Talk:Press TV

Serious problems on Criticism section

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

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

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

You may or may not be the author of that POV blog article written by a guy with an Ethiopian name that you keep trying to insert into the text. That's beside the point. What matters is that it is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's WP:SELFPUBLISHED policy against the use of blogs and other similarly subjective sources. Nothing "strange" about that, I'm afraid. Nobody, moreover, is "randomly" deleting whole sections because we "want to keep any of the criticism of Press TV from the public record". Far from it. It's your way of going about proving your point that's the problem, as other editors and I have already very clearly explained in our edit summaries. Besides the liberal use of self-published sources, you've also repeatedly attempted to insert material that makes an effort to connect point A with point B (i.e. synthesis) to advance a position rather than support your argument through legitimate means by citing sources that directly and explicitly support your point. Your edit employs weasel words, ostensibly to try and make its contents sound as convincing as possible (e.g. The Iranian media's Somali reporters are widely believed to be Shabelle Media Network reporters whose license was revoked years ago by the Somalia government after the government accused them of reporting extreme bias in favor of the insurgents and the insurgent leadership based in Asmara, Eritrea). Most incredibly, however, is that almost your entire edit cites the very Press TV articles that it is criticizing as "proof" of its point. This is quite possibly the most obvious and patently silly instance of original research on the page. In short, there's nothing wrong with criticizing Press TV. It's a media outlet, and therefore beholden to the public so that's to be expected. What isn't acceptable, however, is the use of no sources, blog sources, Press TV articles themselves (!), weasel words, and synthesis to try and get one's point across. If you want to re-insert your material, you'll have to heavily edit it down beforehand to keep in line with Wiki policies. This means new, non-partisan, reliable sources, as well as a neutral point of view (no weasel words, fairness of tone, etc.). Causteau (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources

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

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

In short, the entire edit is a pretty obvious attempt at synthesis and editorializing, both of which are against Wiki policies. The WP:SPAs don't exactly inspire confidence either. Causteau (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

No, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to "report" anything. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but an encyclopedia. It is our job to relay facts from reliable sources that directly and explicitly support our assertions. From WP:RS:

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

This edit that not one, not two, but three separate single-purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) -- all of which have been created within the past few days -- have attempted to insert into the Press TV article does not do that. I've clearly demonstrated this in my analysis above, and two other long-time editors have likewise already confirmed this in their edit summaries. Instead, the edit pieces together information from different sources to arrive at a conclusion which the sources themselves do not reach. From WP:SYNTH:

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

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

Also note that the Press TV article has a history of being targeted by confirmed sockpuppets, so these instances of original research added by the aforementioned single-purpose accounts are not to be taken lightly. Causteau (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm afraid neither the Jewish Chronicle nor the Jerusalem Post articles are reliable sources. For one thing, the Israel-based Jerusalem Post has been labeled as "pro-Likud" by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, effectively rendering its neutral status moot. The article on the Jewish Chronicle website, in turn, is an opinion piece. This is obvious given the article's many disparaging value judgements:

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I don't agree but it sounds very reasonable. Perhaps the fact that I am German makes me biased. (We do have a law specifically against denying the holocaust, and for good reason. See Laws against Holocaust denial: "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type [killing a member of a national, racial, religious or ethnic group with the intent of destroying the group], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.") If Press TV had published the Kollerstrom article in German, the fact would be reported in all major German and Austrian newspapers, so it's hard for me to accept that some people may simply not care about this at all. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I am not familiar with the Jerusalem Post, but I am prepared to accept what you say about it. It is also blatantly obvious that the Jewish Chronicle article is far from neutral, to put it mildly. I think some (I hope all, but I am not sure) of your arguments are only applicable to the sockpuppets' editorialising edits. It seems to me that the information is relevant to this article because it seriously undermines the credibility of this news source. So the question (for me) is only whether any of our policy safeguards against fringe editing prevent us from doing the right thing here. Where do you see the main obstacle against a sentence that is functionally equivalent to the following? " --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to quote for me the Laws against Holocaust denial (how exactly is that relevant to our talk page discussion?). At any rate, here's regarding the rest of your post: We cannot reference the Jewish Chronicle article because, again, it is an opinion piece. I've amply demonstrated this in my latest post above. Michele Renouf also asserts on her website that the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece was based on a post by one "David T" on his own blog. If you follow the link through to that post on his blog, it's not hard to see that she is probably telling the truth since said post by "David T", which was contributed on May 22nd, 2008, is virtually identical to the Jewish Chronicle article posted by "David Toube" only seven days later on May 29th, 2008 (aside from the fact that David T/David Toube is a lot less restrained on his own website). As for the Jerusalem Post, it's not me that you should decide whether or not to believe; it's the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its description of the Jerusalem Post as "pro-Likud". Also note that, according to the Historical Jewish Press, the Jerusalem Post used to be known as the Palestine Post, was "established in Jerusalem in 1932 as part of a Zionist-Jewish initiative", and "Zionist institutions considered the newspaper one of the most effective means of exerting influence on the British authorities". In short, the Jewish Chronicle and Jerusalem Post articles are unreliable, questionable sources and therefore unusable. Per WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

