Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

    Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature.
    Thanks, — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.
    Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others

    Nothing about those accusations even begins to approach credibility. This is just FUD.

    the Holocaust

    What "fringe views" do you think he has on the Holocaust? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that they are pretty credible, but as neither of us are scholars, I think we do have to refer to those (discussed below)
    They were discussed elsewhere here, and are on his wiki page, particularly in the way education about it should be done. FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers

    Nothing in the linked source supports such a flagrant miscontruction of his views. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the source cited on Norman Finkelstein: “Holocaust denial does constitute an actual or potential contagion”, then it should be taught in academic institutions “to inoculate students”.
    He continues: “To profess both that Holocaust denial shouldn’t be taught and that it poses a clear and present danger defies logic. [1] FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? nableezy - 10:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just responding to the question at hand (and his direct response to my comment), specifically the question of highly biased or fringe views regarding some topics. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question at hand being "is Norman Finkelstein a reliable source for verifying claims regarding I/P"? I understand the OP included the Holocaust in their post, but frankly I would be shocked if there's a Holocaust article that would be incomplete without citing a work of his. Remsense 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue would probably more apparent in cases of alleged instrumentalisation of the holocaust, where this sort of opinion (on how it should be thought) may be significant FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That says that students should be taught Holocaust denial as a topic as part of the syllabus to inoculate them from it. This is the opposite of saying it should be taught to students "by holocaust deniers", which seems like a BLP violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s the context for the quotes in the article, the relevant direct passage is „that Holocaust denial should be taught in university and preferably by a Holocaust denier.” FortunateSons (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I remember that quote. That's clearly a tongue-in-cheek piece of commentary with some layers to it, but it definitely does grant some lenience regarding the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he was denied tenure because of a targeted harassment campaign does not negatively affect his credibility. And accusing him of Holocaust denial is such a flagrant and obvious BLP violation I am absolutely dumbfounded this is allowed to stand. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [1], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree he should be taken seriously and may be due to mention in articles. Don't think that means he is "reliable for verifying general statements" as per OP's question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [Update: while I still hold this basic position, I believe that his books published by academic presses might be usable as sources for facts on I/P in some cases and are more reliable than those of the non-academics he criticises (e.g. Peters, Dershowitz) where he disagrees with or is contested by other scholars (e.g. Shapira, Morris) we should never use his claims in our own voice but attribute and also include and attribute disagreements. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]
      In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you highlight Moshe Zuckermann as particularly notable? His citation metrics seem low-middling, including in contrast to some other reviewers, but perhaps I'm missing some other indication of his high relevance here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zerotalk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
    • Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.
    "deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.
    But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).
    More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.
    So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.
    Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.
    If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).
    and its reference list
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable specifically regarding American Holocaust consciousness from 1948-1967 as argued in The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein and Novick both played a role in promoting and popularizing this idea, but reviewers of Hasia Diner's 2009 book We Remember with Reverence and Love universally suggest that this conception lacked substantive empirical backing to start with and has been dispatched by Diner's work. For instance, Kevin Spicer in his American Historical Review piece says: "In this work, Hasia R. Diner dismantles the claim promoted by Peter Novick and Norman G. Finkelstein, among others, that American Jews 'made little of the Holocaust, pushing it to the hidden corners and indeed, under the rug of their communal lives' until the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial, which brought the horrors of the Nazi period into prominent focus (p. 4). By contrast, through extensive archival research Diner more than convincingly reveals the opposite." Henry L. Feingold in the Journal of American History concurs that Diner "completes the process of putting those false charges to rest", while Stephen J. Feingold in the American Historical Review states that "the evidence... is quite overwhelming. So resourcefully has Diner tracked down sermons and song lyrics, posters and programs, that this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims that an explicit communal consciousness of the Holocaust did not really surface until the 1960s."
