feline distemper. And no human puts an exclamation mark on "However, feline distemper has an unexpected quirk – some cats who survive the initial infection become lifelong carriers!". Unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the article ... "Artificial Intelligence assisted in compiling this article." Meanwhile, a lot of the other "stories" are tabloid gossip and trivia [188]. Probably needs a discussion to deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I suspected as much @Black Kite:. That is why I wanted to hear from others because if it wasn't for RFCBEFORE, I'd have started a depreciation RFC right away. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

    Certainly needs to be used with caution, paying attention to the author. If they are staff, it may fine but some articles are written by those described as "content creators" or similar (ex. [189] and [190]). I have also come across articles written by marketing/PR professionals. Also their TOU has a statement "The opinions of advertisers, writers, commenters and contributors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TheSouthAfrican.com, Blue Sky Publications (Pty) Ltd or any of our affiliates." It is unclear what is meant by "writer" or "contributor" S0091 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

    Here's an example of articles written by a marketing professional [191]. S0091 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The Times of India

What is the reliability of The Times of India?

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

-- Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• timesofindia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• timesofindia.indiatimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Survey (The Times of India)

• Option 3 There's nothing to indicate the prior issues with paid coverage and bias have been cleared up, and the Munger article indicated a considerable lack of fact-checking - if it's AI-published, that's a cardinal sin of news media. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've removed my "/4" with respect to it being a paper of record, but I'm sticking at 3 - regardless of how widely-read it is, AI generation and/or poor fact-checking don't speak to reliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Times of India is the world's largest English-language newspaper, and the largest in India. It is has some occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on Enwiki. Most ToI links predate ChatGPT. -- GreenC 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 As per GreenC.The Times of India has been published since 1838 and it is a Newspaper of Record there are only 2 Indian newspapers which can claim so.It has been India's most reliable newspaper for large part of the time. It is politically neutral not aligned to the right or the left unlike most other Indian newspapers. There are occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on English Wiki.It is also India's most trusted English newspaper.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Our article on TOI gives examples of promoting political coverage in exchange for pay--they may not have an explicit partisan affiliation to any one political party, but that doesn't mean they're neutral. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is an invaluable source. As other editors said, it's the largest English-language newspaper in the world, and the largest in India. I'd have to see a lot more bad things from them to consider option 3, and option 4 is completely off the table for me. Pecopteris (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have to echo the above. Its usually been fairly good with its standard of reporting given its status but it does appear that recently there have been a few AI articles that have slipped under the editorial radar. Certainly nothing major to warrant depreciation but it is something worth keeping an eye on. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 In the previous RfC the TOI was judged to be somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3, mainly because of its poor fact-checking and the fact that it regularly runs paid advertorials and sponsored content that are not admitted to be as such (see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). None of this appears to have improved at all, and when you add the issue of AI content into the mix then I can't see how it can be trusted, certainly for anything contentious. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• It's cases like this where I wish there was an option 21⁄2. Broadly speaking it is definitely pushing limits (in a bad way), but does not fit very well into the definition of general unreliability for some of the reasons laid out above. I think leaving it in option 2 and assessing case-by-case makes better sense, though perhaps some sort of GUNREL post-X year should be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I don't think it puts past citations in danger or requires deprecation, but the embrace AI when combined with the other problems puts it "over the top" for me. I would endorse Curbon's idea just above me about post-X year, but we'd have to debate just what X should equal, and until that's sorted out, I prefer discretion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - I agree with the general criticisms that have been voiced by others. The paper may be a historic paper-of-record in India, but as documented by our Wikipedia article about it, it's also arguably a big part of why English-language press in India is so terrible, whether through its embrace of corrupt pay-for-play practices or through anti-competitive pricing that drove away its competition (and now it's adding AI to the mix, apparently). In a sense it's a free-market mirror image of the situation we end up in with Xinhua--it's one of the best major journalistic sources in the country, but that doesn't mean it's actually reliable or impartial to the extent that we would generally expect a newspaper of record to be. I have primarily encountered TOI's coverage of the Indian entertainment industry, and its average article on such topics is abysmal to such a degree that their content is typically indistinguishable from PR. That having been said, due to its readership, its opinions and perspectives will likely be DUE in many contexts to a degree that arguably outstrips its reliability for Wikivoice claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for the time being, retaining the current considerations. It has many faults but also has useful uncontroversial content as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. The Times of India has a history of dodgy fact-checking, but hasn't quite sunken into tabloid territory. I think it's an alright source for uncontroversial information. However, it should not be used for anything contentious that isn't independently backed up. Cortador (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. It has some dodgy qualities, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning Option 4. If they can't even be bothered to do a simple fact check about Munger currently being alive or not, I'm not sure why we'd even use them as a source at this point. I understand they're the large newspaper as explained, but this is getting silly. They've almost fallen to the level of tabloid media where they make up stories about Elvis being alive. AI generation (declared or not) being published as fact is shameful. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. While many of its old articles are good, it has become pro-government in the recent years though it still published about a number of incidents which the ruling government may not like. I don't see any reason to change the current consensus for this outlet. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option #2 The consideration for verifiability is expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. Also in our system which has a flaw in this are, the same classification is used for wp:weight in wp:npov and so knocking a major source in this area would also create a POV distortion. Which leads to that I'm against nearly all blanket deprecations/ overgeneralizations. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 The issues with undisclosed advertorials is already known and documented, an issue not confined to TOI or even the Indian news media. The AI issue becomes another problem to watch for, but I don't think it's enough to mark all it's content as unreliable. Caution should be used, and articles evaluated on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Markets for news media the world over are being squeezed, so AI and the more profitable types of advertising (such as undisclosed advertorials) are becoming more prevalent. It's something editors will need to keep in mind when evaluating such sources, and make sure to double check anything exceptional or unexpected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Generally unreliable but tending to deprecated. I had been reading this paper regularly since before "paid news" came into vogue. Now I do not find it reliable at all. It is definitely not fit to be a Wikipedia reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Yes TOI has issues, but the recurring problems with sponsored content are addressed in WP:RSNOI. This is a singular example of possible AI generated reporting, and although irresponsible on TOIs part, I don't think its cause for deprecation. We should monitor as part of larger efforts to reel in AI reporting in news media (as has been discussed many times on this noticeboard). Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I hate that it's come to this because we're basically screwing over a country of 1 billion people. I doubt the issue is "AI" in general; any decent large-language model can rewrite a news article while keeping the facts intact. Contrast the Times of India, which has consistently been unable to do that even before LLMs became commonplace. If the Times of India is using "AI", their complete disregard of quality means they've decided OpenAI's $1.50 for 1 million tokens (750,000 words) [192] is too expensive, which honestly is quite plausible.

Aside from that, the question I think we should be asking ourselves is whether it's better to have false information on a country of 1 billion people or no information at all. A vote for option 3 is "no information at all", and that's preferable since false information in one topic area ruins the credibility of the rest of the encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The Times of India)

@Amigao: Would you like to make this discussion a formal request for comment? If so, please apply the {{rfc}} template immediately under the section header per WP:RFCST, and place a copy of your signature immediately after the four options to ensure that the RfC statement is "neutral", per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If not, please remove "RfC:" from the section heading. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Newslinger - Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion here and at WP:TOI identified various issues with The Times of India. Mostly recently, on 31 May 2024, TOI published an article stating that the late Charlie Munger (who died in 2023) was alive and making donations. Whether AI-generated or not, there was no fact-checking going on here and the article remains live as of this time stamp. - Amigao (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India article claims that the published information was obtained from "a report in the Insider". Assuming that refers to Business Insider (RSP entry), which was rebranded as Insider from 2021 to 2023, the corresponding Business Insider article is "Billionaire CEO gifts 1,200 UMass grads 'envelopes full of cash' totaling about $1.2 million — but there's a catch", which states that "Robert Hale Jr., the CEO of Granite Telecommunications", was the actual person who made the donation to University of Massachusetts Dartmouth graduates. Hale is also described as the donor by Associated Press (RSP entry), The Boston Globe, and many other outlets.

As an example of inaccurate reporting, this reflects very poorly on The Times of India. Munger's name is mentioned in the article 13 times and he was described as "the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway", which shows that there was no confusion about Munger's identity. The article looks like a hallucination from a large language model. I'd like to see if there are any more examples of this kind of error on TOI that establish a pattern of relying on AI-generated reporting. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Edited 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — Newslinger talk 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons

If Pope Francis says there was a genocide at residential schools in Canada[193] -- largely run by various Catholic orders -- and the House of Commons unanimously declares that there was was genocide at residential schools in Canada[194] -- largely funded by the Canadian government -- is this RS enough to say that there was genocide at residential schools in Canada? Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC):

Not necessarily? It would be a bit odd to cite an off-the-cuff statement from a Pope on his plane and a House of Commons resolution for a claim of historical fact. But it is possible to use them for a statement like both Pope Francis and the House of Commons of Canada have described the events as genocide or something like that. There should be better sources if we're going to put it in WikiVoice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Both are opinions, and so should be attributed in text AS opinions. That said, both are noteworthy opinions that should be mentioned in the text. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The legislative branch of government was unanimous. How does a branch of government have a personal opinion? But talk amongst yourselves. I need to go do some stuff. Btw the sources are not the problem. CBC and CTV are both respected newscasters. There are literally hundreds of others. And then there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the medical officer in charge of the schools who was forced out of office for thinking there was a problem with so many children dying preventable deaths. What would a better source look like? Elinruby (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Government's declarations don't make historical fact, going down that route opens up all kinds of problems. What of declarations from the Russian, Turkish, or Sri Lankan goverments, or is it just governments we argue with on issues we agree with. This isn't the solution to deal with those that would deny the facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Their statements are potentially due with attribution, depending on RS coverage. However, we should (as always) prefer high quality peer reviewed texts from scholars. FortunateSons (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Journal articles it is. How many do you need and apart from peer-reviewed, do we care in what discipline? I'll crank up JSTOR tonight. And the requirement is that they describe this as a genocide? There are lots of those out there also. Scholar gives me 64,100 hits, but some of them will be about residential schools in the US. [195] I really do have to go right now though. But in Canada, this is incontrovertible fact, over which the federal government is currently paying reparations. There really is no both-sides to this. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not familiar enough with the relevant discussions to make a definitive statement, and this would like be a question of due weight or title policy, not a question of reliability regarding some sources. What are you trying to do? FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on certain podcasters and astroturf magazines, articles on the topic attract a constant stream of editors who insist that this did not happen. That the schools were just bringing civilization to backward people and everyone died all the time anyway in the 19th century. (Maybe, but a lot faster and younger in the schools). Editors who disagree are chided for being rude enough to think that a genocide might be a genocide. I am trying to discover how to get en-wikipedia to look at the sources on this. The usual reaction is to assume that this is a FRINGE notion when in fact it is Sandy Hook set against a historical background of institutionalized racism. It may need an RfC I guess, but I started here. My thinking was that the Catholic Church considers the pope infallible on Church matters. But I see why everyone is saying peer-reviewed. However I don't know how much more done the deal could be if the perpetrators agree that it happened. My ride is here and tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that, it’s rather unfortunate. I’m not sure on what measures already exist, but perhaps amping up the contentious topic restrictions might cut down on the worst disruptions?

You will probably need an RfC, particularly if you’re going for more than “x considers y to be z”. However, assuming there is a plethora of indisputably reliable sources, the rest is out of scope for this board.

