Talk:The Jewish Chronicle

Spelling of "antisemitism"

"Antisemitism" has no hypen in it and I have corrected that in the article except where it appears to be in an actual quote or URL. I wish people would stop believing Word auto-correct and spell it correctly. So annoying! See the IHRA definition page as well as references to the implications of the misspelling. Dori1951 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Jewish Chronicle

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Jewish Chronicle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thejc1":

• From Cecil Moss: "Letter From Cape Town". The Jewish Chronicle. 23 September 2009. Retrieved 14 March 2011.
• From Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party: Dysch, Marcus (18 August 2015). "Anti-Israel activists attack JC for challenging Jeremy Corbyn". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
• From The Lynching: Sugarman, Daniel (14 June 2017). "Jackie Walker compares her Labour suspension for alleged antisemitism to a 'lynching'". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
• From Michael Klinger: Masters, James (13 January 2011). "Michael Klinger ready to cash in on IPL". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
• From Jenny Manson: Sugarman, Daniel (25 August 2017). "New Jewish group launched in Labour". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
• From Tulip Siddiq: Dysch, Marcus (8 May 2015). "Election 2015: Tulip Siddiq secures Hampstead and Kilburn for Labour". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 8 May 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Rescue from liquidation

The lead says the newspaper "was acquired from the liquidators by a private consortium of political insiders, broadcasters and bankers". Is this WP:NPOV and supported by the references or instead inferred via WP:OR? JezGrove (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think it may be NPOV? There is a source (not from me) behind a paywall at the end of the article. Jontel (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't see behind the paywall, but wondered, given the frequent antisemitic conspiracy theories that Jews control the media, the financial system, etc., whether the source itself used similar wording or if WP had (inadvertently) introduced an antisemitic trope by characterising the new owners in a particular way. It is very likely that the current wording is an accurate reflection of the original source, but perhaps a direct quote from it might be better for clarity on this issue given that other readers will also be on the wrong side of the paywall? JezGrove (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The individuals concerned are listed in the Publication data and finances section. I have amended the lead to include this point. Thank you for raising the issue. If you think that it is an incorrect description, by all means say so. Jontel (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits, rulings and criticisms

User:Bobfrombrockley I can see that you have been doing a lot on this section. It is rather large and will presumably keep growing. Do you or anyone else think it might benefit from having its own page at some point? Jontel (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that this would be a topic notable enough for its own article but I'm not too familiar with notability criteria for these sorts of topics. WP:NOTABILITY says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And: ""Sources"should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." At the moment, the section is overwhelmingly sourced from a non-independent source (corrections published by the JC) and a primary source (IPSO). We dont have articles on lawsuits, rulings and criticisms of any the main UK national or regional press outlets. (For the sake of comparison, in the current period the JC has had five IPSO rulings[1] just one more than the Birmingham Mail/Birmingham Post papers owned by Reach plc[2] and far less than the dozen relating to the far more significant Mail,[3] but we don't have articles about lawsuits, rulings and criticisms relating to them.)

In fact, I would go the other way. I would question if more than a few of the incidents in this article are actually noteworthy. The absence of secondary coverage suggests not. The section is now almost half of the article and suffers from WP:RECENTISM. Plus to do justice to any of these incidents requires a level of detail hard to convey concisely, as illustrated by the example in the section below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making these varied points. I do think we have to mediate the general principles by the special circumstances. More rulings are reported for recent years, not due to recentism but because there have been more rulings. Other papers may be motivated not to report individual rulings or to attack the publication more generally, either because they do not wish infighting between newspapers or because they sympathise with the JC editorial line. In the last two years, complaints against the JC has resulted in six rulings of a breach, compared with four for the Times, two for the Daily Mail (which Wikipedia judges to be unreliable), one for the Birmingham Post/ Mail and none for the Telegraph, suggesting that there is a serious issue. For whatever reason, complaints against other publications are more likely to be resolved through mediation. One difficulty is that, although any single ruling or lawsuit may not be noteworthy, the pattern is. There is a case for raising this on the Reliable sources Noticeboard, I would have thought. Given that the JC is heavily used as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles, I do think its public record should remain visible. Regarding the section in this article, perhaps past years could be summarised in order to reduce the section length. Jontel (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That is original thought, clearly should be removed and has no place here.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there reliable secondary coverage saying there’s an issue? If not, it’s synthesis and original research. Most of these complaints are very trivial (with some exceptions, and certainly the Melanie Phillips issue, which apparently didn’t involve IPSO, is noteworthy) so making whole sections about them is undue. What do the convoluted details add that couldn’t be dealt with in a simple sentence or two along the lines of “In 201X, y out of a complaints to IPSO about the publication were upheld.”? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Lasuits, rulings and criticisms - April 2019 ruling