    For what it is worth, scholars questioned Finkelstein's spotty archival work shortly after publication of THI. David Cesarani points out many major productions and publications Finkelstein missed or downplayed in his 2000 review for Times Higher Education alongside other critiques, for instance. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreement from other scholars is not a case for unreliability. Zerotalk 07:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but widespread disagreement from actual Holocaust scholars should make us use him as a source on the Holocaust only with extreme caution and attribution, making sure to triangulate with other scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finkelstein is an actual Holocaust scholar, and this effort to redefine scholar to only include people you agree with is not in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. nableezy - 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finklestein is not, in fact, a Holocaust scholar. WWII/ Holocaust scholars roundly reject the work of Holocaust denier David Irving, who Finklestein regards as a great scholar. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if anybody is citing David Irving, so I dont see the relevance, but Finkelstein's work The Holocaust Industry received positive reviews from Raul Hilberg for example. Yes it also had negative reviews, but so do most academic works. That doesnt diminish that they are works of scholarships written by scholars. nableezy - 16:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that Hilberg (a great Holocaust scholar) did to some endorse Finkelstein's book, but he is an outlier. Finkelstein was a scholar of the reception of the Holocaust, not of the Holocaust itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is, but sure fine on the rest of the statement. nableezy - 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finkelstein could think Hitler was a swell guy, it would still have nothing to do with the reliability of his published works. The way we know that The Holocaust Industry is an WP:RS is all the journal reviews and the 900+ citations. "The author has an opinion that's wrong, therefore his works are unreliable" is just nonsense. To show unreliability, you'd need to show his work being debunked, not his opinions being unpopular. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true of every author. That doesn't make an author not an WP:RS. Again, Benny Morris is the quintessential example of an RS that most scholars in the field disagree with strongly, but still an RS. Scholars disagree with each other, it's what they do. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finkelstein's self-description is that he is not a scholar of the Holocaust itself, but only of its popular interpretations and uses. When pressed in 2015 on his figures by Medhi Hassan, he says: "I don't claim at all to be an authority on the Nazi holocaust. The book The Holocaust Industry is not about the Nazi holocaust. It's a book about how the holocaust has been rendered in popular opinion and in so-called scholarship." Of course, I argue that he makes errors beyond this, but at the very least he says himself not to be a scholar of the Nazi genocide (though he defends the statements he makes, naturally). Freelance-frank (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To ground this more concretely in guidelines, a quote from WP:RSAGE: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." I argue that a statement from a review like the one I quote above indicates such a development ("...this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims..."), which is a statement on both academic consensus and validity of the older argument.
    The next paragraph says, "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery". I argue that this is not an issue with Diner's book based on the following parenthetical, which suggests "awaiting reviews that validate the methods". The three reviews satisfy this. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable: as an exceptionally knowledgeable subject-matter expect. I find it surprising to even see this questioned. If his views are left field then they should be attributed, as should any views, from anyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Most arguments made above are rather poor and miss the point, and that applies to both the arguments for and against Finkelstein. The real question should be on his academic credentials. There as well, there are pros and cons. In his favour, his books are often published by high quality academic publishing houses, that definitely helps. Against him, he has not held any academic position for a very long time. Those aspects should both be weighed, but whether he is controversial or not is not the question (or should not be). The question is what his academic credentials are. Jeppiz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Worth bearing in mind that his lack of tenure has itself been the source of controversy, see Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, so a slightly murky and muddied metric in this case. Better to defer to his academic citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Dershowitz affair was nearly two decades ago. It would be silly to suggest his inability to find work in academia to this day is not because of that incident alone. Toa Nidhiki05 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What do you mean, "his inability to find work in academia"? What is that based on? He publishes a book like almost every year. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He has not had a full-time job in academia since 2006, Levivich. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights.

      "People clamoring for his insights" ... hmmmmm... Levivich (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it define who these people are? But again, like I said before, he doesn't work in academia and hasn't in several decades. That is a mark against him. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Publishing academic books counts as working in academia. And the same source you cited says he has worked at universities, but sporadically and as a low paid adjunct, since being denied tenure. That isn't "not working" that's "working." Also, he was denied tenure in 2007; that's not "several decades" ago, it's 16 years. You are not being accurate in your statements here. And his subsequent employment history has no bearing anyway on the reliability of his published works. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And he has held multiple academic posts since then. nableezy - 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which academic positions has he held since 2007? Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At Sakarya University Middle East Institute from 2014-15. nableezy - 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an honest mistake, but teaching for a year at a university is not the same as holding an academic position. I can understand the confusion, but lots of universities have occasional lecturers who may teach for a semester or a couple of semesters, but who are not part of the faculty. There is no indication Finkelstein ever held a faculty position at Sakarya. Also, as you wrote that he has held "multiple academic posts", could you please name the others you had in mind? Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That Finkelstein's academic career prospects were crushed by political pressure which led the university to ignore the very strong support he had both from faculty and his students in favour of tenure is well known, not controversial. When you are denied tenure, and your teaching terminated, it virtually condemns you to unemployment because any other university mulling hiring him would have to evaluate whether the inevitable public (sectorial) outcry and hullabaloo was worth the candle. When 11 years later, the University of California published his book on Gaza's Martyrdom, it flagged an acknowledgemen that his scholarship was still of the fine order demanded by that high quality academic publisher. There's no need to rub his face into the ground remarking on his poverty, unemployed status as if he were somewhow culpable. Most academics get their Phd published to secure tenure, and, once secure, enjoy their sinecures and leisurely teaching. It takes an exceptional character to bear the humiliation he suffered and still persist in the careful scholarship he manages to sustain even in very difficult personal circumstances. Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats just silly, I didnt say he was part of the faculty, but an adjunct professor is an academic position. I may have been mistaken on multiple however, seem to recall reading about a position in Europe but I cant find it now. But regardless, he continues to be treated as an academic expert by well regarded publishers, like the University of California Press. Unless you are of the belief that just any random schmuck can get through their review process? nableezy - 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Academic credentials, at least as far as professorship alone, do not seem to be terribly useful indicators of reliability. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, aren't their creationist and climate-denying and heavens-knows-what-else professors out there? And of course, Alan Dershowitz has tenure ... Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How about publishing works through prestigious university presses? nableezy - 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's definitely not nothing, but heaps of academic garbage get through peer review, with that problem more acute in some circles than others. The arguments above about citation metrics are somewhat more compelling to me than the argument about peer review alone since high citation metrics suggest people (whether in agreement, disagreement, or ridicule) at least seek fit to reference Finkelstein's work. Regarding his I/P books, plenty of the citations are to heavy hitters who I assume are referencing Finkelstein substantively. Exploration not only of the numbers, but also highlighting of some of the individuals using Finkelstein and how they are using him might improve the arguments so far, as would discussion of reviews. From poking around a little, there are some nice reviews one could reference, though some of the reviews themselves underline Finkelstein's presence at only the margins of academic discourse. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scholarship reliable This is a malformed request, because questions of source reliability go beyond authorship and include considerations of peer-review, editorial board review, and publisher oversight. Nevertheless, where Finkelstein has been published by an academic press there is no doubt his books or journal publications are highly reliable on the topic. His work is rigorous and maintains a close and careful attention to detail. Cambial foliar❧ 11:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a very good point. We shouldn’t be making a blanket assessment of his reliability. We can assume that his book published by UC Press has gone through a more rigorous editorial and fact checking process and therefore would be considerably more reliable than his self-published blogposts, articles published by the Nazi magazine Unz Review or his book on the ICC published by OR Books, which calls itself an “alternative publisher”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn’t how we treat established experts published by serious university presses, an expert source writing in yellow ink in the snow is still a reliable source. nableezy - 09:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable. Well-sourced works significant in the field. His works are indeed strongly positional. Under our policies, sources are allowed to take strong positions without becoming unreliable. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable. Very well sourced work; I cannot recall him ever being found to factually wrong? Huldra (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    break (Syndication in Unz Review)[edit]

    • Bobfrombrockley I actually had not known Finklestein publishes his work in the Unz Report, which is a virulently far-right, white nationalist, and antisemitic outlet. This has actually attracted negative attention from academia - this article from Portland State University says "The Unz Review is a “mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 ‘truther’ and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to ‘Holocaust industry’ critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians”. Finkelstein is, evidently, funded by the Unz Foundation as well. Add that as another strike against his credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If only Finkelstein wasn't "academia" you might have a point. nableezy - 23:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's possible for academics to be unreliable and criticized by other academics in their field. This has happened with Norman Finkelstein. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There remains zero evidence for that statement. nableezy - 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you look at NF wikipedia article under the section "Reception" and "Criticism". Vegan416 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well aware of it. You also don’t need to ping me here. nableezy - 10:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not an article from Portland State University, it's a conference paper written by two people who work at PSU. The paper is partially quoting an op-ed by Cathy Young in The Federalist, but the full quote is more nuanced:

      The Unz Review, founded by maverick businessman Ron Unz as a forum for non-mainstream perspectives, is somewhat more eclectic; but much of this eclecticism is a mix of far-right and far-left anti-Semitic crackpottery, from 9/11 “truther” and conspiracy theorist Paul Craig Roberts to “Holocaust industry” critic Norman Finkelstein, who believes Jews exploit the Holocaust to justify oppressing Palestinians.

      The Wikipedia articles on The Unz Review (and Ron Unz) have additional sources. While I wouldn't consider The Unz Review an RS, just because Finkelstein is published there or receives money from them doesn't have any bearing on the reliability of his works published elsewhere, e.g. university presses. Levivich (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, at this point we know he's praised the scholarship of notorious academic fraud and Holocaust denier David Irving, and that he writes for and is paid by a website that is notorious for white supremacy and antisemitism. Additionally, he's not been in academia for nearly two decades, and his work is not uniformly praised in academia itself. I don't really see the merits of using him on this encyclopedia, honestly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to repeat my responses to all those points as they have been well covered above. The merits of using him on this encyclopedia is that NPOV means we summarize all significant viewpoints, even the viewpoints we disagree with. To do otherwise would be censorship. We are neutral to the viewpoints of reliable sources, and so long as Finkelstein's works receive many citations, and he's published by academic publishers and cited by other scholars in the field (all of which is indisputable), he is an RS. Controversial scholars are still scholars, and former professors with many Google scholar cites who are published by university presses are scholars. There is no guilt-by-association exception to WP:NPOV or WP:RS. His books on the Holocaust Industry, or on Gaza, don't suddenly become non-RSes because of what he says about David Irving, or because he's published by Unz. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And I'll say it again, for what it's worth: being published by a genuine white nationalist outlet is an enormous red flag, in my opinion. It's far from the only reason I'm skeptical of using him, but association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 03:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      See also association fallacy. nableezy - 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It’s not an association fallacy when, presumably, he’s the one who chose to write for a far-right website. I’m not accusing him of being a white nationalist, but writing for fringe, far right websites is not typically a hallmark of an indisputably reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 05:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to characterize it as a red flag, that's fine. The question then becomes "to what end?" You can't just gesture to it repeatedly unless it might actually mean something, something which you've yet to articulate.