PS: I’m not an expert on the catholic rules, but as far as I recall, Papal infallibility is a bit more complicated than that. FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not especially familiar with the topic myself but if the best relevant scholarship agrees it's genocide, then this would be genocide denialism you're dealing with and you can notify the fringe theories noticeboard to discussions pertaining to it (WP:FTN). I would say the statements by the Canadian government and Catholic Church are relevant, but I'm reminded of something mentioned on our page about the Rwandan genocide. It mentions that the Rwandan constitution gives a death toll significantly higher than scholarly consensus. So that's probably a good illustration of how government statements can't necessarily be relied on too heavily as a source in themselves even when they're trying to make amends for a past genocide. VintageVernacular (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I hadn't thought of that. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

WP doesn't deal with ultimate truth claims (see: WP:TRUTH), but instead what can be sourced from high quality sources. In an article on a crime like murder or assault, an article will cover the details of the case, and whether the person was acquitted or found not-guilty, but avoids actually saying if they are guilty or not. A concept like "genocide" is more of a legal term in international law, which means it depends on the definition that they're using, and whether it applies, so it's not as straight forward as it appears. You can imagine a case being brought for to the international criminal court, and legal scholars become divided on whether actions constitute genocide or not.

So Wikipedia itself should not say if x or y is genocide, because that's a conclusion, but instead cite reliable sources covering the analysis of others. So the real question is who's opinion is relevant to be cited because you can remain neutral and objective while citing the analysis and conclusions of others? House of Commons for sure. Pope? Maybe? He's an international respected figure, and he doesn't go around calling random things genocide. International bodies and human rights groups? Sure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. If the pope and the government of Texas (or Uganda) say that homosexuality is wrong, or abortion is murder, is that "sufficient RS" that Wikipedia must abide by the pope? Of course not. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That’s technically true, but non-analogous. The issue is that the Catholic Church and the Canadian government are admitting to wrongdoing they were (actively) involved in. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

exactly. Maybe I did not make that clear enough Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• No There are several issues here. First, I believe many sources have called this a "cultural genocide", not a "genocide". I don't think any sources claim the original intent was to kill off native populations as compared to something like the Armenian genocide where the intent was to kill off the people. Thus calling it a "genocide" without the important qualifier would be incorrect. Second, as Harizotoh9 stated, "genocide" would depend on the perspective of the one making the claim. While the fact that people have called it that is absolutely due for the topic, it should be attributed. While certainly some sources would call these programs some type of genocide in their own voice, I suspect others might dispute such claims while still largely agreeing on the underlying facts. Denying that something "is a genocide" doesn't inherently mean denying the truth of the facts that support the claim. Springee (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care what the Pope says about historical facts, but I do think that the government of Canada saying this officially is in fact pretty strong evidence that it happened. We don't currently have a way to express this, as far as I can tell, but it seems pretty intuitive that if the subject of the accusation admits it, it's much more likely to be true. Not guaranteed, so I'd also want other sourcing, but if there was a source conflict this would push me pretty strongly towards "yes it was a genocide". Loki (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Social media analytic websites (e.g. Social Blade)

What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as Social Blade, Viewstats, and NoxInfluencer for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#Reliability of social media analytic websites)

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

— lunaeclipse ^(talk) 21:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 For anything that can't be verified by the primary sources ('estimated revenue', 'views over time', 'subscription rate changes', or any kind of ranking) they shouldn't be considered reliable. This type of data is of value to the social media site (YouTube, Twitch, etc) and they wouldn't give it away, so third parties doing so should be considered cautiously. For anything else there is no reason not to use the primary sources, as they are likely to have more up too date and accurate information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - I'm unconvinced that the methods are transparent enough to take these numbers seriously, nor am I convinced that our reliable sources are relying on these data. Opaque data sites should be guilty until proven innocent. I don't think they should be deprecated either; I believe there are exceptions and fringe cases where it does make sense to use them, but I'm just not confident that it's wide enough go for the next tier up.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 but leaning Option 2. These sites don't have the reputation the Alexa Internet did, but I have no reason to doubt they're making stuff up. Without any sort of discussion or critical review of their methods, I can't accept their rankings as the benchmark Alexa was. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 also leaning Option 2. The bottom line for me is that there is no history of regular fact checking. Without a clear history on data accumulation, it doesn't seem right to qualify as reliable. Penguino35 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera - factual errors

I reviewed about half of the 76 articles (excluding videos, opinion articles, and live updates) that Al Jazeera submitted under their Israel Palestine conflict tag during the past two weeks. I included every error I identified, regardless of significance:

1. Israel bombs Gaza school housing displaced Palestinians, kills at least 40 and US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis

   Claimed that fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women. While this matches the initial figures put out by the the al-Aqsa hospital, this is false. The hospital issued an update hours later, correcting the figures to nine children and three women.

   The first of these articles was likely published before the update was issued, but we would expect a reliable source to issue a correction. Further, the second was published after the correction was issued, and after other reliable sources were able to publish articles with the correct figure.

2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts

   Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.

3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza

   Claims that before fighting begun while Israeli forces were still moving into position Israel started bombing the area, hitting the busy market the hardest. They also say that the intent was likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false: these air strikes began later, when Israeli forces who had rescued the hostages came under attack while trying to exfiltrate. The problematic nature of this falsehood is exacerbated by the partisan spin they put on the story in regards to the intent.

4. Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault

   Incorrectly claims that on Wikipedia edit wars are considered vandalism, along with other similar mistakes.

5. ‘Absolute priority’: UN agencies must work unhindered in Gaza, G7 says

   Claims the GDP of the G7 is $40.27 trillion, making up 40% of global GDP, with the source being www.g7italy.it. The site contains no claims about GDP, and the real figure appears to be $43.86 trillion, making up 43% of GDP. This contains two issues; publishing incorrect information, and making false claims about the source of the information - in this case, the latter is far more concerning.

6. Israel in Gaza, Palestinian fighters in Israel, what the UN accuses them of

   Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died. This is false; the health ministry says 8000. Few sources have reported the 15,000 figure, but it appears to have instead come from the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and Higher Education. (One, two)

7. US says Hamas is to blame for ceasefire delay – but is it Hamas or Israel?

   Claims Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari proposal. However, after this was initially announced, and well before this article was published, it was revealed that Egyptian intelligence had altered the terms, and the proposal was not the one Qatar had approved.

8. Will South Africa’s new coalition gov’t change tack on Israel-Palestine?

   Claimed South Africa has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is false; South Africa has repeatedly refused to condemn the invasion. The closest it came was a demand that Russia "immediately" withdraw issued at the start of the invasion, but that is not a condemnation, and even if it were it would mean that this statement is "merely" highly misleading.

9. Netanyahu slams US for ‘withholding’ weapons to Israel

   Claimed Israel closed the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This is technically true, but it is highly misleading; Israel shut the crossing when they first took control of it but sought to reopen it. It remains shut due to Egypt.

10. Gaza fighting continues despite Israeli ‘pauses’ announcement: UNRWA

    Claimed Israel has sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This, unlike the similar statement above, is false; the border is "sealed shut" because of Egypt, not because of Israel.

This suggests that at least a third of Al Jazeera's articles on this topic have factual issues, although the total is likely to be much higher as I expect I missed most errors even within the articles I did review.

It is possible that some of these are included because of errors on my part rather than on Al Jazeera, but unless most are I don't believe we can't consider this source reliable in this topic area; there are too many errors, and too many significant errors. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the last two, I can see multiple reliable sources claiming that the Rafah crossing is shut because of Israeli military activity there (i.e. WaPo), or at the very least report that this is what Egypt claims is the case, or that Israel and Egypt blame each other for the situation. So that one certainly isn't as cut and dried as "It remains shut because of Egypt".
• Also in the "Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died.", I can find no reference to that claim in the link provided.
• Also, are we really ragging on a source because they don't understand how Wikipedia bureaucracy works? Most RS don't, we've seen that repeatedly over the years. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the last two, outside of headlines (which, per WP:HEADLINES, are unreliable), the Washington Post source doesn't claim that Israel closed the crossing; it merely says it was closed, and that The United States, Egypt and Israel are in talks to reopen the crossing.

  Regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health, look at the infographic in the section "What did Israel do in Gaza?"

  Regarding Wikipedia bureaucracy, I did consider that the least concerning, and was tempted to exclude it - I only didn't because I decided I should provide everything I found, and allow editors to decide for themselves what is and isn't significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Moved to #Rafah Border Crossing

   – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm getting a strong much-ado-about-nothing vibe from a lot of these examples that can easily be chalked up to the fog of war, the fast-paced news cycle and the fundamental fuzziness of some of the information. The first example appears incorrect. The first AJ piece attributes the casualty claim to its progenitor, which makes it a static claim in time. It is not in AJ's voice, so there is technically nothing to correct. That figure was put out at that time by its source. I have been seeing this confusion a lot lately: the idea that publications have some sort of onus to correct attributed statements that are subsequently amended or disproven. They can, but they don't have to. The next couple of examples involve debatable timelines. Then we have some minor slights involving attributed figures – one possibly outdated, the other presumably correct but misattributed. Then another debatable piece of narrative, and only one genuine oddity, which is the statement about South Africa. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The first item contains two AJ pieces; the first one I can understand how you see it as attributed, but the second one, US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis, indisputably puts the figure in Al Jazeera's own voice - and was published after the update was issued.

  Can you explain why you believe the timelines of the second and third are sufficiently debatable to make Al Jazeera's claims accurate? As far as I know, there is no dispute that the Second Intifada erupted with violence, and the timeline of the raid appears to be non-contentious and supported by Palestinian witnesses; the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved and the shooting started, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  So the second Al Jazeera piece doesn't appear to have adjusted, no, although it is rather simultaneously published with the piece you present. As it has videography, it might also have been prepared some time in advance of its publication date. As to why no correction ... ? Has that hospital update been published widely? Al Jazeera explains the second intifada as beginning after the riot on the 28th, beginning with largely civil disobedience. On Nuseirat, why are we trusting the NYT (not a great source on the IP conflict since December) over AJ? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was published thirteen hours later; seven hours after the Guardian article was published noting the correction. As for the wideness of publication, AP published it.

  Regarding the Second Intifada, that article published on September 28 2020, on what Al Jazeera called the twentieth anniversary of the uprising, said it began on the 28th: The second Intifada ... began after ... Ariel Sharon sparked the uprising ... on September 28, 2000. Even if you interpret that as meaning it began the next day, that still includes the riot that resulted in seven Palestinian deaths, three hundred Palestinians wounded, and 70 Israeli police officers wounded - that isn't anyone's definition of "started off largely nonviolent".

  Regarding Nuseirat, it's not only NYT. I included an AP source above, and others include the ABC, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, NBC News, and more. Sources and witnesses are clear that the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see a bunch of sources relying heavily on IDF testimony. Simply being an outlier doesn't make AJ demonstrably wrong – such events are often only properly pieced together weeks, months or even years later. Currently, all we have is competing narratives. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian, the New York Times, and AP all say in their own voice and with reference to Palestinian witnesses that the bombing began soon after the Israeli team entered the apartment building. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The SA statement is not that odd, demanding a withdrawal > a condemnation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A substantive and lengthy discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 434#Al Jazeera reliability, only a couple months ago, did not lead to any change in WP assessment of this source. It included this early comment from opener:

"We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict."