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

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

I don't understand your point about the Jewish Chronicle article. Do you think that because it is an opinion piece we can't attribute it to the newspaper where it appeared? I wasn't familiar with such a rule (just found it in WP:RS: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors"), but if that's the problem I am sure it can be rectified by tweaking the formulation. Or do you think that because it's an opinion piece, or because it first appeared in the author's blog, it's automatically unreliable and must therefore be dismissed? I don't think that's correct.

As to the Jerusalem Post, I was relying on your information; I did not doubt it, I only wanted to make it clear that I didn't look up the source you cited because I trusted you. Now, on closer inspection, it turns out that our article Jerusalem Post mentions an important change of direction after a change of ownership in 2004, and your source is from 2000 and therefore obsolete. We are currently describing the newspaper as "centrist". While there is no citation for this, I have strong doubts that the JP can be dismissed as an extremist source.

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

The point about the Jewish Chronicle article is that Wikipedia does not publish material from questionable sources, which it most certainly qualifies as since it is an opinion piece. Here again is Wikipedia's WP:QS policy, this time with the salient points bolded:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

As for the Jerusalem Post, it only experienced a change in editor-in-chief in 2004 -- not in direction. Proof of this is found in many places, such as this article on the StandWithUs website. StandWithUs, in its own words, is "an international education organization that ensures that Israel's side of the story is told in communities, campuses, libraries, the media and churches through brochures, speakers, conferences, missions to Israel, and thousands of pages of Internet resources." And according to that StandWithUs article dated September 15, 2008, StandWithUs and the Jerusalem Post produce "a new, monthly pro-Israel newspaper" called Campus Post. According to another article, this time a press release by Roz Rothstein (the executive director/CEO of StandWithUs) published on Reuters' website (date: September 9th, 2008), Campus Post will "be distributed for free at US and Canadian universities by StandWithUs Emerson Fellows, StandWithUs regional coordinators, and other students." The press release adds that Campus Post "includes articles about pro-Israel events, such as Israel@60, and articles about life in Israel and its many innovations." Also note this op-ed published on the Jerusalem Post's own website, which self-identifies the Jerusalem Post as "a staunchly Zionist newspaper." So yes, the Jerusalem Post article most certainly is a questionable source, no different than the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece and is likewise subject to Wiki's WP:QS policy cited above. Causteau (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually, I not only think but know that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and especially its WP:QS policies. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, for starters, only applies to reliable sources, which neither the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece nor the Jerusalem Post's article qualify as:

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

Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post is not "a reliable source on what the Jerusalem Post reports" as you have written. Since the Jerusalem Post itself openly admits that it is "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" and since it also publishes the "pro-Israel" Campus Post student newspaper, the Jerusalem Post is very much a questionable source per Wiki policies i.e. it is a reliable source only insofar as its reporting on itself is concerned. Again, from WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

And from WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.

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

Jerusalem Post a reliable source?

(unindent) You are continuing your cherry-picking from the policies while ignoring everything that contradicts your ideas. Such as "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience." (You do remember just having quoted that to me, right?) You never suggested that the first sentence applies. You might try to argue that the Jerusalem Post is "widely acknowledged as extremist", although you probably don't have a very strong case for that. (From Jerusalem Post#Political orientation: "Currently the newspaper is viewed as having a moderate conservative^{[citation needed]} slant on news coverage, although left-wing columns are often featured on the editorial pages.") Even if it was a borderline case (it isn't), the combination of the two sentences makes it clear that the JP is not a questionable source as long as it has rigorous fact checking in place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• WT:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit

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

• WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 11

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

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

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

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

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

And from WP:RS:

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities.