      Can you point to any examples of specific problems with his actual work you'd like to discuss? Preferably beyond mere disagreements with colleagues, per above. Frankly, that's the only worthwhile focus for this discussion, the rest has so far amounted to hot air, I'm afraid. Remsense 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For Pete's sake, a publication dedicated to publishing non-mainstream views that publishes both far-right and far-left views is not a far-right website or a Nazi website. Finkelstein is politically left-of-center not right-of-center, and he's the son of Holocaust survivors, so obviously nobody thinks he's a white supremacist. Levivich (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't believe I'm having to prove this, but the Unz Review is, in fact, uniformly regarded as far-right, white nationalist website:
    • The Guardian: "carries columns from avowed neo-Nazis and racists... a one-stop shop for hate from many different vantage points"
    • Seattle Times: "a far-right website criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as hosting racist and antisemitic content"
    • Rolling Stone: "antisemitic blog"
    • Anti-Defamation League: "a fringe platform that regularly hosts bigoted content"
    • CNN: "a website that has published Holocaust denialism and columns in support of White nationalism"
    • Southern Poverty Law Center: "white nationalist publication"
    • Mother Jones: "white nationalist publication"
    • Kansas City Star: "a website that includes white nationalist and anti-Semitic content"
    • New York Times: "far-right"
      This was all from a cursory 10-minute search. I am not arguing he's a white supremacist (although he does hold a number of views associated with the far right, including transphobia and supporting Russia's genocidal war against Ukraine, neither of which are especially relevant here). But I do strongly believe that writing for a white nationalist website is a massive, massive red flag for credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forum, including ad hom attacks, irrelevant to reliability
    • Is Norman Finkelstein now a white nationalist? Is that what you’re arguing? nableezy - 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you actually read what I said? Because if you did, you'd find the answer to what you're asking. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm amazed you think that list of quotes supports "white supremacist." Just to take the first one, "a one-stop shop for hate from many different vantage points," well "many different vantage points" doesn't mean one vantage point (white supremacy, or far-right). Also, are you of the belief that "far right" and "white supremacy" are the same thing? They're not. White supremacy is far right, but there are also Black people on the far right, and Jews on the far right, e.g. non-white-supremacist far-right. White supremacism isn't the only kind of racism. There are far-right Israelis who are not white supremacists, for example. Maybe read Far-right politics and White supremacy. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did, you said he is not a white supremacist and then claimed he holds "a number of views associated with the far right". So despite your claim that you are not arguing something it sure looks like you are. Either way, not liking where somebody is published does not, in any way, detract from his scholarship or somehow make him not a scholar. nableezy - 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I also said neither of those views are directly relevant to the topic at hand - I only mentioned them because of Levivich's assertion he's uniformly left-of-center, when the reality is more complicated than that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's actually not that complicated. It seems Finkelstein would gladly join hands with anyone who is anti-Israeli. While Finkelstein himself is probably from the extreme left, he has no problem associating with people from the extreme US right, like those white supremacists in Unz, or from the extreme Muslim right like Hamas and Hezbollah, just because of their common hatred towards Israel Vegan416 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not forum, again. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I just answered @Nableezy's question "Is Norman Finkelstein now a white nationalist?". You can't ask a question and then when someone answers it, claim that it is not the forum to discuss this question. If it's not the forum then why did you ask that question here? Vegan416 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I advise you to refactor that personal attack before it is reported. nableezy - 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What personal attack? Against Finkelstein? Was anything I said here about him incorrect? Vegan416 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "he has no problem associating with people from the extreme US right, like those white supremacists in Unz, or from the extreme Muslim right like Hamas and Hezbollah, just because of their common hatred towards Israel" Levivich (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of this is incorrect?
      He did publish in Unz. He did went to Lebanon to visit the Hezbollah. He publicly praised Hamas October 7 attack on Israel. Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "because of their common hatred towards Israel" Levivich (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you denying that Finkelstein, Unz, Hamas and Hezbullah all hate Israel??? Vegan416 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which reliable source says that? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, what does "hate Israel" mean exactly? Hate the current Israeli government? I hate the current Israeli government. I hate what they're doing in Gaza. Does that make me a white supremacist or far-right? Does that mean I share with Hamas and Hezbollah a "common hatred towards" the current Israeli government? Yes, actually, I guess I do share a common hatred towards Bibi's policies with Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran and probably all Palestinians, all Arabs, all Muslims, and like half of the rest of the world, and lots and lots (hundreds and hundreds) of scholars.
      But I don't hate Israelis, I don't hate the state of Israel itself or in its entirety (I hate parts of it, the far-right parts), and I don't hate Jews. I don't think Finkelstein hates any of those either, even if he hates the current govt or certain past govts, or policies, or specific politicians.