Given this background, it would seem desirable that opener set a formal RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is the first systematic review of the source in this topic area I felt informal initial discussion was better than jumping into an RfC, in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. It has also been suggested we should consider it on three topics:

1. Israel-Palestine conflict
2. Topics related to the Qatari government
3. General topics

Since only the first of these has had such a review I don't think we are ready for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have taken a look at your examples and don't see anything appalling there at all, so may as well shut this down or move to an RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The second topic is important. AJ is state-run and most people don’t even know. The scope of what is considered “linked” definitely needs to be clarified too. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"State run"? Says who? Seems more like the BBC afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

See this. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a rather generic discussion about the issues that it may have, in exactly the same way as sources such as the BBC, presumably with an emphasis on domestic reporting. It's unclear what specific issues this translates into other than domestic favouritism. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So run the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

When was AJ last quoted on a topic related to Qatar where its input was questioned with regards to that in a dispute that turned otherwise intractable, thus warranting an RFC? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• How is it the conversation about Al Jazeera and its worth as a RS goes round and round and round in circles when it is basically the propaganda arm of Hamas?? Because it's too important as a source of anti-Israel sentiment. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be anti-Israel sentiment - but there's criticism of Israeli and then there's Al Jazeera. Over the years, how many stories from Al Jazeera have there been praising Israel? How many have there been criticizing Hamas? Even if it went to any sort of vote to strike it down as such, I don't there would be much chance of it passing. All this while there's a parallel discussion about removing the ADL as a reliable source...

Neutrality and balance are important here and when it comes to adding content here, that should always be the priority. Difficult find either of these 2 things in an Al Jazeera article about Israel, especially if the Al Jazeera journalist is on the Hamas books. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it that you think a news source should be praising Israel or criticizing Hamas? nableezy - 18:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All our major mainstream sources are defective. Most of them are Israeli or pro-Israeli. They may check better than al-Jazeera their facts, but as often as not they do not mentioning facts that al-Jazeera reports. Selectivity bias is more the problem here. To expect that by eliminating al-Jazeera, our key non-Western, Arab source for what happens in Gaza, esp. after the Israeli government shut it down, looks uncomfortably, eerily, like censoring anything that does not reflect a Western mainstream view. We are wasting time here, and NPOV should have told us that we cannot cover the I/P conflict by expurgating, with whatever itsybitsy technical pretext, all sources that don't reflect our Western/Israel perspective.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the list is nonsense reflecting the editor's POV and scarcely stands or warrant examination. I'll take just one piece apart.

• (2) Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.

In fact it did, unless one only scrapes up one's historical information from reading wikipedia's articles. 'Rioting' is the standard Israeli term for what everywhere else in democratic societies is called a 'protest' or a 'demonstration'. BM's POV is showing. 75 police weren't 'wounded', they suffered minor injuries. 3 Palestinians weren't injured, they were shot, and a furtherr two severely beaten up. All this is the second phase however. Sharon's hour-long visit, surrounded by 1,000 policemen in riot gear, went off without incident aside from a piddling incident when he tried to enter Solomon's Stables, which is a mosque. 20 Palestinians blocked their way, and a scuffle ensued. Through all of this over the following week apart from one incident) Palestinians protested en masse, and, with the expenditure of over 1,000,000 bullets within several days, missiles and machine-gunning from israeli helicopters, 47 were killed, and 1,885 wounded, 80% of whom were shot in demonstrations where no threat to security police was present. So Al Jazeera is quite within its rights to state that the Palestinian uprising in that first week was (more than) 'largely non-violent'. What was massively violent was the Israeli reaction, in fitting with Nathan Thrall's dictum that on each of the four occasions where Palestinians have gone on strike, demonstrated en masse, in an initially peaceful manner to protest the Mandatory or Israeli occupation, the response has been, rigorously, extremely violent repression by the authorities. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a silly complaint too, as it's subjective what counts as primarily nonviolent, but the terms "were injured" and "suffered injuries" are usually understood as synonymous. XeCyranium (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been hit quite often in stone fights, and was shot (with an airgun) several times. A source describes the Israeli police injuries from punches and stones as 'minor', rarely anywhere near as damaging or frightening as being shot with a bullet, live or rubber-capped. The Israeli tallying of injuries is often suspect. It can refer to people grazing their knees when they stumble as they run to an air-raid shelter.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Peace and War, by Anthony H. Cordesman, has an excellent timeline of the start of the Second Intifada. In the first few days alone there are large scale riots, clashes between Israeli Arabs and Jews, Palestinian sniper fire, and dead on both sides. To claim that sniper fire and riots are peaceful is almost Orwellian, and not something any reliable source will do. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Your 'excellent' timeline comes from Anthony H. Cordesman, who, notoriously, got most of his 'history' of events by taking notes from Israeli briefings and quoting IDF spokespersons. Everytime I've read him, I've looked at his sources, and they are press handouts, extraordinary for a scholar of his standing (but then again he belonged to the upper echelons of the 'Security Establishment'). Don't take my word for it. Norman Finkelstein is one of the world’s foremost experts on both Gaza and the systematic disinformation in mainstream sources reporting on that endemic conflict. He made a close analysis of just one paper by Cordesman and concluded that Cordesman’s work ‘was based entirely on briefings in Israel’ (p.40) and repeatedly drew on comments by the IDF’s spokesman, incident per incident. He concluded that ‘Cordesman’s ‘strategic analysis’ consisted of reproducing verbatim the daily press releases of the Israeli airforce and army spokespersons,' and Cordesman 'obligingly dubbed them ‘chronologies’ of the war,’(p.41) Norman Finkelstein Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018 ISBN 978-0-520-29571-1 pp.39-42.

Though I have never removed Cordesman from articles, because he qualifies eminently as RS, he is not reliable on the IP conflict, also for many additional reasons, like his well known advice to Israel and the PA to adopt the same counterinsurgency policies against Palestinians that the British used in Northern Ireland, i.e., excessive force, disregard for human rights law, and torture. His views on this were so extreme Amnesty's Marty Rosenbluth called his blueprint 'bizarre'.

Your campaign against Al Jazeera expresses a 'sensitivity' to misreportage and yet, twice on just one example given, you yourself made a false claim, and justified it when criticized by citing (no page number, no awareness of later scholarship postdating Cordesman whose book 'War and peace' was written hastily in the thick of the early days of the conflict) a source that virtually plagiarized its content by relying on IDF press cuttings.

There is no simple way of ascertaining reliable source material for a conflict whose reportage hallmark is stamped by bias on all sides. A blanket ban on the only daily Arab source that provides a perspective sensitive to Palestinians, together with reliance on known decidedly pro-Israeli sources, is a recipé for laziness. And please note that you repeat the word 'riots', as all pro-Israeli sources do, to describe mass protests, on Palestinian soil, against the Israeli army which invariably spins popular outrage at an occupation as 'clashes' between 'Jews' and Palestinians, when they are mostly parades of protest against an army that shoots at 'disturbances' of the kind you can see in any Western street most weeks. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

you yourself made a false claim Only according to you. Personally, I think any source that claims riots and sniper fire is peaceful is almost Orwellian, and evidently unreliable. I would also recommend against relying on authors like Finkelstein who frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review - known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda. However, I won't get too focused on Finkelstein, as even if we accept his rejection of Cordesman there are thousands of sources that demonstrate that the Second Intifada did not begin peacefully. Since this discussion is unlikely to be productive I'll just provide a small sampling of those that are easily accessible and leave the discussion; I'm sure you'll find issues with all of them, but I'm confident my point has been made.

1. Arab Uprising Spreads to Israel, published October 1, 2000

   The rioting and gunfire seemed to spread everywhere today--to Arab towns and cities in northern Israel's Galilee region; to Jaffa, the scenic old port town just south of Tel Aviv; to Rafah on Gaza's border with Egypt, where a pitched gun battle was punctuated by Israeli missile fire; even to Ramat Rachel, an upscale kibbutz on Jerusalem's southern outskirts where molotov cocktails exploded this evening.

   Israeli forces and Palestinian police and gunmen traded fire in nearly every major West Bank town and city, from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south.

2. "Between Humanitarian Logic and Operational Effectiveness: How the Israeli Army Faced the Second Intifada":

   But unlike the first Intifada, which was basically a civil uprising against the symbols of an occupation that had lasted since June 1967, it very quickly lapsed into an armed struggle between Palestinian activists and the Israeli armed forces. Almost from the very start, armed men took to hiding among crowds of Palestinians, using them as cover to shoot from. The IDF retaliated forcefully, each time resulting in several deaths

3. The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah

   On October 1, Israeli helicopter gun ships fired on Palestinian sniper locations in apartment buildings near the Netzarim junction after Palestinian snipers started shooting at the Israeli military post.

4. Rioting as Sharon visits Islam holy site, published September 29, 2000

   Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins, and whatever missiles came to hand at the Israeli forces. Riot police retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets, shooting one protester in the face.

5. Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline

   30 September: In one of the enduring images of the conflict 12-year-old Muhammad Durrah is killed during a gunbattle between Israeli troops and Palestinians in the Gaza strip

6. Broken lives – a year of intifada

   The Netzarim junction, where Muhammad al-Dura was killed on 30 September 2000, was the scene of many riots involving demonstrators throwing stones or Molotov cocktails in the first days of the intifada.

7. Chapter 4 The Second Palestinian Intifada

   The Palestinian uprising, soon termed the al-Aqsa intifada, began with groups of Palestinian teenagers throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints at border crossings, but it quickly escalated. There were increasingly fierce clashes between armed security forces of the Palestinian Authority and the IDF. Palestinian snipers directed fire against Israeli civilian neighborhoods on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

8. Violence escalates between Palestinians, Israeli troops, published September 30, 2000

   At least seven Palestinians and one Israeli soldier have died and hundreds of demonstrators have been injured in three days of fighting, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials.

9. Sharon Touches a Nerve, and Jerusalem Explodes, published September 29, 2000

   Tightly guarded by an Israeli security cordon, Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader, led a group of Israeli legislators onto the bitterly contested Temple Mount today to assert Jewish claims there, setting off a stone-throwing clash that left several Palestinians and more than two dozen policemen injured.
   The violence spread later to the streets of East Jerusalem and to the West Bank town of Ramallah, where six Palestinians were reportedly hurt as Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets and protesters hurled rocks and firebombs.

Even Al Jazeera previously recognized that the Second Intifada started with violence, demonstrating how their quality has declined:

28-29 September 2000
Former Israeli army general and then opposition leader Ariel Sharon visits al-Aqsa mosque with his entourage, sparking a violent reaction from Palestinians.
Israel reoccupies the Palestinian territories amid fighting between the Palestinian resistance and Israeli army.

BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2. "Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins ..." – sounds like it was a slighty rocky student protest on 29 September ... followed by a massively disproportionate response. Oh how history rings and echoes! Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This newspaper snippet approach to history is inane. The point in the original al-Jazeera post was that the Palestinian intifada (mark 2) began with (1) an Israeli assertion the status quo would be broken on Al-Aqsa by allowing Jewish prayer on the 3rd most sacred site to Muslims, and the one remaining symbol Palestinians have for their fragmented warred down sense of identity. Sharon's walk itself caused no violence (2) The provocation some time later caused student reactions, and as the news spread through the West Bank, Israel's usual hyperoverreaction - shooting protesters kicked it. The statistics for Israeli shootings all over Jerusalem and the West Bank in the ensuing week underline that the 'violence' BM is attributing to the Palestinians (this is the standard Israeli POV) was overwhelmingly one of the use of massive shootings of Palestinians, for several days, causing close to 2,000 casualties with one Israeli killed. He refers to to Muhammad al-Durrah without a link. The images of that atrocity were shown everywhere, and inflamed not only Palestinian but world opinion. I noted on the Al-Aqsa intifada page years ago, Jacques Chirac's comment to Ehud Barak, outrage at the Israeli use of helicopters missiles and machine guns to put down the widespread protests which followed al-Durrah's death (the suspicions seeded years later against the French video are not relevant). Violence quickly became a hallmark of the Palestinians' uprising, no one disputes that. The intifada became violent after a million bullets were shot by the Israeli army, and not, as BM would have it, from the outset from Palestinian 'rioters'. BM in citing a notoriously lousy sources, to defend his reading of al-jazeera's remark, only tends to confirm one's impression that his benchmark for true/falsenees here is apparently based on an assumption an official Israeli POV is reliable, and any source contradicting it false. Newspaper evidence dating from those days is absolutely immaterial, useless, because as alwqays they are enmeshed in a frantic pursuit of partial reports, which necessity obliges us to use, but which, if these articles are to assume an encyclopedic dimension, must be edged out whenever secondary academic historical sources become available. In the meantime, getting at the one Arab source that has been accepted, would leave us with only Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet and the New York Times, as the default mainstream papers, a recipé for making structure the subfusc Palestinophobic tenor which characterizes most of them the basis for I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said to another editor, arguments about lessening our criteria for reliability with the intent of "expanding" the number of sources from a particular point of the world/viewpoint/etc should not even begin to be discussed. Wikipedia policy does not care if every source from a region is unreliable. In such a case, other sources from other regions can be used to cover the subject, or failing that, with consensus for individual points and solid reasoning other sourcing cannot be found, the less-than-reliable sources from the region can be used with attribution. In fact, there are already regions of the world that don't have any "generally reliable on all topics" sources - North Korea, Russia, Myanmar... to name a few. Wikipedia is not in the business of accepting sources without attribution just to "cover all sides". If your only argument is that we must keep the source because of their POV, that's not a valid argument and in fact flies in the face of our actual policies on reliability which do not reduce or lessen the requirements just because a source has a different POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

And I would add that in writing, in response to a close 3 page scholarly analysis of Cordesman's amateurish fudging of the Al- Aqsa Intifada, you cannot come up with anything other than a cheap, tawdry and offensive ad hominem attack on its author, Norman Finkelstein, drawing on the standard POV pushing smear recycled for low brow consumption by the usual suspects. I.e.

authors like Finkelstein who 'frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review - known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda.

Is close to a BLP violation, apart from the laziness of responding to a serious analysis by implying Finkelstein supports a white racist antisemitic rag. It's shameful but says something about the intolerance of dissonance to any source that might dare advance a different perspective than that customarily trotted out in the name of defending Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• @BilledMammal: I disagree.
  • Regarding your 1st claim Al-Jazeera's article with the outdated casualties looks like it was published at 02:22 on 6 June (not sure which time zone, maybe UTC?). That was published before Guardian got the correct figures, not after. And Al-Jazeera did update the new figures when they came in: right here.
  • 2nd claim responded by Nishidani above.
  • 3rd claim. Firstly, Al-Jazeera doesn't explicitly say bombing began before IDF moved into position as their article isn't necessarily in chronological order. Assuming the AP article is in chronological order (because if it isn't, then nothing about the chronology can be inferred), it quotes a witness saying "Clashes and explosions broke out" before the IDF team got stuck. Finally, the AP News doesn't make any assertions in its voice, but simply quotes witnesses and the IDF. It is entirely reasonable for them to come up with different stories (either by mistake or by design) without it being AJ's fault.
  • 4th claim. Agreed, clearly AJ hasn't read WP:Vandalism carefully.
  • 5th and 6th claims only make sense if we consider the list of references below their infographics to be exhaustive. It doesn't seem like they are strict with citing all their sources, but that's still better than newspapers who sometimes (often?) don't list references at all.
  • 7th claim. The allegation of Egypt altering the terms is based on an unnamed sources. While the refutation of that allegation was based on named sources (Diaa Rashwan) willing to stand behind their statements. So I wouldn't blame AJ for not giving much weight to anonymous hearsay.
  • 8th claim. Politico says "South Africa and much of the rest of the continent have experienced a different evolution — shifting from initial, tepid condemnation of Russia, to being non-aligned to — at times — seeming supportive of Russia’s war.". I think both Politico and that particular article of Al-Jazeera made a mistake (actually its possible the AJ article has a typo because if you consider the paragraph they likely meant to say SA has not condemned the invasion). An earlier AJ article said "Pretoria has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    1. I provided two articles, and as I said the first was probably published before the correction; the second was published after.

    3. The source is quite clearly chronological - and even if it wasn't, it does say Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp.

    5 and 6. While publications don't need to cite their sources, when they choose to do so they need to get it right - and failing to get it right is a reliability issue. 5 also has factual issues, which makes misattributing the claim worse - they're effectively saying their source got it wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  On 1st claim, updating the figures on a live article that is fast-moving and will bury them is not the type of retraction/correction we expect from reliable sources. Reliable sources would've gone back and added a footnote explaining that initial figures were revised and are now corrected, or at a minimum edited the article to fix the figures. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  on 8th claim, al jazeera has already published an infographic talking about South Africa's policy of strategic nonalignment here.

  It can be explained that South Africa's position on the war is intentionally confusing, as their foreign office has previously called for russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territories before.[196]

  I think if the position is meant to be strategically confusing to the point that Politico, a well known and well regarded newssite, has stated South Africa has provided support for Ukraine that Al Jazeera probably should not be judged for similar sort of mistake when doing the news race, especially when they are publishing much more in depth analyses about South Africa's position that are correctly explaining the full position of the government. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This topic was opened right after ADL was declared WP:ADLPIA in the 2024 RFC, after editor lost his POV. Its clearly some tit for tat exchange in a POV war. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this appears to be entirely civil POV pushing. Combined with the fact that the last discussion on Al-Jazeera was started only 2.5 months ago, and VR's debunking of the specific claims of error above, I am not convinced that this thread should stay open because I'm not convinced there's anything productive to say here. Loki (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please drop the WP:Personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS, both of you. You're incorrect, and even if you weren't your concerns are inappropriate to raise here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

We are clearly correct. This is a waste of time and a repeat of an earlier forum around Al Jazeera's reliability regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the timing after the ADL decision is obviously clear.

There is no reason to post this except that you are upset to have lost the ADL povwar. (I don't even know if this is that much of a change, we can still cite ADL, just use attribution as always?) User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Come on Sawer, this is inappropriate and aspersive. BM raised a bunch of factual errors—even if you think they don't constitute a reason to change how we regard AJ, or indeed that they aren't even errors, there's a conversation to be had here about facts, and "the initiator of this conversation has a secret plan" is not how that conversation starts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

And yet, VR has a bunch of arguments that these aren't factual errors, as do the rest of us.

Much of the non-Israel-Palestine factual errors are due to WP:AGEMATTERS or are small errors that we could identify in other articles, and are a function of a fast moving news cycle forcing quick prints that are quickly corrected. Other reliable sources make the same sorts of errors. For example, the issue with Al Jazeera covering wikipedia is cringeworthy, but so were any of the others talking about the ADL "ban" (its not banned, just use attribution)

The rest are POV issues due to Al Jazeera clearly having an opinion and POV on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a position we have decided in many forum posts before hand.

I'll cast aspersions when the reputation is clearly rotten, the pattern repeats. And you will no doubt argue I need to be banned because this time is somehow unique. And so goes the cycle of internet debates. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would be considered a "factual error" here. If they are using attribution, and that attribution later changes, it is not their fault, as is the case with any other RS. AJ is not an encyclopaedia, it is a news source that reports on live-time events, whose interpretation differs on a day-to-day basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

They don't use attribution in this source, which was published after the corrections were issued. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Unlike User:Makeandtoss above, I think that there are definitely some factual errors presented. Attributing a claim does not absolve you of responsibility to issue a timely correction (whether by editing/altering the article, or by posting a new article) when the attributed-to source changes their story. The first example also shows quite clearly that AJ has continued using inaccurate information well after other reliable sources have ceased publishing (and in some cases issued explicit corrections/retractions of old stories) such information. The second example clearly states Both Intifadas started off largely nonviolent. Our own article on the First Intifada states that by the second day, protestors were throwing petrol bombs, rocks, and other violent activities. Second Intifada also shows that it didn't "start off largely nonviolent". AJ is free to have its opinion on whether people intended to remain nonviolent. But stating that as a fact when it flies in the face of historically confirmed instances of violence within 24-48 hours of the months-to-years-long intifadas. Example 3 was quite clearly shown by BilledMammal - falsehoods by omission or by "misleading" timelines are not what we expect of a reliable source. To put it another way, if they weren't presenting the article as a timeline, they could say the information in whatever order they want. But since the article is purported to be a timeline, it's a factual error to say To provide air cover, Israeli forces started bombing from above right after talking about the cars just entering the area, and before discussing any further activities. That's intentionally misleading in a timeline. Example 4 is a non-issue, many reliable sources display a lack of knowledge of WP policies/procedures/terminology. Example 5 is barely an issue - it appears there is discussion hidden in the documents of the GDPs, and the 40% (well, rounded to 40%) is actually present in official documents from that conference. GDP is inherently a subjective measure, since different authors/politicians can include or exclude various "borderline" things, or calculate them in different ways. The World Bank site hasn't been updated for any country since 2022 (most recent data) - it's perfectly reasonable for AJ to assume that the G7 meeting that occurred within the last couple months has more recent/up to date information. Example 6 - AJ cites Al Jazeera, Palestinian Ministry of Health, Palestine Red Crescent Society, Israeli Army, Israel's social security agency. Ultimately, I doubt it's possible to verify that none of the other sources (including their own investigation) have come up with 15,000 as a number, and there are a handful of other sources (including the UN) that have published numbers over 10,000 that, if extrapolated, would be near 15,000 in mid June. Example 7 - misleading, but not outright false. Incomplete does not equal intentionally false. Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did. It's possible for political parties to act independently of official government foreign policy. Example 9 - again, incomplete is not misleading. Example 10 - not even sure this is misleading. Israeli army maintains operational control over the land of the checkpoint, and thus it's not really misleading to say they've sealed it shut. Whether they've expressed an intent to open it or not, that doesn't make it open.

So, where does that leave us? I count 3 examples of intentional falsehoods (or information presented in such a way to lead the reader to assume an intentional falsehood), 1-3 that are misleading, 2 that are incomplete information, and a few non-issues. That all said, 3 clear examples of intentional falsehoods or presenting information in a way that any reasonable reader will make inaccurate inferences - all of which have had ample opportunity to be corrected, retracted, or edited to present the information in a clear manner? To me that's clear that they cannot be trusted to publish factual information only on this topic at least. This is different than the ADL discussion above - in that discussion, many editors made claims of bias and how that bias means they can't be factually accurate. In this case, we not only have strong evidence of bias, but strong evidence of intentional factual inaccuracies. An RfC is the next step. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On the intifada stuff, as highlighted by Nishidani, it's both subjective and a matter of perspective. If there are nationwide protests and violent incidents at only one or two locations, those protests could still be termed "largely nonviolent". Highly debatable. Timeline stuff ... also unclear. There was bombing before and after for sure. As for during, I'm not convinced that there is a single, authoritative chronology anywhere to benchmark this against. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't only one or two locations, it was nearly every major West Bank town and city. That can't be termed "largely nonviolent", and reliable sources don't term it "largely nonviolent". BilledMammal (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of perspective, nor is it subjective. If protests erupted in multiple places simultaneously, then sure, "started nonviolently" may be acceptable. But our own articles on the topic, as well as reporting from many sources that BilledMammal identified, all agree that both intifadas started with violence, or if they didn't 'start' with violence, erupted into violence so quickly after to make "started nonviolently" deliberately misleading.