This is expressed in a rather abstract and unilluminating way. Could we make it more direct to convey the issue clearly? There is also an inaccuracy, which is corrected in the second version. For example, change it from:

In April 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published a ruling by IPSO that articles it had published on May 2017 and April 2018 about an author critical of Zionism contained inaccuracies regarding venue denial activity by Jewish organisations and the author's views on the relationship between Zionism and Nazi Germany and that it had failed to issue a timely correction. The Jewish Chronicle said that they had relied on comments made by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

to

In April 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published a ruling by IPSO that articles it had published on May 2017 and April 2018 about an author critical of Zionism had falsely claimd that the author had been banned from speaking at a Quaker venue and had falsely claimed that the author had asserted that Zionist leaders had “encouraged antisemitism in Germany to force Jews to move to Palestine”. It had also failed to issue a timely correction. The Jewish Chronicle said that they had relied on comments made by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews with regard to the venue. Jontel (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That's slightly clearer, but I'd question whether this incident is noteworthy. Is there independent coverage of it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm very surprised BobFromBrockley didn't bring this up during the RS discussion. I see they've been caught lying about Marc Wadsworth again. The JC has a really impressive record of false reporting on leftwing activists. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of If You Tickle Us into The Jewish Chronicle

The blog is mostly notable for serving as an inside source in the London Jewish community, and is mostly cited by the Jewish Chronicle. See blog article talk page for a more extensive discussion (Talk:If_You_Tickle_Us#Sources_Cleanup,_Topic_Notability_&_Move_Proposal). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think that that these two pages should not be merged. IfYouTickleUs is often a source for the JC, but he is a blogger in his own right and – this is key – he is not associated with the Jewish Chronicle in any way. It would do a disservice to those seeking information IfYouTickleUs if his page redirected here, as it would imply that he is associated with the paper – rather than an independent blogger who happens to be a publicly available information source on a community whose politics is often difficult to report on accurately. I should add also that IfYouTickleUs is often cited and quoted by other newspapers that are not the Jewish Chronicle, like the Jewish News and Haaretz (for example: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-after-n-y-c-outbreak-fearful-british-haredim-fight-to-stave-off-coronavirus-1.8732019). Jacobchip (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. They have no connection to each other. One could debate if this article is notable, but hard to see how it makes sense to merge into JC. | MK17b | (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose' as per Mk17b. I understand the argument about the blog lacking notability, but its lack of connection to the JC makes a merger the wrong solution. Mention of a blogger they have cited would be utterly undue on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of slanted to recent events template

The JC started to publish a large number of libellous and inaccurate stories around 2010, the section which includes this information will necessarily focus on stories from that 10 year period. This is not slanting towards recent events it is simply reporting them, the JC appears not to have made a habit of libelling people (with one exception in 1968) before then. Therefore the slant tag is unjustified, it would only make sense if there were evidence of libels in the intervening period which are not covered in the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It feels like WP:RECENTISM to me that an encyclopedia article about a newspaper 180 years old would have so much content focused on the last decade, including several paragaphs on corrections and lawsuits, finances, and criticisms. In terms of lines, 62% of the body focuses on the last ten years, 38% on the previous 170. That can't be right. (See also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOMUCH.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Its unreliability and constant demonstrable lying (alongside misleading reporting falling just the right side of sanction) and its lurch from crisis to crisis are probably the most notable things about its modern form. I'd be happy to see more written about its past, when it was a reliable community newspaper, if there are sources for it. If there aren't, then there is no presentism, just an imbalance in the notability of different periods of its existence. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That might be a convincing argument if there was vast amount in RSs about the recent unreliability, but our sources for that are almost all primary (IPSO or the JC itself) plus the relatively fringe and partisan Morning Star, or the Press Gazette, which has indeed reported a lot about the JC[4] but is only cited here for negative things. Our article is badly imbalanced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am re-adding the template, as the article is now even more recentist than it was when I added it before. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Returning to this issue in light of this edit, this revert and this RSN discussion where five editors argued that MEMO is generally unreliable and three that it can be used with attribution in some contexts. It seems to me that the very large lawsuits section, which has been tagged as lacking secondary sources for nine or so months now, remains largely dependent on primary or fringe sources, so that the actually noteworthy events (e.g. Interpal, Wadsworth) are buried in a sea of trivia. If the only secondary source for something is MEMO, it surely cannot be said to be DUE. I think I am going to take this to NPOV noticeboard for extra eyes. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Why Feinstein?