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

Thanks for clarifying that your dismissal of the Jerusalem Post is based on WP:TRUTH rather than WP:CONSENSUS. The answer to your question is: Harder than I would have thought. I would have preferred a mainstream source from outside Israel, but apparently they are not sufficiently interested in this case.

Your one argument why the Jerusalem Post is extremist is based on a citation taken out of context (complete version: "As a staunchly Zionist newspaper, we want to see ever-increasing numbers of Jews making Israel their home."), on the assumption that (every shade of) Zionism is extremism (which at least in Israel is probably not the case), and the assumption that the newspaper's self-description in the editorial is correct, rather than politically motivated. That's pretty weak for going against a virtually unanimous consensus; and if you tried to put this into an article it would be an example of improper synthesis. It also makes the mistake of not interpreting the second sentence of WP:QS in the light of the first sentence. ("Cherry-picking".) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can personally interpret the Jerusalem Post's own declaration that it is "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" however you like or otherwise try and minimize the significance of that declaration. You can likewise dismiss the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs's assertion that the Jerusalem Post is "pro-Likud" or ignore the fact that, according to StandWithUs, the Jerusalem Post in tandem with StandWithUs produce "a new, monthly pro-Israel newspaper" called Campus Post. You can even attempt to reduce the significance and breadth of my countless arguments above to just this one point. However, all of it in the end makes no difference, as that revealing declaration by the Jerusalem Post itself that it is "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" is not going anywhere; it is there for all to see. I also find most puzzling your complete reluctance to simply cite a source that is, for a change, actually reliable like I've repeatedly asked you to do instead of insisting on questionable sources such as opinion pieces or articles from self-described "staunchly Zionist newspapers". Causteau (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

What makes the Jerusalem Post -- which BTW openly admits to being "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" -- unreliable in this case is the fact that this article is about Press TV, which in turn is funded by the Iranian government: the sworn enemy of Israel. The situation therefore presents an undeniable conflict of interest with regard to the Israel-based Jerusalem Post. That's like asking folks to go out and find the most staunchly Islamist sources one can find, and then include commentary from those sources in Jewish/Israel-related articles on Wikipedia. It's neither fair nor in line with Wikipedia's policy on questionable sources, a policy which very clearly mandates that "questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves" and that "articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." It's also against WP:SOAP:

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

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. Causteau (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RCS is again correct. There is no rule that we cannot cite newspapers that have (or could be seen to have) a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Articles on Israel have multiple citations to the Jerusalem post (see, e.g., the article on History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Articles on Lebanese/Israeli conflicts cite the Daily Star (see Position of Lebanon in the 2006 Lebanon War). This seems quite proper. There is relatively little citation of state run newspapers elsewhere in the Middle East, but that is not surprising given the restrictions under which they operate. LeContexte (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, RCS is again incorrect as are you. I've noticed not one of the examples you cite above mention any self-described "staunchly Islamist newspapers" being quoted in Jewish/Israel-related Wikipedia articles (contrast that with the Jerusalem Post -- which "openly admits to being "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" -- being included in this article). Instead, all you mentioned was the Israel-based Jerusalem Post being mentioned in other Israel-related articles and the Lebanese Daily Star being mentioned in the Lebanon War. If you can honestly say that you would not be in the least bit disturbed given WP:RS if you were to wake up tomorrow to find that a whole bunch of Jewish/Israel-related Wikipedia articles were to suddenly count "staunchly Islamist newspapers" and opinion pieces among their supposedly "reliable" sources (and if some Islamist blogger were to personally have written the opinion pieces to boot), then we really have nothing further to discuss. Causteau (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm still surprised by the claim that Wikipedia articles should not cite opinion pieces. If you would like more examples, the article on Israel and the apartheid analogy refers to many opinion articles hostile to Israel (I'm not sure whether you would qualify the newspapers as "staunchly Islamic", but then I'm not sure which English language newspapers fall into that category). Citing blogs is not generally appropriate; citing an op-ed in a newspaper written by a blogger may be. LeContexte (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of censorship at this article

Please read this excellent blog article on the censorship on the article on Press TV: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/17/press-tv-trying-to-hide-wikipedia-holocaust-denial-allegations/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.28.253 (talk)

This comment does not belong at the top of the talk page, so I moved it down into this new section. I also signed it for the anonymous user. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

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

We can't do that because that would constitute original research on our part, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. From WP:RS:

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

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

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

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

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

What makes the Jerusalem Post -- which BTW openly admits to being "a staunchly Zionist newspaper" -- unreliable in this case is the fact that this article is about Press TV, which in turn is funded by the Iranian government: the sworn enemy of Israel. The situation therefore presents an undeniable conflict of interest with regard to the Israel-based Jerusalem Post. That's like asking folks to go out and find the most staunchly Islamist sources one can find, and then include commentary from those sources in Jewish/Israel-related articles on Wikipedia. It's neither fair nor in line with Wikipedia's policy on questionable sources, a policy which very clearly mandates that "questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves" and that "articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." It's also against WP:SOAP:

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

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

# Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Causteau (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

(ec) Please try not to use the I didn't hear that debating technique. It tends to get on people's nerves, and at Wikipedia it's generally ineffective. (Unless your aim is to get blocked.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's your response? That I have quoted multiple times the fact that the Jerusalem Post openly admits to being "a staunchly Zionist newspaper"? That's says everything, for cryin' out loud (let's not forget that for almost twenty years, Zionism was classified by the United Nations as a racist idealogy on par with apartheid)! Besides the inexcusable inclusion of an opinion piece (as well as yet another opinion piece, this time from a blog no less) and said "staunchly Zionist newspaper" as supposedly reliable sources, what really baffles me is the fact that not one editor here has expressed even so much as an iota of concern over the fact that this article has coincidentally been targeted on this very busy day by some outside blogger/propagandist and his minions. Worse, this blogger/propagandist's own opinion piece is now cited in the article. I've clearly explained all of this above, and even included a link for further inspection. Where, I ask, is the concern for neutrality and reliable sourcing now? Causteau (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It indeed says everything; it tells us from what exact perspective the Jersulem Post really writes from, as does this article from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (which describes the Jerusalem Post as "pro-Likud") and this other StandWithUs article (which mentions that StandWithUs and the Jerusalem Post produce "a new, monthly pro-Israel newspaper"). There are others out there like it too, you know. Also, kindly spare me your baseless and libelous speculations regarding what I may or may not believe. You don't and in fact can't know what I believe until I up and tell you. Commenting on the contributor rather than the content is also discouraged (see WP:PA). Causteau (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Obviously, we need to argue about that because Causteau (talk · contribs) is repeatedly disparaging the Jerusalem Post, a primary source here, with the one and only argument that it defines itself as "staunchly zionist".--RCS (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Causteau (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not state that "Press TV's hosing of the content in question would be original research". I quite clearly wrote that we couldn't do as you suggested "because that would constitute original research on our part, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper." I then included the following quote from WP:RS, which makes this plain:

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

That quote to the effect that "questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves" refers to questionable sources (it was taken from WP:QS), not to the misuse of primary sources. The block quote above (which was taken from WP:RS) by contrast refers specifically to primary sources.

Still, unlike the some of the other editors here, you actually respected Wikipedia's policies and searched (and found!) a reliable source that mentions this fact like I recommended. I therefore have no problem with your particular contribution in the form of that Guardian source. Note that I didn't remove the MacClean's source either that's in the article because it too is legit. The other sources, however, remain just as questionable as they were the day the single-purpose accounts first inserted them. Causteau (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Michele Renouf

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

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

Actually I think that this Causteau's edit was correct, although it was probably by accident (because the Causteau's edit summary is not convincing at all). I will start a thread at Talk:Michele Renouf. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Feel free to agree with RCS if you wish cause he is once again completely wrong. The truth is, I was specifically asked by a fair and upstanding administrator to rid the Michele Renouf page of all the WP:BLP violations which were introduced into it by the same single-purpose accounts (1, 2, 3) that only yesterday were disrupting this very article (though yesterday's events pale in comparison to today's). As for the Jewish Chronicle opinion piece, I won't even need to delete it once administrators get wind of just what exact sort "sources" are being introduced into the Press TV article. Causteau (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you seem to be quite confused, but in this case I am afraid I caused it by not being absolutely clear. I have edited my post to make it clearer that I agree with your edit (although I don't agree with your rationale). That's something you could have found out by reading Talk:Michele Renouf#Involvement with Press TV. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Renouf (whoever she is) doesn't talk about Holocaust in that video, and videos are not acceptable sources anyways. We don't report what a video says, or make assertions based on it. Doing so, is original research. --Sina111 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you move this comment to Talk:Michele Renouf. This has almost nothing to do with the present article, so it shouldn't be discussed here. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Jerusalem Post

This nonsense has now spread to the Jerusalem Post. A few more eyes there can't hurt, I suppose. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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