I also feel it's very, very telling that Al Jazeera themselves used to continuously call the intifadas violent from the start - they only stopped doing so once the term "intifada" started being actually viewed as a call for violence. So basically, they've began starting to try to "rewrite history" just because it doesn't fit their bias/narrative now. And that's textbook inappropriate behavior for a reliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

On a purely procedural note, we really shouldn't use our articles as a measuring stick here. Articles with timelines are particularly susceptible to selective sourcing and chronicling. More generally, bad news speaks louder, so there is a media bias tendency to fixate on violent incidents over non-violent protest, which is generally dull. Take for example the 2018 Great March of Return, which began as an almost overwhelmingly non-violent action, and yet this is something that you would almost struggle to determine from the current Wikipedia page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The violence started within 24 hours in both cases according to reliable sources. This is in comparison to months-to-years-long protests in each intifada. That's akin to saying that "I started as a bundle of a few thousand cells" - well, sure, I guess that's technically true, but it's irrelevant and misleading because I have been alive for decades. And that's if we accept your claim that they were nonviolent at the start - which multiple reliable sources present in our articles (which are a good place to start to look for sources, as you probably know) already refute.

It's ironic though, because I was explicitly calling out the source in question (Al Jazeera) has engaged in selective sourcing and chronicling in response to another point - to the point that they are deliberately misleading people. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Largely non-violent does not mean there was no violence. That is a tendentious reading of that report, and their reporting is backed by other reliable sources. See for example Hallward, M.C. (2011). Struggling for a Just Peace: Israeli and Palestinian Activism in the Second Intifada. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-4071-4. Retrieved June 20, 2024. The first weeks of the second intifada consisted of "an unarmed popular revolt," and it was only after heavily armed Israeli soldiers killed several dozen young demonstrators that Palestinian soldiers joined the confrontation. Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel did not begin until three months later. nableezy - 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Something need not be an armed conflict, or include "soldiers", to be violent. The fact the quote you give pulls out "soldiers" and "suicide bombings" as its definition of when it becomes "violent", ignoring the rest of the violence that didn't have professional soldiers or suicide bombings. That's what's actually tendentious - trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The source: an unarmed popular revolt. Berchanhimez: trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence" Who is it being tendentious again? nableezy - 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone need not be armed to be violent. You are trying to redefine violence to mean armed violence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ill let that stand on its own. nableezy - 22:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The First intifada is widely regarded to have been largely non-violent. The idea that "all agree that both intifadas started with violence" is total nonsense. If you are relying on an unreliable source, such as Wikipedia, to prove otherwise, Id be happy to provide you with reading material to correct that misimpression. nableezy - 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Example 5 is barely an issue

Well done on finding that - I spent a lot of time trying but was unable to. I've struck that issue. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I conducted additional research on Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did:

• South Africa confronts cascading fallout of Russia’s war, from July 2022, says The ruling ANC in South Africa is isolated in its failure to condemn Russia. It also says that South Africa withdrew their demand that Russia withdraws from Ukraine, which rebuts any arguments that "demands withdrawal" are sufficiently similar to "condemned".
• New South African party hopes to capitalise on discontent with ANC, from April 2023, says The ANC has refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• South African President’s Allies Want Democratic Alliance Deal, from May 2024, says Under Ramaphosa, South Africa’s government resisted US pressure to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

The Bloomberg article isn't an exact match, while the earlier two are a little out of date, but I think this is sufficient to establish that neither the ANC nor South Africa has condemned the Russian invasion? BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't access the FT article, and I'm not sure I like the first one - since before the quote you pulled, it says Pretoria faces mounting criticism for failing to condemn Russia - making it more likely that "The ruling ANC" is being used to refer to the government in its official capacity - at least in my view. Obviously it's still unclear. Ultimately, I appreciate that it's an issue - and that you did the more research - but I'd say the disagreement over how to word the nuances of the ANC's party opinion, the ANC's member opinion(s), and the official government opinion makes this something not important to focus on. In other words, you've provided what I see as at least 3 much stronger true factual inaccuracies/deliberately misleading/omission of information/etc - those would be best to focus on as reason for unreliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As a helpful trick, if you're unable to access an article because of a paywall adding "archive.li" to the start of the URL usually provides the content, including with that article: https://archive.li/https://www.ft.com/content/a14b6cc9-a709-4b0f-a027-6839fb7505bd

However, I think you're right that we should forget about these less significant/more ambiguous issues and focus on the three strongest examples. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed "frequent" from the section header. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, this is nothing to do with AI/IP, which is what you claimed this was all about when you opened this discussion. Secondly, On 1 February AJ reported "Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, South Africa has been careful not to condemn Russia’s invasion including declining to support a UN resolution on the matter." Perhaps this needs more looking into yet. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone else suggested somewhere here, it's actually pretty plausible that it's simply an unnoticed typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That Al Jazeera has a feature about the neutrality of South Africa regarding Russian aggression suggests that they agree with the consensus that SA is pursuing strategic non-alignment, which necessarily has confusion built in.

That Politico and other MSM has stated that South Africa has some degree of condemnation/disapproval suggests that strategic ambiguity regarding the conflict exists, similar to how US both sometimes acknowledges China's claim to Taiwan and refuses to have an embassy to Taiwan and vehemently opposes China's aggression on Taiwan at the same time as part of some strategic ambiguity plan they maintain. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

the wikipedia page of the second intifada gives off the impression that initial uprising and rioting by palestinians followed the pattern of a general strike, and that the lionshare of initial violence was perpetrated against palestinians, especially with regards to the post visit riot section indicating 7 palestinian deaths and hundreds of injuries for only 70 israeli injuries... Much of the phrasing indicates that it was protests and riots that turn violent

but arguing semantics won't go anywhere, this is clearly a matter of viewpoint and arguing that Al Jazeera is biased for having the viewpoint that the intifadas started off peaceful is rehashing the whole conflict. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Like many others who have commented, I find that almost all the claimed cases of "factual error" aren't cases of fact or error, just situations where OP would prefer something be characterized differently than AJ characterized it. The few cases that are questions of fact, like citing the figure a source was providing at the time the report was made (at or shortly before the time it was published), are also underwhelming. The claim above that this story says the Palestinian Ministry of Health [says] 15,000 children have died also seems to be wrong: AFAICT the "15,000 children" number only(? am I missing something?) occurs in an infographic which is sourced to a multitude of sources including not only the PMH but Al Jazeera itself (their own investigations or prior reporting); since it seems the issue is not with the number—which is also reported in some other places—but with its supposed attribution to the PMH, but AJ does not actually attribute it to the PMH, this supposed error too seems upon investigation to be another non-issue. -sche (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera is generally unreliable for certain areas including I-P, for a few reasons

• General factual errors, per BilledMammal.
• Failures to properly retract errors, e.g. in the Jamila al-Hissi case
• Framing questionable statements as (unattributed) statements of fact, e.g. in the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, which they referred to as "Israel’s attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital", "the deadly Israeli air attack on al-Ahli Arab Hospital", etc. well after that assumption became dubious.
• Overall lack of scrutiny against certain narratives, e.g. often quoting unsubstantiated speculation.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of specific examples

• Are there significant examples outside of the two contexts which at this point we've more or less beat to death (Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Qatari domestic politics) or are the alledged issues limited in scope? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  How many contexts would be enough to be a problem? Side note, holy shit this page is huge. Arkon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The claim was made that the factual errors are freuqent, if that is the case I'd expect to find them in all of the topic area. We don't seem to be able to reach a conclusion on whether the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue and we already note the Qatari domestic politics... So this is the time for those who think that AJ is widely unreliable to demonstrate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just from this review there are some suggestions that the issues will extend beyond IP as some of the issues, while in articles tagged as IP, aren't themselves related to IP. I'll try to conduct a review within the next week, hopefully before any RfC is opened.

  I'll also try to conduct a review of topics that Qatar has a COI on - perhaps the World Cup - as while we have sources saying that in this area Al Jazeera can function as an arm of the Qatari state we haven't yet determined if it makes factual errors while doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of the critical coverage is that the critiscism is less about non-factual coverage but about selective coverage... Non-factual coverage is a big deal for us here, selective coverage is not just because of how we operate (plenty of reliable RS present their POV/bias through selective coverage, overall they cancel out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• I do wish people wouldn't treat only those whose identities have been confirmed as dead. The OCHA figures are for those whose identities are known. People can be dead and noted as fatalities without their names and id numbers being known The Health ministry figure of 7,797 dead children being compared to 15,000 from Al Jazeera was for those childremn whose identities were known. And if you look at the citation to the Eeducation ministry they point to thie https://www.palestinechronicle.com/horrors-of-war-unicef-says-70-children-injured-every-day-in-gaza/ which cites the health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Rafah Border Crossing

Moved from #General discussion

 – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, the literal headline of the WaPo article is "With Rafah crossing closed by Israel...", but the article doesn't contradict that. I still can't see a figure 15,000 in the infographic, though I am behind a heavy firewall so something might be getting blocked. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps you find it; the figure is in small text, beneath large text saying "37,202".

  The article also doesn't support it, and if you look at articles like this Reuters one Egypt makes it clear it is refusing to open it; The Rafah border crossing critical to aid deliveries into Gaza from Egypt cannot operate again unless Israel relinquishes control and hands it back to Palestinians on the Gaza side, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Monday. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  F24 today "The Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt has been shut since Israeli troops seized its Palestinian side in early May". Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's true; it was closed after Israeli troops seized the Palestinian side. The coverage in that article is limited to that; it makes no claim about who closed it or why it is still closed. The issue with Al Jazeera is that it does make such a claim, blaming Israel, but sources make it clear that the reason it can't reopen under the current circumstances is because Egypt won't let it.

  However, the entire discussion seems to be getting bogged down over this one example; even if I am incorrect about it and it is a genuine matter of dispute, there are many others. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  WAPO June 15 With Rafah crossing closed by Israel, Gazans have no way out It then says that there are talks between US, Israel and Egypt to reopen with no progress.

  Seems like a simple cause effect, if Israel had not taken the crossing, it would be open now. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's the article provided by Black Kite. And yes, that's true, although reductionist and misleading - but Al Jazeera didn't make the claim, it made the claim that Israel had sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt.

  Regardless, I'm going to step back from discussing that specific example now; I don't think we're making progress, and I don't want us to get too bogged down in that one that we forget about the others. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a source that says Israel has not sealed shut the border crossing? You said it was false and that it was Egypt but provided no source. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  So much for stepping back. I've split this out so that at least it shouldn't be too distracting.

  Including the two I've already provided:

  1. "Egypt rejected on May 16 an Israeli proposal to coordinate the reopening of the Rafah border crossing, according to two unspecified Egyptian security sources"
  2. "The Rafah border crossing critical to aid deliveries into Gaza from Egypt cannot operate again unless Israel relinquishes control and hands it back to Palestinians on the Gaza side, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Monday."
  3. "Egypt has rejected an Israeli proposal for the two countries to coordinate to re-open the Rafah crossing between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and to manage its future operation, two Egyptian security sources said."
  4. "Egypt has rejected Israel's control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing, saying it can't reopen as long as it remains under occupation."
  5. "The US official said that Egypt is unwilling to reopen the crossing so long as it is the IDF that is the IDF that is securing the other side, not wanting to be seen as complicit with Israel’s occupation of the gate."
  6. "Egypt stuck to its position that Israel must withdraw from the Gazan side of the Rafah crossing for it to operate again."