This revert of material I deleted: The source (a blogpost by a media researcher from London Met)[5] quotes a bunch of people (Jonathan Freedland, Hadley Freeman, Mira Bar-Hillel, Keir Starmer) for more notable than Andrew Feinstein: I don't understand why his quote needs so many words here. Although its passes the reliabiltiy test, I'm also not sure the blogpost is an ideal source to direct readers to, given it calls Freedland "Freeland" and the Community Security Trust the "Community Service Trust". Feels like bloating to me. See WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOMUCH. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that those figures are more prominent in the British Jewish community than Feinstein, though perhaps not internationally, and Starmer is more prominent than all of them. The reason Feinstein is included there is that this is a criticism section, Mira Bar-Hillel was also critical so her views would also fit and could be added. It makes no sense to include positive views in a criticism section, though I take your point about the appearance of cherry-picking and have added the qualifier that many Jewish people were dismayed by the JC's problems to avoid the implication the Feinstein was representative of the views of British Jews. I would have no objection to the views of the others being included appropriately in other sections.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the undue template and added the voice of Mira Bar-Hillel to avoid undue weight on Feinstein, as discussed above. The individual supportive voices are not relevant to the criticism section. Feel free to add them wherever else you choose. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The undue weight issue here is not just the Feinstein quote but (a) giving so many words to a trivial blogpost, and (b) giving most of these words over to quoting criticisms, which misrepresents the blogpost. I don't want to add positive quotes, as this would exacerbate (a), but think the whole thing should be trimmed or removed. As only two of us have weighed in here, I think it is appropriate to leave the inline tag until there is consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The way to deal with the problems you perceive is to find evidence of coverage relating to other topics concerning the Jewish Chronicle and add it. I happen to know a lot about Jewish Chronicle's recent defamation spree, so I've generally added stuff related to that. If you know of sources relating to the wider history then these would also be great additions. The article cited is published by a university professor of journalism on the website of a university, you yourself accepted it is RS. At the moment there is a lot of "I just don't like it" about your observations.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying the source isn't reliable, but we don't include every sentence from every reliable source; we look for what is noteworthy and merits due weight. I may add more historical material if I can find time to look for sources, but if I added it at the same level of detail as is given to recent political reporting the article would be huge. There's no way large amounts of the recent detail (e.g. Bar-Hillel's comment) has the weight it is given in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

More neutral suggestion: something like "Wendy Sloane, Associate Professor in Journalism at London Metropolitan University, noted that threats to the paper's survival during the Covid pandemic had been met by sadness and some jubilation, with journalists Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman expressing sorrow and some Labour supporters, such as Andrew Feinstein and Mira Bar-Hillel, welcoming its demise and speculating that libel payouts were impacting on its finances." Wouldn't that be more NPOV? Possibly moving from criticism section to 21st history section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say there is no need for attribution to Sloane, we can assume she is RS and she is not reporting anything in any way controversial. The occupations of Bar-Hillel and Feinstein would also be useful IMO. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Threats to the paper's survival during the Covid pandemic had been met by sadness and some jubilation, with journalists Jonathan Freedland and Hadley Freeman expressing sorrow and some Labour supporters, such as South African former politician Andrew Feinstein and freelance housing journalist Mira Bar-Hillel, welcoming its demise and speculating that libel payouts were impacting on its finances.?

I would say "former ANC politician and anti-apartheid activist" for Feinstein. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Also maybe leave out "South-African"? I think he might have dual nationality and he's resident in the UK. Not gonna go to the wall on it tho. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the criticism of Feinstein and Bar Hillel to the criticism section, as no agreement was reached to remove it. They are both notable people, Bar Hillel easily satisfies notability for wikipedia despite not yet having an article, and their criticism is valid as attributed opinion for a criticism section. Your previous objection of context is now resolved, given the positive and negative reactions are included elsewhere in the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in the above discussions, I had not realised you intended to remove the direct quotations, merely to include the positive opinions on the JC.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So now we have Bar Hillel and Feinstein in our article twice, even though their comments are among the least noteworthy here, and sourced from a pretty ephemeral source, so the case for their being due remains. A bit frustrating that no other editors besides the two of us have weighed in on this as it would be nice to have a sense of consensus here. ~Bobfombrockley

Well, I would say an international politician of a Jewish background is very notable for this article, and the viewpoint which he expresses is an important criticism which is a very widely held opinion of the Jewish Chronicle's behaviour on Labour antisemitism. The constant extension of the amount of attention given is largely the result of your attempts to minimise it with a view to excluding an opinion you don't want in the article for some reason.