      So, yeah, big [citation needed] there for Finkelstein's "hatred towards Israel." Levivich (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a bright line here between criticism of Israel and hatred of Israel. It's the celebration of the October 7 attack. Finkelstein celebrated the attack. I sincerely hope that you didn't. Vegan416 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are overstepping here and not the first time, either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What do you mean by "overstepping"? It is a fact that Finkelstein celebrated the October 7 attack on Israel:
      And what is this reference to "not the first time"? Vegan416 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This isnt a Zionist project, where only sources that support Israel are welcome. Unless you think that supporting what the International Court of Justice has said is plausibly genocide rules out a source, the views of our sources is not what determines their reliability. Anyway, he has said that his initial comments regarding the attack were based on the information that he had, and that he regretted his inital commentary. But even if that werent true, this isnt a project where we determine what views are allowed, no matter what somebody thinks of them. nableezy - 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read carefully what I wrote here. I didn't say anything about "not allowing his views". I'm just explaining here why I think that he hates Israel. From my point of view anyone who celebrated the October 7 attack has shown by that he viscerally hates Israel, even if later he tried to walkback from this initial gut reaction for PR reasons. Vegan416 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I read what you wrote, and what you wrote has jack to do with reliability, which is the topic under discussion here. Once more, I do not care about your view on who hates Israel or how much they do, it is not relevant to the topic in any way. nableezy - 18:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually it is relevant to the subject of reliability. It is called "bias" and "partisanship". Sources that are clearly extremely biased on some topic are deemed generally less reliable as a source of facts on it than sources who are not. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should not be used altogether, because sometimes people can be biased but reliable, but caution is needed when using those sources. Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Try again. nableezy - 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ? Vegan416 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You realize that the source you brought says exactly what I just said? Vegan416 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Read it more carefully. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The personal attack was the like some of his groupies here. nableezy - 17:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how this is a personal attack if I didn't mention any names whatsoever. But whatever. It was removed incidentally when I refactored the entire paragraph to clarify what I said about Finkelstein. Vegan416 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I do see how, and if you make more I will be reporting it. Toodles. nableezy - 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • association with fringe, alt-right or white nationalist figures is absolutely something that reflects very poorly on a source's credibilityIt’s not an association fallacy. Too easy. nableezy - 11:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      By this logic, your "his books have been published by academic presses, which means he's a reliable academic" argument doesn't hold water either. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reliable publishers convey reliability; they don't convey political or ideological slants, which is what you are deducing from an online publisher. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That’s not my argument, that’s Wikipedias. nableezy - 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And they also note what I'm saying in WP:QUESTIONABLE. Toa Nidhiki05 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The only thing questionable here is the beating of the dead horse. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, thats about sources that dont have a track record of being published by highly regarded university presses and peer reviewed journals. What actually is relevant to Finkelstein is WP:RS/SPS where it says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Finkelstein is an established expert in the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. nableezy - 15:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OR Books also publishes work by Bill McKibben, Simon Critchley, Slavoj Žižek, Patrick Cockburn, Douglas Rushkoff, Moustafa Bayoumi, Barney Rosset, among many others... lots of established writers and thinkers in their fields. I don't think it matters if they call themselves an "alternative publisher." I'm not really perceiving a difference between OR Books and other progressive publishers like Zed Books. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My point was simply that reliability isn't by author alone, but also by publisher. While OR is not necessarily unreliable it's clearly not as reliable as a university press (while it is clearly more reliable than Unz or Sublation). (FWIW I think Zed - like Pluto or Verso - is a cut above OR in terms of peer review and editorial process.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, yes, I completely agree with that. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In no uncertain terms, Finkelstein has done some of the most careful, erudite scholarship in the history of history, period. It is ridiculous how error-free his oeuvre has been for its sheer size. I am not impressed by the arguments to a comparative skepticism above, because they show a basic lack of familiarity with his work or its place in the field. It's necessary to make this clear because otherwise chatter in a vacuum can be given disproportionate weight, so I'm putting my thumb firmly on the scale: if there's such a thing as a reliable source about a contentious topic, it's Norman Finkelstein.