  Now I will step back, regardless of your opinion of these sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are two ways of reading this:

  • The Rafah crossing is shut because Israel refuses to return it to Palestinians, as Egypt demands
  • The Rafah crossing is shut because Egypt refuses to work with the occupation, as Israel demands

  Clearly, AJ takes the first view, and its not unreasonable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  There are any number of sources for Israel having sealed the Rafah crossing, NPR: Israel's takeover and closure of the vital Rafah crossing for Gaza cuts off a key aid route into the territory for example. That it has not been re-opened since is, according to Israel and only Israel, on Egypt. That does not in any way make what al-Jazeera reported false, and this repeated effort to claim so through a tendentious accounting of what happened is only evidence of the bias of this request, not of al-Jazeera's. nableezy - 21:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What a waste of editors time. Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69012303 I suppose there is a row over who is to blame at the Rafah crossing. But honestly considering what has happened at the other crossings controlled by Israel are we actually supposed to believe Israel isn't effectively blocking this one as well? In that BBC article it talks about a full blown famine in northern Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My call - all of this is WP:RECENTISM. It’s a war zone. That certain crossings or areas are currently inaccessible isn’t surprising or noteworthy. Next week it will be some other crossing or some other area. NOT NEWS! Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reasonable call on the face of it but...this is all linked to the aid/starvation issue -> no crossings = no aid = starvation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would still say too RECENT. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Then the entire war is too recent on that basis. We should all stop editing immediately. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's recent. But if anything, a news organization (such as AJ) has a responsibility to either (or both) identify their information as preliminary, estimated, etc., and/or engage[] in fact-checking and ha[ve] a reputation for accuracy [as signaled by the] publication of corrections - quote is from that section of NEWSORG with minor edits bracketed to make it fit the sentence. AJ has done neither in some cases - they've deliberately said Israel bombed at a time that they didn't (as verified by other news organizations outside the region), they've stated that a certain number of people died without identifying it as an initial report, and even worse, even after the information was corrected by the hospital not only did they not publish a correction, but they published another new article with the now-known incorrect information...

A news organization has an even higher editorial responsibility with the accuracy of its "breaking news" or similar reports. Al Jazeera doesn't routinely publish corrections and has been shown to continue parroting incorrect information even in articles they write and publish well after the information is corrected. That is not the responsible editorial practice we expect - well, we don't even know, because they don't even publish a corrections policy, and there is no method to contact them to ask for a story to be corrected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Echoing what Nishidani said above, attempts to remove AJ from wikipedia will worsen our WP:Systemic bias. Currently, of the 5-10 news sources listed at WP:RSP that are at least partially based in the Arab and Muslim world, AJ is the only one considered reliable. We are artificially creating an WP:SBEXTERNAL problem by axing sources coming from a large fraction of the world.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

agree Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree vehemently. Systemic bias is already a problem of titanic size and scope...why we would go out of our way to proactively make it worse is unfathomable to me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This argument would forbid the designation as unreliable of any source whose inclusion would superficially remedy geographic biases on Wikipedia. Sources that get facts wrong should be treated differently. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sources getting the facts wrong is concerning. However, plenty of RS get facts wrong, without us re-examining their reliability. I find that editors are often very excited to downgrade non-western sources for minor offenses that would never lead to downgrading a western source.

One example that I often cite: The New York Times, deliberately and over an extended period of time, repeated misinformation fed to them by the CIA about Iraq's WMD program. The terms "misinformation" and "propaganda" are both used by multiple high-quality RS to describe the NYT's coverage of the WMD story. NYT's misleading reporting played a significant role in generating support for the invasion of Iraq, which was a pointless war, based on lies, that resulted in misery, death, pain, and destruction on a level that is almost unfathomable. Oops. If we were to measure "unreliability" in terms of real-world harm caused by misleading reporting, the NYT would be a candidate for the most unreliable source in modern history, surpassed only by WWII-era German newspapers that promoted the Holocaust.

The NYT has a documented history of spreading misinformation about other topics, as well, such as Israel/Palestine and trans issues. My user page has a (woefully incomplete) list of RS that have covered NYT's misinformation, factual mistakes, and propagandistic content. Yet to my knowledge, there has never been serious consideration of downgrading NYT's reliability - and at this point, I'm fine with NYT being labeled "generally reliable"...although if we downgrade Al Jazeera on the basis of "they've made a handful of factual errors", I'm going to emphatically insist that we downgrade NYT as well.

My point is: I find that many editors are quick to suggest downgrading non-western sources (or sources critical of western governments) for peccadillos that would never lead to a re-assessment of a consistently pro-western-government source like NYT. We all know that if a source uncritically repeated talking points that came straight from the FSB in order to justify Russia's unprovoked invasion of another country, that source would have been deprecated immediately.

I have observed a double standard here that does, indeed, deepen systemic bias, and for that reason, I'm not convinced that a re-assessment of Al Jazeera is appropriate, their occasional factual blunders notwithstanding. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

agreed. If nothing else, for Israel-Palestine, if Al Jazeera says something particularly biased, we already give attribution.

Sidenote: It appears this topic was opened in retailiation for the change (?) in status for ADL when discussion Israel-Palestine... Which practically is just still giving attribution to any claim made by ADL on the topic? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this source is biased, but this does not disqualify it per WP:V, just as sources on the other side like Anti-Defamation League and Times of Israel (discussed recently on this noticeboard). It is another matter that it frequently makes errors tilted to the certain side of the conflict, as illustrated in the discussion above. As about balancing one POV by another POV (assuming they are reliably published), I think it follows from WP:NPOV but rather skeptical about good content created by political partisans. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• If a source is deliberately reporting false information, and does not abide by our expectations of issuing corrections/retractions to correct themselves, then that's a good bias for us to have. WP:RS is not only policy but is one of our most important policies. We should never lessen our requirements for reliability in the name of "avoiding systemic bias". I also don't think this discussion is advocating for AJ not being reliable overall - but in terms of their reporting about the country of Israel and the territories of Palestine, they have demonstrated a lack of reliability. Wikipedia isn't here to create the news, or to "fix" the lack of reliable news from a certain part of the world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The claim that they have reported "false information" is hogwash, based only on the idea that sources that regurgitate Israeli army press briefings should be accepted as gospel and those that do not as liars. But that is not, last I checked, how Wikipedia worked. nableezy - 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not hogwash, though, because three solid cases of them providing false information, not issuing any retraction or correction, and deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers have been shown above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  That remains to be seen. Considering that most of the rest of the "frequent" examples turned out to be not so solid after all. AJ is green at RSP for a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Each of the claims of a solid case of them providing false information fails further scrutiny. The claim that they are deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers is fantasy. nableezy - 22:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which ones? And is there independent verification besides what Israel says? NadVolum (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  al-Sardi school casualties, Second Intifada violence, and Nuseirat bombing timing.

  1. US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis

     Claims Fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women and at least 74 other people were wounded in their own voice. This is false. Several hours before the article was published the organization that provided the death toll corrected the figures from an initial report of fourteen children and nine women to nine children and three women. This has independent verification by al-Aqsa hospital and AP.

  2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts

     Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false, as documented by a multitude of sources, with widespread gunfights, use of petrol bombs, and rioting. This has independent verification from countless sources who document this violence in their own voice.

  3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza

     Claims that prior to Israeli forces reaching the apartments the hostages were held Israeli forces started bombing from above, hitting the busy market the hardest, likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false; multiple independent sources have documented this in their own voice and relying on reports from reporters on the ground and Palestinian witnesses. Instead, the bombing did not start until after the Israeli forces arrived at the apartments.

  Importantly, these errors all advance a specific point of view; Al Jazeera is indisputably a partisan source, and this demonstrates that they present false information in support of it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  All three of these have been discussed, and your claim that any of them is false, rather than in the first instance based on information that was later changed, in the second also backed up by other sources, and finally based on different eyewitnesses is, as discussed above, based on nothing but your own perspective. You want us to say that these other sources are right and this source is wrong, and there is zero basis for it. And for the first, an Al-Jazeera report says The hospital morgue later amended those records to show the dead included three women, nine children, and 21 men. It was not immediately clear what caused the discrepancy. nableezy - 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the first, the information was changed before the article was published, not after. Al Jazeera also puts the claim in its own voice, so it doesn't matter that someone else was incorrect first. Finally, publishing the correct information in a brief live blog post doesn't address the issue of publishing false information in articles - no more than previously saying the Second Intifada began with fighting between Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian resistance addresses the issue of later publishing false information contrary to that.

  The others I think I've sufficiently proved with reference to large numbers of reliable sources, and so won't discuss again here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Largely nonviolent is not no violence, that is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. And it was not false information, it was information that was based on what was being reported by health officials, and an AP reporter per ABC (Australia) for that matter, at the time (that source says The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in the nearby town of Deir al-Balah received at least 33 dead from the strike, including 14 children and nine women, according to hospital records and an Associated Press reporter at the hospital.) Again, a tendentious reading of the source. nableezy - 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not at the time; Al-Aqsa Hospital had corrected it hours earlier. And even if they hadn't, Al Jazeera put the information in their own voice. A reliable source needs to be able determine what is appropriate to publish as fact in its own voice and what to attribute, and when it makes a mistake issue a correction. If they fail to do this then we are unable to trust that information a source publishes as fact in its own voice is true, which is the definition of an unreliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. That article links to their story on the attack, which attributes the number to the Media Office. An analysis that is focused on the weapons used and not the casualties is being used here as though they are just making up the numbers. nableezy - 00:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reliable sources that publish articles based on information that is later “changed” are expected, by our policies and our editors, to not only issue retractions, corrections, or to edit their coverage accordingly, but to do so in a timely manner. The evidence shown is that there are articles based on “changed” or “inaccurate” information that have gone over a week without such a response from Al Jazeera. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well then youve got a problem with Reuters as well for not updating their initial reporting either. nableezy - 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Reuters doesn't put the claim in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  They also dont update that the source updated their information. And, as I said above, you are distorting the in their own voice bit here. That is a story on the weapons used and links to their article on the attack where the material is indeed attributed. nableezy - 00:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Reuters has a mechanism to report errors - so report it to them and see what they do with that report. We don't expect sources to be perfect. We do expect them to be a) open to feedback from other news organizations and the public, b) have a clear mechanism to request changes/corrections to articles with inaccuracies, c) seriously investigate any reports of errors and determine if changes/retraction are needed, and d) clearly publish and make clear when a retraction/change was necessary for people who had read the prior inaccurate information.

  Reuters has a history of being very good at retractions and corrections when necessary. Sometimes they do this in a brand new article, acknowledging past errors. That said, even if Reuters has failed on this one topic/data point, that does not significantly change the fact that their history is, unlike Al Jazeera, one of quickly correcting and publicly doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

AJ reports unreliable information, which was pointed again and again in RFCs. My RFC a few months ago was closed for example because of completely unrelated issues such as "name calling".

The method seems to be very clear - every time there's a factual issue with AJ, here's a 101 Wikipedia tactic on how to solve it:

1. Claim it's the first time, or happens only once, and does not show any systemic issue / bias.

2. Claim that AJ retracts the article (even though it doesn't always happen, and when it does, if you keep on publishing false information and retracting it because of backlash - that is not the hallmark of a reliable source).

3. Claim that AJ Arabic is different than AJ English, even though the report is against AJ English.

4. Claim that it already says that it's biased on the conflict, even though the current wording makes the impression that AJ Arabic is the only real issue.

5. Claim that AJ is the only reliable source in the Arab world, i.e. prefer to lower the standards, ignore the issues, and claim it's reliable because "we have no other choice", which is a fallacy and problematic in many dimensions at best. Being the big one is certainly not the only one, and does not make a source reliable giving factually true information. Unless of course you believe RT because it's the biggest in Russia or any other "biggest", "only option" or anything else.

6. When that fails - start claiming that the authors of the RFC or the responders are Jewish / Israeli / whatever so they're biased, which is what happened multiple times in the last RFC - effectively saying that Israelis or Jews can never be reliable for anything related to Israel. Speaking of bias...

7. Close the RFC because of those unrelated comments regarding the intent of the RFC opener, completely disregarding that about 50% of the editors deemed it unreliable, and the actual faults found.