I'm happy to remove the mentions of Feinstein and Bar Hillel as examples of labour supporters in the earlier section if you wish, the Telegraph article also suggests that Labour supporters were happy to see the JC in crisis without naming individuals. The sourced comments of Feinstein and Bar Hillel are clearly relevant to a criticism section.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The "libel" part of the sentence was also problematic - pure speculation about a legal issue. There is plenty of more recent probematic stuff we have facts about so have removed the speculation we sourced from this blogpost. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability considerations following latest libel defeat

I'm aware of the recent discussions around the reliability of the JC, which arose as a result of the numerous standards breaches upheld against the paper by IPSO & the successful libel claims made against it by various individuals. I note the outcome of those discussions was to recommend in-text attribution for its coverage of "the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians".

Since those discussions, a further breach has been recorded for accuracy; they've lost a libel case - the false claims made which resulted in the libel claim were particularly damaging, i.e accusing somebody of being involved in a criminal conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists into silence, and an IPSO standards investigation has been requested into the publication. I also note, from the Press Gazette article that IPSO have recently delivered Editors’ Code of Practice compliance training to staff at the JC, whether that was mandatory as part of an adjudication, or not, isn't clear.

So, what are the options now for revisiting the reliability of the newspaper - particularly (but not solely) anything connected to "the British Left" published since 2018? I realise that it's an old, established publication which, I am sure, had an excellent reputation in the past - but this doesn't change the fact that it now out-performs tabloid rags for innacuracy. Thoughts?

I'm pinging you Boynamedsue as I see you were involved in the previous discussions. I'd also like you to advise me where I can fit a mention of the IPSO training, if you don't mind! :) --DSQ (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi DSQ. I would agree that there has been new evidence regarding the unreliability of the JC with regards to the British left. There is a slight problem in that the rfc was highly political last time, it ended up very "votey", as the closing admin noted. There were quite a few voices who simply stated that as it was regulated by IPSO and published corrections it was by definition reliable (like the Sun, Star and Mail must be by that logic). There was also a strange cry-bully line that the JC had been "targeted" in some way by its libel victims. I'm not sure if any new evidence would change these users' minds.

One thing that might have some effect on a more neutral group of users is the source you added which includes Brian Cathcart's criticism. This is a respected academic who underlines the problems with IPSO in specific relationship to the JC. This is rather difficult to shrug off. Perhaps another nomination should wait until the response from IPSO, and see what that says? That is likely to inspire more comment on the reliability or otherwise of the JC.

In terms of the extra training, I would suggest that could be added after a brief mention of the decision on Jo Bird? That verdict is also covered in the Press Gazette article, and it segues nicely into the training that was ordered, presumably as a result of the 2021 decisions. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Boynamedsue for your reply, helpful comments, and advice and I agree that it'd be pertinent to wait for IPSO to respond before another RfC. Having said that, should IPSO decline an investigation - and they've never investigated a member yet! - I don't think it should be viewed as an endorsement of the JC's reliability in any way or preclude a further RfC. I've had a quick read back over the last RfC - lots of tenuous arguments ("everyone makes mistakes") and a bludgeoning NoCal100 sock :) - and I don't doubt some would persist in defending its reliability even if it were sued into bankruptsy. I'd hope the continuing pattern of reliability issues would convince more editors to recognise the evident problems and that neutral editors, and the closing admin, would be able to sort the wheat arguments from the chaff. We'll see! I've not seen Jo Bird's decision, I'll dig it out and add it in. Thanks again. --DSQ (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's my view as well, I think my initial framing was probably procedurally and structurally weak, which allowed the discussion to be steered off course onto tangential matters. Certainly, IPSO's lack of response should be put into context if there is such, given IPSO seems never to have taken similar steps against the large number of deprecated publications it regulates. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not the forum for discussing the reliability of this source; that is a matter for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editing this article to load it full of recent criticisms in order to make a case for unreliability also seems to me very un-encyclopedic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything added is notable. You may be right that there is more coverage of recent events than those during the century-long period when the JC was a reliable community newspaper, nobody is stopping you from adding that stuff. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming here because I saw the NPOV noticeboard comment. If recent criticisms are valid, they ought to be included, especially if it is a case of repeating behavior that led to past criticisms, then it's just an update, not something new as such. This is certainly going back to RSN at some point, only question is when.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job here to say whether criticisms are valid or not. It's our job to reflect what reliable sources say. While the Wadworth libel is undoubtedly noteworthy, as clear from widespread coverage, most of the complaints and corrections are not, as evidenced by a lack of secondary coverage. We need to keep separate the question of what constitutes an RS and what criticisms about or corrections of the JC noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's a sourcing question, I didn't mean that we should determine validity only that we should include properly sourced (and due) criticism.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Telegraph comment on libel

Re this edit and Boynamedsue[6], I'm pasting key parts of the Telegraph article as it is paywalled. It's by the paper's associate editor and is filed under News not Opinion. I believe Telegraph is reliable, but biased rightwards.

If they are successful in pressuring the independent press watchdog into launching its first ever standards investigation into a newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, which teetered on the brink of closure last year, could face another existential crisis. Some on the Left would rejoice at such a possibility, as they did when the newspaper faced bankruptcy in 2020.

The author of the letter, Labour councillor Jo Bird, who is Jewish, insists that there is no political element behind it and that the only thing that unites the signatories is “inaccuracies” printed about them. Nevertheless, it has prompted MPs to warn that the press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), must resist any attempt to use it as a “weapon” to fight politically motivated campaigns.

It has left IPSO facing one of its toughest tests since it was founded in 2014, in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

The assault on The Jewish Chronicle also acts as a window into the wider practice of complainants bombarding the regulator with complaints – most of them baseless – which forces smaller publications to hire lawyers they can ill afford just so they can keep on top of the paperwork. [...] There is no suggestion that the nine people who signed the letter to Lord Faulks, the 70-year-old human rights barrister who is chairman of IPSO, are in any way vexatious. All of them had complaints about The Jewish Chronicle upheld, and in three cases The Jewish Chronicle paid out damages for libel.

However, there can be little doubt that IPSO has found itself in the middle of a fight between The Jewish Chronicle and a group of largely Corbynite complainants, some of whom have themselves been sanctioned in the past for their comments about, or behaviour towards, Jews.

The letter demands that the watchdog launch an immediate standards investigation into The Jewish Chronicle because of “serious and systemic” breaches of the IPSO Editors’ Code, which includes pledges of accuracy among other things. The maximum penalty for such a breach is £1 million.

The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done.

In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation. Rather than dismissing the letter, IPSO has written back to Ms Bird promising to review the complaint “in detail”.

It then goes on to profile the nine signatories, noting that two (Bird and Davies) were suspended from Labour for antisemitism and reinstateded, and one more (Wadsworth) expelled. And then:

Another signatory is Mike Sivier, a full-time carer and part-time blogger who is currently being sued for libel by Countdown co-presenter Rachel Riley, who is Jewish, after he claimed she was abusing and harassing a teenager on Twitter.

Mr Sivier successfully complained to IPSO in 2018 on the grounds of inaccuracy over an article which wrongly gave the impression he could not comment on whether thousands or millions of Jews had died in the Holocaust.

Another of the “victims” is Thomas Suarez, the author of a book called State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel. IPSO found that The Jewish Chronicle had been justified in reporting that the he had “branded Zionism ‘fascist’”, but had had inaccurately stated that he had been “banned” by the Quakers from using their premises and wrongly said a talk he was due to give had been cancelled because it was not in line with Quaker values, when in fact it was for logistical reasons.

The other signatories to the letter are Audrey White, a Labour activist who won a libel payout from The Jewish Chronicle in February 2020 after it wrongly reported she had been expelled by Labour and was accused of bullying; Jenny Lennox, a trade unionist who The Jewish Chronicle wrongly said was Jewish and was on the executive of the Labour Representative Committee (which she had left by then); Kal Ross, a Labour branch secretary whose complaint was upheld in part over an erroneous suggestion he had defied Labour HQ by allowing the discussion of an emergency meeting to discuss the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report on Labour anti-Semitism; and Ibrahim Hewitt, a Muslim convert and Corbyn ally who won damages after The Jewish Chronicle implied a charity he runs had links to terrorist activity...

Stephen Crabb MP, Parliamentary chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “The Jewish Chronicle is not only a powerful voice for its community, but also a fearless campaigning paper that rightly seeks to expose the evil of anti-Semitism, wherever it has taken root.

Is any of these useful/due? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a million BfB, that's really helpful.