That's exactly what happened time and time again, and I wouldn't be surprised if it'll happen again here. That's why I have stopped contributing - that system cannot be fought against, and because we have Israeli editors on this discussion, their voices don't matter anyway per point 6 and as evident by the closing of the last RFCs. The only solution left is to be submissive and claim it's reliable because we said so. Bar Harel (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal you're playing against a biased system claiming it's reliable. If AJ will claim that aliens launched a nuclear bomb on Russia and retract it, they still count as reliable according to Wikipedia's standards as evident by the dozen RFCs against AJ. If it can't be verified because the bomb went in the sea and did not explode, then they get the benefit of the doubt as "no one can be sure what happened". Even if it would be deemed incorrect by a dozen different countries, it wouldn't matter as it's "the only Arab source", so they can effectively say whatever they want. There is no way that Wikipedia will deem AJ as unreliable, even if people writing its opinions column would kidnap hostages. Wait a minute... Bar Harel (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In terms of systemic bias, there are other news sources such as The New Arab and Al Arabiya, both which were created in response to to Al Jazeera’s bias.

From the New Arab Wikipedia article: In 2015, Fadaat launched Al Araby TV Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera and its perceived bias.

From Al Arabiya: An early funder, the production company Middle East News (then headed by Ali Al-Hedeithy), said the goal was to provide "a balanced and less provocative" alternative to Al Jazeera.

I think The New Arab and Al Arabiya should be on Wikipedia’s reliable sources list. I do not like Al Jazeera because of their biased reporting of witnesses on Al Shifa siege. The hospital director who lied on Israel not providing fuel and incubators (there was photo evidence of incubators) and the false witness who said the IDF raped people and set their dogs on them. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of retractions and corrections

One of the characteristics of a reliable news organization is that it engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy [such as] the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. I would love to see evidence of Al Jazeera's correction/retraction policy, and how readers/others can request review of an article for a correction/retraction. The only thing they have anywhere prominent is in their "Code of Ethics", which states Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. - one sentence that isn't actually followed as evidenced by the re-use of old numbers in articles published after the numbers were corrected by their source - and no corrections on any of the articles.

As comparisons, the following news organizations all post their corrections/retractions policy publicly and visibly (linked from every page or at most from one level down from any homepage/article): NYT (linked from Contact Us prominently as "Report an Error in Coverage"), NBC (Contact Us, linked on bottom of every page, and direct emails for authors/editors provided on every article), Australian Broadcasting Corp (Linked from Editorial Standards, themselves linked from every page), BBC (linked from Contact Us), [SCMP https://www.scmp.com/policies-and-standards#corrections] (Linked from Policies and Standards in footer of every page), Reuters (corrections link at bottom of every page), Associated Press (linked from Contact Us and other places), The Globe and Mail (entire policy posted and contact us links to a request), The Guardian (Complaints and Corrections linked from every page). And this isn't just limited to western/developed world sources - even sources such as The Wire (India) (RSP generally reliable, clear information on contact page of how to report errors), The Hindu (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us to the editor and published editorial policy), Indian Express (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us for reporting issues), Kommersant (RSP generally reliable but questioned, clear feedback for errors), Rappler (RSP generally reliable, published editorial policies and AI policies)...

This is just a sampling of sources rated as GREL on RSP, trying to pick from all around the world, or that editors seem to consider GREL from my memory. I've also included some that are "yellow" (unclear, add'l considerations, etc) or only reliable for some topics - because ultimately, even those sources tend to have published editorial policies, published corrections policies, a specific form for reporting errors/corrections, and/or have a clear link to corrections from their homepage/articles. Al Jazeera does not have a published editorial policy aside from "Code of Ethics" which is woefully lacking, and does not have a clear mechanism for reporting corrections/errors - only a general "feedback" form that does not mention errors anywhere. Obviously it's not necessarily required that a news organization go as far as to publish an entire editorial policy online, but a reputable and reliable source as shown by most other reliable sources will at a minimum have some evidence of accepting error reports and posting corrections in a timely manner. In fact, the one full retraction I can find evidence occurred during their coverage of the conflict was the removal (without any record) of an interview/article that had been up for over 24 hours regarding IDF soldiers raping civilians. Stories were edited/removed after the better part of 24 hours without so much as a formal acknowledgement of their inaccuracy in the first place.

Given that the editorial procedure is important in determining whether a source can be considered reliable or not, do editors have any other evidence that suggests that Al Jazeera complies with having a robust editorial policy and the issuance of timely, and publicized, retractions when they do get something wrong? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Here's Al-Jazeera's editorial policy. It literally only took Googling al-Jazeera editorial policy to find it. Loki (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Namely pp.25ff.Nishidani (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading these, and the ones provided below by Starship.paint, they all seem to be concerned with live broadcasts (it is mandatory to swiftly rectify any error committed during any bulletin or live show, apologize to viewers, etc). Is there one that applies to their website?

It also mentions publishing corrections to the Aljazeera Net webpage. Can anyone find that? Unfortunately, my ability to search for it is limited as I don't read Arabic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One shouldn’t have to result to “googling” it to find a corrections/error reporting policy for a reliable news source. Reliable news sources openly admit they make errors sometimes because nobody is perfect, and they make it easy to report them and see their policy for actioning them, including publicly admitting and correcting.

Not to mention, as identified below, that Code Of Conduct references broadcast media, their TV - not their website at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

One should be able to put a random string of letters into a url and just conjure up their policy? Huh. nableezy - 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If I am on the homepage of a news site, I should not have to “google” their policy for retractions or corrections, nor how (or if it’s even possible) to report errors to them. Every comparison I identified above has their policy linked clearly, most with the words “correction”, “errors”, or similar - from either their main page or their contact us page (itself linked from the main page). Al Jazeera has only a one sentence “nothing burger” in their Code of Ethics, and no mechanism for reporting errors that’s clearly labeled as such. Further, please feel free to engage with their retraction frequency and show some evidence that they actually do retract articles with errors on the same or similar frequency to other reliable news organizations. Hint, they often don’t, and the few times they do is often simply by removing an article altogether, with no public acknowledgement of the error or public statement of retraction/correction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See also, Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. Found within a minute or so. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I did reference the Code of Ethics. The long PDF listed above refers to broadcast errors.

Even if they intend to apply that to print/digital prose news, the evidence suggests they do not apply it. Googling for retractions and corrections on their website shows no more than one every couple years. Not what’s expected if they’re correcting a majority of the errors they’re publishing.

Furthermore, them having a long PDF and a short version of the same words that references broadcast does not mean they actually make it easy to report errors, actually investigate those errors, and take action on those errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Avenue to submit errors for Al Jazeera: link What would you like to provide feedback on? / I would like to provide content feedback / Please choose one of the following options: / Content Suggestion / Content Correction starship.paint (RUN) 02:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, thanks for finding that. The problem is that I searched - I spent the better part of 45 minutes doing research for this section - and I looked all over the contact us form(s) listed on their website, and nowhere does it suggest that by clicking on "AJ English feedback" will I get the option to report an error. If you review the contact forms I identified above, most allow a simple email to be sent - and those that don't present the error submission form either by clicking a link that goes straight to it, or prominently giving an option for error correction on the page without having to select other things first. So no, I do not consider it equivalent to the other reliable sources I'm comparing it to, because you have to click contact us, be presented with general enquiries, then somehow know that it's under "AJ English feedback" that gives you the option to submit a correction.

  And this is honestly slightly off topic - the discussion is also over what they do with the corrections/errors reported - because they do not issue timely corrections/retractions, and on the rare chance they do, they usually simply remove the article rather than actually publicly acknowledging and remedying their error. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Believe they call ^^^ moving the goalposts. nableezy - 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I made the goalposts clear in my original opening of this section. My goal is for any editor that has actual evidence that their editorial policy has more teeth for their internet news coverage (not their broadcast media) than the one sentence Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. Furthermore, and to begin, it would be great if any editors could actually provide any evidence that they follow that one sentence, given that the only retractions I find that their English language site has published are from 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018, 2015... and going through the first 100 or so Google results (as I've been doing so far) for retraction site:aljazeera.com shows no more than 1 per year generally speaking, and often times none. Of note, there has not been a retraction since May of 2022 - at least not one that was publicly retracted rather than just deleting an article. This is quite odd - have they simply stopped making errors in 2022? They've become perfect? It's quite difficult to investigate corrections/edits added to the top of an article, or put inline within an article - but please feel free to provide proof that they actually do issue them more frequently than ~0-1 per year overall.

  And especially proof that they've issued retractions, corrections, or error notices for articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict - as only one of those retractions, and the one from way back in 2015 at that - was related to Israel or Palestine in large part. I find it very hard to believe that with all of the reporting Al Jazeera has done, and noted factual inaccuracies or ambiguities as above, that they have not made an error requiring retraction or public correction while covering the Israel-Palestine topics in almost a decade. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It would require significant time for other editors to do the necessary research to find corrections or retractions there were. We don’t have a file of Al Jazeera corrections lying around in our computers, so the evidence is not going to magically appear just because you asked for it. You had the advantage of knowing you wanted to open this talk page section. For other editors this is just being dropped on our heads. starship.paint (RUN) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not asking for it to be presented now, and I don’t think there needs to be a deadline for presenting it. I opened this section so that other editors could attempt to refute the appearance of a lack of corrections/retractions. I understand that this is going to take time, and that’s one reason why I haven’t supported BilledMammal going and opening an RfC on the subject. That’s the whole point of this notice board, is it not? I did some preliminary research that suggests two problems - 1) their retraction policy for internet news is only one sentence, and the method to report issues is obfuscated behind multiple contact links and is not clearly stated, and 2) that either because of reason 1 (difficult to find report for your average reader) or another reason such as unreliability as a whole, that their retraction and correction rate seems to be lower than expected for a source publishing as frequently as they do. This is, for that reason, a very pertinent request to make - for any editors who wish to to begin researching so that, in the event an RfC is opened, the information has already been found and editors don’t have to then go hunting for it with a deadline of “before the RfC closes”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Objective statement in WikiVoice or an opinion requiring attribution for Swift album

Does the following statement, to be added to The Tortured Poets Department, require in-text attribution or can it be stated objectively in WIKIVOICE:

"The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions."

Sources for this statement are:

• "Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17." Romano, Aja (June 1, 2024). "Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the Feud Real? Who's Dissing Who?". Vox. (Romano is a culture reporter with over a decade of experience; see WP:RSPVOX)
• "There was a moment, late in the week, when it looked as if Brat would debut at No 1. Then, on Thursday, Swift stepped in: at 6.57pm, Taylor Nation, Swift’s public-facing PR arm, which interacts with fans and provides news and updates, announced the release of six deluxe reissues of her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), each with different additional live versions and voice memos, available only in the UK until 11:59pm that evening – the end of the tracking week for the album charts. (The new releases bring the total number of TTPD variants to 34.)" D'Souza, Shaad (June 14, 2024). "Taylor Swift May Have Captured the Charts, Cut Charli XCX Captured the Zeitgeist". The Guardian. (See WP:THEGUARDIAN)
• "Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish are poised to have a heated chart battle this week as Eilish’s latest album, Hit Me Hard And Soft, will compete with The Tortured Poets Department to top the Billboard 200 albums chart, as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales"; "Releasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." Murray, Conor (May 23, 2024). "Taylor Swift Could Block Billie Eilish From Debuting New Album At No. 1 As Fan Rivalry Grows". Forbes. (Murray is a Forbes staff writer, which means his article falls under the generally reliable standard of WP:FORBES)