This is a difficult one, regarding the sentence you included contrasting the 28 breaches with the 8 upheld complaints. The Telegraph is comparing apples and oranges, there were 28 breaches spread over (I think, but may be wrong) 9 complaints. For example the case of Audrey white counts as 1 upheld complaint (paragraph 37), but covers 6 separate breaches of the code (para 24-29). Cathcart is by far the more reliable source, as an academic. If you really want the Telegraph's contrast included we need to find some way of putting this in context, I would personally leave it out, as we would be including a clear error on the part of the journalist (albeit a journalist working for a RS). However, if you feel it is essential we can work on wording. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

~"The IPSO’s complaints committee has just had to record two more breaches of the Code by the weekly newspaper, bringing its total number in three years to 33. Apart from big national newspapers and regional groups, no other IPSO member comes near. Remarkably, over the same period, the newspaper has been forced to admit, and pay damages for, four serious libels." https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Re the quote removed from the footnote: I included it because it is paywalled so the quote was to verify the text. It is not an opinion article but a news article in a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed the new talk section below on this. Will comment there instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Massive uncontextualised opinion screed removed from citation due to BLP and NPOV

I have deleted the following text from the citation of the Telegraph article by Caroline Neilan:

"Most of [the signatories are] politically aligned with Jeremy Corbyn, and some have been expelled from the Labour Party following allegations of anti-Semitism....If they are successful in pressuring the independent press watchdog into launching its first ever standards investigation into a newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, which teetered on the brink of closure last year, could face another existential crisis. Some on the Left would rejoice at such a possibility, as they did when the newspaper faced bankruptcy in 2020."

The first reason for this is BLP, suggesting that any of the signatories have done anything antisemitic is a very debatable assertion, the ones who were expelled were under the catch all "bringing the labour party into disrepute" and most of them have not been expelled at all (some were not even members). This is tarring all the complainants with a very broad brush. Given we are dealing with people's lives and reputations, such an uncontextualised allegation should not remain displayed as if it were factual.

The second reason is that this is an opinion piece which is presented as factual. All of the text in bold is pure opinion, and has been criticised by the Professor of Media Studies, Brian Cathcart, as an attempt by the Telegraph to avoid a justified standards investigation into the JC's shocking record of dishonest reporting. It contains factual inaccuracies, which display either a failure to understand the IPSO complaints system or dishonesty:

The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done.

In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation. Rather than dismissing the letter, IPSO has written back to Ms Bird promising to review the complaint “in detail”

In reality there had been 28 breaches of the code spread over 8 upheld complaints (there are now 33, as the JC keeps publishing false information). This inaccuracy raises questions over whether the article can even be considered a reliable source for its claims, especially in light of BLP.

And of course there is the question of due weight. This is a very long quote which gives the unchallenged opinion of Neilan, much of it crystal ball stuff, the fact it is displayed as hover over text is irrelevant. If we want to include it we need Cathcart's response at the very least, as well as contextalisation of what the supposed antisemitism of the complainants consisted of. Much better just to leave it out given the BLP minefield. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Some comments: a) It's not by Caroline Neilan, or indeed by Telegraph writer Catherine Neilan but by the Telegraph's associate editor Gordon Rayner. b) It is billed as a news piece not an opinion piece (see the underline under News at the top left). c) It's not a massive screed but 79 words. (For comparison, while not a direct quote we currently have 136 about an opinion piece in Byline Times by Brian Cathcart, and 99 words on Mira Bar-Hillel and Andrew Feinstein's opinions about the JC.) c) The point about the BLP issues here is a fair one. Although the Telegraph then goes on to accurately detail the cases of Bird, Davies, Wadsworth, Sivier, and White, all of whom were suspended from the party for comments relating to antisemitism, the summary we quoted is misleading out of context and I agree it would be better to skip that bit or paraphrase it more carefully. d) I think we can handle the 28 vs 8 figures. Eight is no more inaccurate than 28; arguably either number is misleading without the other. 28 sounds like it made 28 inaccurate statements, while in fact a single statement can be found to have breached more than one part of the code, so it's important to show that this relates to eight articles, and also to set it in context with the complaints not upheld. e) The reason for inclusion of the text was because the article is paywalled, and a footnote alone is not useful to most readers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the citation says Caroline Neilan, that is an inaccuracy from whoever added the citation. I would suggest that needs fixing. The piece may be under "news" at the telegraph but it clearly states an opinion, there is no attempt to separate news from comment here as the article clearly shows. There is no way you can honestly believe that the above article is an attempt at neutrally presenting the facts. If you wish to include it, it must be contextualised, attributed to a writer and the place where they are writing.

Re: the 8 v. 28, the article heavily implies that the signatories were incorrect in their numbers by the use of "the letter claims there have been 28 breaches" and "in fact ipso says there were 8 complaints upheld", and suggesting this was a reasonable reason to dismiss the complaint out of hand. This is pure opinion, and misleading opinion at that, which you should realise, as you yourself were misled by it! It can be added with attribution, but then it will require contextualisation from the recent Cathcart article in the Byline Times which criticises the Telegraph article. This will add even more attention to his criticisms of the JC. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Re authorship: You're right I introduced that error, using an automatically generated ref from the citer.toolforge gadget, so possibly the Telegraph used incorrect metadata. I have corrected that now.

Re opinion vs reportage: I agree the Telegraph version is slanted and includes analysis, as does the Cathcart version. But I think it is perfectly usable for factual statements.

Re the number of breaches, here's what the Press Gazette says relating to the same period: In the same time period IPSO upheld, at least in part, nine complaints about the Jewish Chronicle relating to Clause 1 (accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, to which all IPSO members are signed up. Of the other complaints IPSO formally investigated in those three years, it chose not to uphold six and its mediation helped to resolve a further two. Press Gazette understands around 40 complaints did not reach the IPSO investigation stage, for reasons that could include being resolved amicably with the newspaper or because the regulator did not consider there were any potential breaches of the code.[7] As the Telegraph and Byline are both reliable sources, and Press Gazette is reliable and also neutral, maybe we can come up with wording that presents all of this information in a neutral, contextualised way, with attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say both Cathcart and the Telegraph are fine to use for uncontroversial facts, but most of both articles are opinion. I have no problem with language that indicates that there were 8 upheld complaints and 28 breaches over the period, though I might add Cathcart's statement that this number has since grown to 33. This is as long as no language appears which implies there is some sort of contradiction between these two numbers, or that suggests that the complainant's figure of 28 breaches is incorrect. It would probably require care to avoid OR though.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For when this goes back to RSN, throw this article in for reference, Needs attribution if used, handy summary of the cases by one of the complainants.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

IPSO NFA Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

IPSO | Gauterin vs Jewish Chronicle - undue? Comment

I don't personally think the inclusion of this latest breach is undue - it's yet another significant breach of accuracy Clause 1 (iv) and it comes after IPSO delivered training to the editorial team as a "remedy" to the call for a standards investigation into the publication. I can certainly see that the initial edit was false and did not reflect IPSO's findings, but I feel the latest edit is a bit vague. Pollard misled his readers by effectively presenting, as fact, that the complainant lost their job because they're an anti-Semite, a claim for which he had no evidence. I think we should make the breach clear and include the article with the correction, along with the Press Gazette as a source. I also plan to add IPSO's response to the request for a standards investigation & the reasoning for it being declined. As noted above, the regulator delivered targeted training to the editorial team as a result of the complaints, they also noted the change in ownership and change in editorial leadership as reasons for a further period of monitoring. (They'd been monitoring the JC "continuously" since early 2018 due to compliance & complaint handling concerns). Any views on its inclusion? --DSQ (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the tags now we have secondary sourcing. The Press Gazette report is brief and in passing, so I don't think the case for noteworthiness is strong. As a test, do the other items in the Press Gazette article, about far more serious inaccuracies in MyLondon, Sky News, Daily Mirror, BBC, Daily Star, LBC News, Channel 5, The Sun, Daily Telegraph, and similar level inaccuracies in the BBC, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Cornwall Live, Waltham Forest Echo etc, merit changes to those WP articles? If so, we should include this one here; if not, we shouldn't. Certainly, the brief para in the Press Gazette does not merit more than a sentence in an encyclopedia about a 150 year old newspaper - that would be WP:PRESENTISM. (See also WP:NOTNEWS.) If the current wording is vague, we could quote the Gazette: "the regulator said that Pollard’s conjecture Gauterin had lost his job over the anti-Semitism complaint had been misleadingly presented as fact".

IPSO's response to the request for a standards investigation seems like a more clearly noteworthy topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's not one of their most egregious breaches - they've printed worse. I've offered my personal opinion, I certainly wouldn't object if you removed it. However I do feel your test is like comparing apples to oranges; it publishes once a week to a limited readership, doesn't print daily or broadcast 24/7 and the scope for breaches should theoretically be much lower. The real question should be how many of those other outlets (of comparable size) have had as many complaints upheld in such a short period of time, how many have lost as many libel cases, how many have had to have regulator-delivered training and how many have raised such concern over compliance and complaint handling that the regulator monitors them? I suspect the answer is none and that's what's notable. If you decide to leave it in I think your idea to quote the Gazette would be much better than the current wording.