Previous discussion can be found here. Pinging Ronherry as the other editor involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is fine without attribution.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to provide attribution, such as: "According to some journalists, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts—a method other artists have also used to bolster album sales and chart performance." ℛonherry☘ 17:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But why is such attribution for a well-sourced, objective statement necessary? This is the consensus of multiple reliable sources. Also, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts unnecessarily makes Swift a passive actor in the release of multiple versions and deletes the sourced statement regarding active fan engagement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Like you stated before, we've already discussed in circles in the talk page. My response here is simply providing an alternative way of phrasing the prose you added. I'm not placing an argument here. But to answer your question, it's simply because it's not "objective". The sources state it is Swift's intention to release multiple editions to stay at the top spot, but how could any source know Swift's intention unless she stated it herself? I'd like to highlight WP:V here. As it's the source's belief that she is doing it for that reason, this is why attribution is important. If unattributed, it would not be neutral and would just pushing a POV. An objective statement would be "Swift released an edition", whereas a subjective opinion would go on to guess why she released an edition. Opinions about a release, just like the critical reception section, must be attributed to the source(s). ℛonherry☘ 10:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a guess, though. This is a known marketing strategy, described as such by not critics but rather reporters. In any case, we now have a decent consensus in favor of including this information. If you want, you can appeal elsewhere, but three editors to one seems fairly conclusive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. This discussion here is barely a day old. Excluding you and me, only two other editors have expressed their opinions. I'm not going to edit the contended prose during an ongoing discussion like you just did, but I have to let you know there's no hurry. I'll wait till more editors show up. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to leave it unattributed given the certainty and unanimity in sources. XeCyranium (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think attribution is warranted here. It is a strong consensus of sources without any contradictory evidence.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing a need for attribution. This isn't an opinion like 'the album has some of the most stirring music of the generation' or 'Swift's lyrics are well-worn but effective' (to just invent some hypothetical statements that would require attribution). The sentence/claim in question an observation that involves some interpretation, but in the way that, say, a historian or social scientist or journalist interprets human behavior as an observer attempting objectivity, not as a critic assessing subjective merit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Absent the actor’s statement of intent, we should attribute historians who assert about the motivations behind an act. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Curiously enough, 90% of my edits are related the attribution of viewpoints. That's not what our rules on sources state, nor is it how they are used in practice. If we do not have a statement on the intentions of a historical actor, but all historians who voice an opinion agree on those motivations, there is no need to attribute.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that needs attribution. Any reader would wonder if Swift or her camp actually stated that, or if it was the impression of the stunt received by critics and journalists. It's the latter; attribute. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, only Vox comes out and says "Swift did this so she could stay on the charts". The others intimate it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If Swift or her team provided a rationale for why they released multiple versions of the same album, that would require attribution. Multiple reliable sources acknowledging a widespread market trend do not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A market trend, sure. But an assertion about intent? What privileged insight could these sources have into the motivation behind releasing lazy deluxe issues? We have to consider how this sort of motivation gets ascribed in music journalism—it’s not because they got a memo. They’re surmising. But actually in this case they’re not even stating their guesses, they’re just nudging about it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you square the Forbes source saying "as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales" with just nudging about it. Either way, the journalists are surmising and publishing researched claims subject to editorial processes. Nor is anyone suggesting Swift is just accidentally releasing multiple versions. According to Wikipedia, that's what characterizes an objective statement, rather than a subjective appraisal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

East India Story

I'm wondering if East India Story is a reliable source, specifically to support the biographical information in Dasari Subrahmanyam. The article about him has a named writer. The website's About page says "There is need to clear this wronged image and showcase the splendor of this entire region in all its social and cultural splendour", but I cannot definitively tell from this how much or what bias the writing on the site has, and how much oversight or quality control there is. I see that the website requests submissions, but again it's not clear whether this is effectively self-published or user-generated content or whether there are processes to prevent publication of inaccurate material. The About page says that "www.eastindiastory.com is a product of Dream Alchemist LLP", but I can't find much about that company either. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The profiles of authors on the website suggest that this is more of a venue for hobbyist-writers than an edited and fact-checked publication. And the purple prose of the particular piece jam-packed with superlatives, doesn't engender trust either. It would be better instead to track down the 2011 India Today issue in which Subrahmanyam was apparently profiled or the biography by Dasari Venkata Ramana. Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Harry Benson in the Marriage Foundation for online dating divorce trends?

At online dating, there is some disagreement about the reliability of a source concerning divorce rates of people who met through online dating.

The source is Relative Strangers, Harry Benson, Marriage Foundation, 2021

Harry Benson is a pro-marriage advocate who is a team member of the Marriage Foundation. His profile at Marriage Foundation is available in this link.

My position is that this is a self-published source, and it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. I am unable to find evidence that Benson could be considered a subject matter expert. CommonKnowledgeCreator, on the other hand, disagrees. He suggests that it doesn't really matter if the source is self-published or not, and that Benson may in fact have training on statistics (he is currently a doctoral student).

The talk page discussion at the Wiki article can be found here.

Thanks for reading. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

[197]

The source that is being reintroduced in that diff quotes unnamed band official as "attesting" to a "paucity of excavation work and absence of bones", which is, I guess, *one* way of saying that the community is divided about whether to excavate any remains that are found, and therefore there have not been any excavations to date. The source's exquisite drive for accuracy and meticulous attention to detail is reflected in its quote from one of the foremost denialists of residential school deaths, whom it refers to as "she" even though his name is Jacques. This is not a mistake a Canadian publication would make, and indeed, it is owned by a corporation based in India. It is most certainly not an authority on indigenous affairs in British Columbia and by no means the only source available about the underground radar findings in Kamloops. 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Code Talker: reinserted the material, along with another uncited sentence to the same effect. Perhaps he has reasons he would like to share. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw this when following a link to the page on WP:RPPI and I was also doubting that this was a proper source. It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

PS I have just noticed the Times of India RfC above. This website is owned by the same corporation as the Times of India. Elinruby (talk) NB - Daniel Case just now ec-protected the article but a good 40% of the issues are coming from editors with accounts, so this is not resolved. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) @CodeTalker:

Well, if those edits are coming from autoconfirmed accounts, it is. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case Don't get me wrong. Because the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc were the first to announce underground radar findings, Kamloops Indian Residential School is the nexus of the denialism, and protecting it is huge. I have removed this sort of stuff from these articles...too many times. So what you did allows long-standing accounts but not new ones, is that what you are saying? I am not sure how many edits everyone has but this will definitely cut down on the Sandy Hook BS that's been going on. So thank you. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

EC is 50 days and 300 edits. We can also revoke it if it is abused. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

noting here that the source was previously reverted back in [198] by Riposte97, who may wish to comment. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby claiming that editors who disagree with you are engaged in 'denialism' and 'Sandy Hook BS' is simply not productive.

Regarding the source, I think it should logically follow the Times of India RfC as a subsidiary thereof. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Western Standard as a source for Canadian residential schools

Does westernstandard.news seem like a good source for residential schools in Canada? I have my own opinion but I would prefer to hear yours. The sentence is: In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This was at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I removed it because the allocation was already mentioned and cited and it did not seem notable to me that the band had no particular comment. As mentioned elsewhere, there are literally hundreds of RS and at least dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles that discuss these findings. Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I just discovered the following on the talk page: [199] Riposte97 may wish to comment. Since I removed the material today, apparently this discussion was ignored, despite the suggestion from FJ that dispute resolution might be appropriate. Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)@Fluorescent Jellyfish:Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone with no connection to Canada except as an occasional visitor and only a vague outsider's understanding of the problems with the residential schools and Canadian treatment of First Nations more generally, after comparison with our article, the linked newspaper article comes off as a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers. Your talk page link confirms a likely bias. I don't know about the newspaper's reliability in general but I think we should avoid using this source; I'm sure better sources can be found for this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's being used for the bare claim that no bodies have yet been found. The allocation need not be used if there are NPOV concerns. However, it's an essential fact that no bodies have been confirmed through exhumation, as the core claim relies on this work being done. Merely pointing out that this has not yet occurred does not a 'hit piece' make. Riposte97 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not the facts in the story that make it a hit piece, but the way those facts are cherry-picked and carefully ordered to cause readers to draw an inference. If we did the same thing in a Wikipedia article it would be a violation of WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection with Canada other than I've visited annually for most of my life. However, I have researched residential schools in the US and Canada quite extensively. The reliability of this source should be questioned. I agree with David. This piece seems to be written to delegitimize the claim because of the absence of evidence while the scene is still being investigated. If they had simply stated "no bodies have been recovered, at this point, but evidence is still being gathered" that would be an accurate statement but that would also not generate as many clicks. There is an obvious bias here but the bias isn't the issue. It is in what they wrote and how they wrote it. Because of this I would say we shouldn't use this source for this subject material. I would need to evaluate their reporting on other subjects to judge their reliability in those instances. --ARoseWolf 12:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not familiar with this source, but it appears to be a website/online publication, so out of principle I would prefer an actual newspaper like The Catholic Register, which can be used to source the same claim: No accounting for burial sites’ funding. Astaire (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never been to Canada (and I'm not sure why we're all announcing whether we have or not), and in any case I'm inclined to agree with ARoseWolf and David Eppstein that this Western Standard piece and its citation to support the sentence OP pointed out is not a WP:BESTSOURCE and seems quite skewed and undependable. As David Eppstein phrases, Western Standard seems to be attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money [and] haven't produced immediate results. I agree with not using this source for this subject material. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't use it. The WS does not have a reputation for reliability, nor does it have the trappings of a reliable source. I have traveled to Canada. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone who aspires one day to visit Canada, I just wanted to add that bias =/= a reason to exclude a source, especially for factual claims. There is nothing to suggest that WS isn't reliable. We may need an RfC to resolve the question definitively. Riposte97 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I provided extensive evidence that Western Standard is unreliable, in my original responses to Riposte97's refusal to allow my edit. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this and starting this discussion here!

As mentioned by @Elinruby@Elinruby I wrote an extensive reply providing evidence that Western Standard is not a reliable sorcery (after my original edits were reverted by Riposte97).

To quote myself (hopefully that's all right):

In real life I research disinformation, misinformation, and the Canadian far-right. I'm familiar with the Western Standard from my work. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Dorchester Review, again

Is The Dorchester Review reliable for the statement A tooth and rib were found in the area in the 1990s and early 2000s, both of which were of animal origin. that is for some reason currently in the lede of Kamloops Indian Residential School? The Wikipedia article for the Review says: In 2022, the Review posted an article by Jacques Rouillard on their blog, suggesting there was no concrete evidence of mass unmarked burials at Indian Residential Schools. which was cited in an article in the United Kingdom's The Spectator. In 2022, Canada's Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Marc Miller expressed concern about the rise of residential school denialism and rebuked those that criticized "the nature and validity of these and other recovery efforts" following the announcement of the discovery of potentially unmarked grave at the St Joseph's Mission School. In a Dorchester Review blog entry, Tom Flanagan and Brian Giesbrecht replied to Miller. In another Review blog post, anthropologist Hymie Rubenstein challenged Miller's statement about the reliability of indigenous knowledge.Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Dorchester Review article mentions neither a tooth nor a rib being discovered, animal or otherwise. There is some discussion in the comments of that article about childrens' teeth/bones which have allegedly been found, but comments by pseudonymous members of the public are clearly not a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Not only do I think we should probably avoid that source, but I think the claims regarding teeth and bones are, as Caeciliusinhorto noted, wholly original to comments made on the article. I would support removal of that spurious claim that was originally made by an unqualified internet commentator who was seeking to delegitimize the search for buried bodies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Another season, another Bluey source up for grabs

Weeks after "The Sign's" DYK appearance, another Series 3 episode--Cricket (Bluey) (draft)--is more or less likely to meet WP:NEPISODE if we persevere hard enough. If this essay below passes WP:RS, then let me know and I'll give it a go soon enough. (Thankfully, the source site du jour does have a WP article, but I'm asking here in advance as a precaution.)

• Kaplowitz, Matthew (2024-02-20) [2024-01-16]. "The Most Popular Bluey Episode in Australia Hits Way Different in the US". Fatherly. Bustle Digital Group. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)