Do you have any preference for the wording & placement of IPSO's response? Sorry it took so long for me to respond btw, I've been battling ill-health for the past 12 months & I'm not around very much. :) --DSQ (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Tag bombing by blocked sock

I'm just noting that I've gone through the tags placed by the blocked sock account and removed those I believe are unnecessary. I've also reverted some of the rewording they did as it added nothing to the article. Having said that, I think the section on lawsuits/Ipso is getting unwieldy again. The most appallingly bad cases, particularly where damages have been paid, obviously deserve to be highlighted. But there's at least 3 (maybe 4) cases that I'd personally remove and just summarise. I won't attempt that myself at this stage as I'm aware there's been debate about this before - anyone have any thoughts? DSQ (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope? K - --DSQ (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Broadly support the reverting of the blocked sock's rewording. Agree the section is unwieldy and recentist and needs trimming. I am concerned now at the large amount of content sourced from primary sources, as well as the reliance on weak sources that should only be used with attribution (e.g. Morning Star). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Bobfrombrockley. Personally, I'd remove the September 2014 case (RIBA); February 2018 (Sivier); December 2019 (Lennox); September 2020 (Ali) & June 2022 (Gauterin). Those cases could be summarised in a short para, if the sourcing is sufficient. I'm not sure about the August 2017 case – the source presented has nothing to do with this adjudication btw. It's actually this case,1 in which the complainant was anonymous. It was upheld and fairly serious, but it'll be difficult to find anything other than IPSO and the JC.2.

I understand your concern about primary sources, I'm guilty of introducing some of them to this article. Both the November 2014 (PSC) & December 2021 (Brace) cases need better sourcing, which I'll try to find. I'll attribute The Morning Star in the Wadsworth case and will endeavour to find something more suitable. What do you think? --DSQ (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DSQ. I’d support all that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made a start but can't finish it right now, I'll come back to it later. :) --DSQ (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Update We should update the criticism, I think that there is enough of it now to justify a short sentence in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that Selfstudier. I have this [8] too, which I'd intended using to update the Criticism section. Also the IPSO Annual Report 2021 which confirms that the training given to the JC staff was mandatory, due to a "pattern of upheld complaints...detected during monitoring". I agree a short sentence in the lead would be appropriate. I tend to avoid interfering with the lead personally, as I don't do succinct very well. :) --DSQ (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: My recent edit

Hi all,

Seems to be a bit of intermittent discussion about working on the article - sorry if my edits are intrusive on what's being worked on - but just wanted to let everyone know that I made some minor alterations w/ regards to wording and some neutral point of view changes to the lawsuits & ruling section.

Please let me know if you disagree/would like to discuss further.

Thanks,

Moshe

Moshe1022 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of fake intelligence

Ben Reiff, Why did a British Jewish newspaper publish fake Israeli intelligence? +972 magazine 11 September 2024 Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• IDF investigates claim Jewish Chronicle published stories based on ‘fabricated intelligence', The Guardian
• Crisis at Jewish Chronicle as stories based on ‘wild fabrications’ are withdrawn, The Observer/The Guardian
• UK’s Jewish Chronicle removes stories by writer accused of fabrications about Gaza war Times of Israel
• Jewish Chronicle fires freelance journalist Elon Perry after false reporting on Gaza war Jerusalem Post
• 'A Wild Invention': Jewish Chronicle's Report on Hamas' Plans Comes Under Scrutiny Ha'aretz

Wellington Bay (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources for Wadsworth libel

At the moment our long paragraph on Marc Wadsworth is based almost entirely on primary and involved sources, specifically statements by the claimant's solicitor, followed by one note to the partisan Morning Star (see its WP:RSP entry, which cautions against use in BLP matters). Are there reliable secondary sources? If not, we should trim as undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a few sources covering the issue 1 2 3 4 but I agree that the paragraph needs cleanup. Cortador (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Morning Star is not a great source per RSP. Dorset Eye is an antisemitic conspiracy theory outlet so that's going to be non-RS. City AM is OK I think and Press Gazette is good. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What supports that characterisation of the Dorset Eye, out of curiosity? I can see an advocacy site muttering about this, but nothing reliable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Typo Correction

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): {{textdiff}}

  −

  a "ban on Jews"and thus antisemitic.

  +

  a "ban on Jews" and thus antisemitic.

• Why it should be changed: It's a typo. It's at the end of the first sentence under "Reception." I just don't have extended-confirmed permissions, and I'd rather not find out the hard way if correcting a typo violates that rule.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A

The-demon-next-door (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

References