    I would sometimes recommend attempting to read a scholarly work of before asking here whether it should be considered reliable. If anything, it would give the discussion more to work with than aspersions. Remsense 04:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "his place in the field", which field do you mean? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caution: My position is that like in any case of a scholar who seems to be far from the consensus in his field, we as non-experts should prefer the consensus. Though the consensus can sometimes be wrong, and the outliers right, more often it is the other conventional way around. So it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims. Vegan416 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      On what, exactly, is Finkelstein far from the consensus in his field? And how does "it would not be right to rely on his books as a single source for controversial claims" differ from how we would treat any other RS? Levivich (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. That's why we should prefer to look close to the consensus in any field. Vegan416 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, who's peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any person with enough talent can peddle BS in a shiny format, that for a layman in the field would be indistinguishable from real valuable research. That's why we have to rely on other experts in the field to detect it. And that's why in wikipedia, as well as in real life, it is always advisable to rely on the consensus in each field rather than on outliers. Even though sometime it turns out eventually the outliers were right and then the consensus changes, it happens quite rarely, and as a general rule it is still a much better bet to rely on the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So which experts are you relying on? And what BS did they detect that made NF an outlier? Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your question. What experts I'm relying on regarding what question? Vegan416 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This supposed "consensus" that NF peddles BS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say there is such a consensus?? Try reading my words carefully again. All I said is that it seems that NF is far from the consensus in his field of research (by which I mean in this context the IP conflict). Do you think that he is part of the consensus in this field? Vegan416 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is for you to prove your assertion or withdraw it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put it this way. A scholar operating within the consensus in his field wouldn't need to publish anything in a site like the Unz Review (titled "An Alternative Media Selection"), as he would have much better venues open to him... Vegan416 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with Unz isn't that it's an alternative outlet, it's that it's a white supremacist, far-right, antisemitic outlet, and no self-respecting scholar worth their salt would write in it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion, not an answer to my question. As I said at the outset of this discussion, we have articles about his books full of reviews with praise for his work and his work is WP policy compliant but we are supposed instead to pay attention to some random voice on the web saying he peddles BS? I ask again, who is peddling BS? Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the sentence again, this time carefully. Here it is: The problem with your argument is that unless you are yourself already an expert in the field, then reading the book wouldn't tell you if he is really done "careful, erudite scholarship" or if he is just good at peddling BS. It's not difficult to understand, but you still failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it seems you failed to understand my words even with careful reading then let me explain it to you in other words. I didn't accuse anyone of peddling BS. I only said that it is not always possible for the layman to distinguish between those who do real valuable research and those who peddle shiny BS research. So reading a book of some author would not necessarily enable you to judge the quality of his work. Certainly not better than the consensus in his field. Vegan416 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your words all too well, thanks for the concern though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can literally type into your browser and get articles like:
    • Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence which opens with a quote from famous anti-Semite and white supremacist Adolf Hitler [2]
    • The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids written by Andrew Anglin[3]
    • The Primacy of Anti-Semitism, which argues for a "rational anti-Semitism" because the vast majority of social problems in America, in Europe, and in the West, are primarily (though not solely) due to Jewish manipulation and corruption. [4]
    These are all on the front page of Unz right now. There's no need to bother with what reliable sources describe Unz as when its writers are openly proud of being anti-Semitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "the consensus in his field of research"? And what is Finkelstein's views that are far from that consensus? Levivich (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is valid for science. In any field of the humanities, it becomes far trickier, and this is particularly true of subjects with the potentiality for a high degree of political fallout. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the same principles apply nonetheless. Otherwise you will not be able to make a distinction between acceptable theories and narratives and fringe theories and narratives. Vegan416 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are too many comments here that veer from the issue, and show total unfamiliarity with Finkelstein's work and actual life, like 'It's actually not that complicated. It seems Finkelstein would gladly join hands with anyone who is anti-Israeli.' Those who have continued to follow his work all know that he is in bad odour with the BDS movement, and even friends otherwise critical of Israel like Tariq Ali. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toa Nidhiki05
    I agree of course with all you said. But my stress here was that the fact that he felt the need to publish there shows that he is far from the consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not for general statements, I would say that they're a reliable source but should be used with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that all of the nonsense about him and the Unz Review speaks in the present tense, i.e. he is paid by, publishes in. . .The first item here is reproduced from Mondoweiss, and such appears to be the case with several others of the 13 items. We don't know of the financial relationship and payments for material of his which, clearly, he does not object to being reproduced there. This 'rumour-mongering' is amply evidenced in many hostile sources. Same with David Irving. He was considered an extremely promising and original young historian and later became a nutter. But some of his early work is first rate, if one trusts TLS reviews, and Finkelstein doesn't abide by a world of taboos and clichés that skewer this or forbid that. He exercises his judgment whatever some 'consensus' might tend to state. People who see the word 'consensus' on something and therefore on the strength of that word, adopt the said view (without troubling themselves to famniliarize themselves with the topic ) remind me of Nietzsche's remark that subscribing to public opinion is tantamount to not having a personal opinion. You can always rely of Finkelstein to provide, when asked, meticulously documentation for whgatever position he takes, which is rather rare these days, even among general commentators and academics.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on the rights signed over to Mondoweiss, the material could be syndicated entirely without his permission. It's impossible to tell without knowing the terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Actually according to the site 30 items by him were published there in the years 2015-2017. And the question of payments is not relevant at all. Even if he wasn't paid at all it is still quite telling that he was ready to associate his name with this site. In fact it might be even worse. People might be excused for doing silly things out of financial necessity, but doing silly things for free is more troublesome.
    2. Your last comment against the "consensus" and about asking NF for documentation to check his claims seem to to contradict the logic behind WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.
    Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe he just doesn't care where his material is published so long as it is broadcast for the world's attention. Finkelstein has always been substance over style, so it has to be considered that he simply didn't even deign to consider the petty bickering that might one day arise over the choice of venue – because a venue is all a website is. Just as when one is having a serious discussion in a pub, one doesn't tend to give a rat's arse what the political opinions of the pub's owners or frequent customers are. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. But would you say the same thing if a pro-Israeli researcher would have published in this site? Anyway did NF ever explain his connections with this site? BTW even more shocking to me than everything he said about Israel, is his comparison between the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and Julius Streicher. Such a statement casts severe doubt about his professional judgment.
    I think I'm finished with this discussion. Good night. Vegan416 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly reasonable to dislike Charlie Hebdo cartoons. They're unwitty garbage, frequently bigoted and would have been best left in the 20th century. If they hadn't become a target, few in the world would ever have heard of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You completely missed the point here. I didn't say that anyone has to like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. But my point is that comparing Charlie Hebdo to Der Sturmer shows that NF doesn't understand even the basics of his alleged field of expertise - the holocaust. There is absolutely no similarity between the papers, their methods and their intention. Der Sturmer was an antisemitic paper aimed mostly against the Jews with the intention of encouraging violent persecution of them and even genocide. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper that intends to make fun of everyone - Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people from the right and from the left. And it has absolutely no violent or genocidal intentions. It is unhinged to say they are the same. Vegan416 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Iskandar323, the Unz Foundation (which runs the site) awarded Finklestein $108,000 in 2009 alone, and has also paid him since then. I highly doubt his work there is being published without permission. Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Ron Unz funds anti-Zionist activists – that's not a news flash, and his website provides a venue for them. Freedom of speech. If you have been watching the news over the last six months, you may have noticed that media outlets that stray from a staunchly pro-Israeli government position are few and far between. All the ADL attests to, as linked above, is that some items on the site occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic trope to them and have been used by antisemites. So even an ADL entry on the subject leaning into the smearing only offers a very modest critique of the site. Meh. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323: Describing the Unz Review as a site that "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes" is at odds with reality. Go read The Primacy of Anti-Semitism which is currently on the front page of Unz. In it, the author says:

    We can’t stop Jews or their sycophants from dishing out such labels, but we can undermine their effect by—embracing them. The global situation has now come to the point, I claim, where we can, we need, we must, take a resolutely anti-Jewish attitude, openly and explicitly. The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain.

    He then proceeds to use several anti-Semitic tropes in describing Jews. If an article directly calling for anti-Semitism by name isn't an anti-Semitic article I don't know what is. Maybe Andrew Anglin's recent frontpage piece in Unz called The Jews Want You to Watch Them Mass Murdering Little Kids in which he denies the Holocaust and says bombing Gaza is as evil as being gay, because Jews are like homosexuals in that both are public exhibitionists (I'm paraphrasing, not agreeing). There are a lot of publications that are pro-Palestinian that aren't anti-Semitic. The Unz Review, however, openly brags about being both. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really relevant what Unz is or isn't, because it's already deprecated and NF hasn't published there. There is content attributed to NF from 2015-2017, including three interviews and three series of articles syndicated from Byline. If NF was handed a large check for the privilege of the syndication, well ... ? He's a scholar, not a saint, and more online publication = more eyeballs on your ideas. But again, this is a dated, brief snapshot of a publishing period for some very specific content. It has little bearing on anything else, let alone NF's books published through university presses, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In September 2018 Ron Unz, the owner of the site, published in the Unz Review an article blaming Israel for perpetrating the 9/11 attack. The Unz Review is a hotbed of crazy antisemitic conspiracy theories. The fact that Finkelstein worked with this site casts serious doubts on the soundness of his professional judgment. Vegan416 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody tries to cite that feel free to challenge it. It has nothing to do with if a noted expert in the field of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a reliable source however. nableezy - 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely does matter that he writes there. Credible academics don't write for outlets like this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Benny Morris wrote something on American Thinker, Efraim Karsh as well. Does that mean they can’t be cited? Of course not, this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt at censoring views one doesn’t like. Finkelstein’s work meets all the requirements to be considered a reliable source, and all that has been proven in this ridiculous sized section is that a handful of Wikipedia editors reaaaallllyyyy don’t like that. Tough. nableezy - 12:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say writing for American Thinker would be a red flag as well (to my knowledge, they've written a fawning profile of white nationalist Jared Taylor, although I don't know if they've ever stooped into outright neo-Nazism like Unz has), and I'd appreciate you not stoop so low to personal attacks. We're required to assume good faith, and declaring anyone who disagrees with you "intellectually bankrupt" people attempting to "censor" people is just not productive at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren’t the thought police here, you don’t get to decide that if some website makes a reliable source unusable for their association with it. There is nothing in WP:RS that backs up a thing you’re claiming. And criticizing your argument is not a personal attack. nableezy - 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the thought police, but it's incredibly rude to say that everyone who disagrees with you is "intellectually bankrupt" and trying to "censor" people. We have civility policies here, and I'd advise you follow them. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt say that, I said the argument used here is that. this is just an intellectually bankrupt attempt is not you are intellectually bankrupt. Id advise you to not continue making arguments divorced from our policies. The argument advanced here, that Finkelstein published work at some BadPlace makes it so his work that has been published by well regarded university presses is somehow no longer reliable is intellectually bankrupt, it would, if it were done with any consistency at all, would rule out a plethora of highly reliable sources, including Finkelstein and Benny Morris. That argument has no basis in anything resembling our policies and guidelines, it is a basic association fallacy and it is only being used here to attempt to rule out a scholarly source. Aka censoring views you dont want included. nableezy - 16:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to censor anyone, and I don't appreciate you claiming I am. This is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see three interviews and some syndicated content. That's not actually writing there AFAICS. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was paid $108,000 by Unz and additional sums later on. He's absolutely a writer there, or absolutely was one. Can you at least acknowledge Chess's point that the site does't just "occasionally have a whiff of antisemitic tropes"? Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chess doesn’t have a point, or at least not a relevant one. nableezy - 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's he written that's not an interview (not his writing) or syndicated content (originally published elsewhere)? The $108k figure you're flashing around is for an academic grant in 2013, not for writing in 2015-2017 (and the Free Beacon is also incidentally unreliable). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 30 articles by NF published by Unz, each saying they are published with his permission, all dated from the mid-2010s. He didn't write for Unz, it was one of his publishers. (Just noting this in the interests of accuracy, as I was the first person to mention Unz on this page, not intending it to become a focus of discussion, not sure any of this discussion is at all relevant to the original question posted in this section.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Academic grant" by an organization that seeks to promote anti-Semitic falsehoods is a clear conflict of interest. Put it another way. The academic consensus in the medical field is that smoking causes cancer. Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars on academic grants to researchers through places like the Center for Indoor Air Research or the Tobacco Institute. Coincidentally, scientists affiliated with these institutes consistently published research that benefitted their sponsors and went against the academic consensus in their fields. Is it proper to cite them when they're following the tobacco industry playbook?
    This is the same thing Norman Finkelstein has done:
    1. The Unz Foundation's goal is to promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that go against the consensus of the academic community.
    2. One of their goals in doing so is to promote the Palestinian cause.
    3. Norman Finkelstein has taken money from the Unz Foundation for his research.
    4. His research benefits the goals of Unz by promoting the Palestinian cause.
    5. Like Unz, he promotes historical claims that are not in line with the consensus of academia.
    I think the burden to prove that Finkelstein is unreliable isn't just that he takes money to promote Palestinian causes. That would be the association fallacy and there is nothing wrong with being pro-Palestinian. The burden is that that the organization is paying him to distort the historical record in support of the Palestinian cause. This is a high burden, but it's one that can be met.
    Point 1 is easily proven by Unz posting anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jews doing 9/11. Point 2 can be seen by going on and looking at how their entire site is currently pro-Palestinian opinion pieces (that often use anti-Semitic tropes). [5] [6] [7] [ Point 3 has been shown by Toa Nidhiki05 who quantified it as $108k. Point 4 is shown by the fact he publishes in Unz, thereby supporting them specifically and their goals. Most people here would also agree he takes a pro-Palestinian stance on the conflict (which isn't inherently wrong).
    The only real dispute is over point 5. Has Unz influenced Norman Finkelstein to be less reliable? The answer is yes. In addition to what everyone else has said, since taking money from Unz, he praised Holocaust denier David Irving as a "very good historian" [8] and says students should be taught the controversy about the Holocaust. [9] This is against the scholarly consensus, to say the least. Going back to the start of this comment, it's similar to how the tobacco industry funds academics to invent a controversy over proven facts. Unz gave Finkelstein a bunch of money and now he spreads fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1 to 4 has nothing to do with the discussion, 5 says "Like Unz", oh please. This just reads like I can't get him on anything else so I am going to get him because of an association with Unz. Irrelevant drivel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more time, not liking his views is emphatically not a criteria for his reliability, and you tried this guilt by association thing with Counterpunch as well. Finkelstein's work has been published in peer-reviewed journal articles and by respected university presses, he meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. No matter how many people say "but Unz", that remains the fact. There remains zero evidence that he has distort[ed] the historical record and you remarkably close to a BLP violation in writing that here. nableezy - 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break[edit]

    Because my goodness, everything is broken and my attempt to fix it made everything worse, I'm so sorry.

    • My view is he is very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict, but higher-level analyses should be attributed, as they are stridently based in his very particular ideology and he does not make any efforts towards any notion of neutrality.
    I haven't read or engaged much with his work about other topics, including the Holocaust.
    I am flummoxed that people are seemingly freely casting aspersions about Finkelstein's reliability for statements of historical fact when there has been no evidence for why offered whatsoever. The closest we've gotten are the very appreciated notes by @FortunateSons and @Doug Weller, which I think are important to consider, but do not translate into outright skepticism of his reliability for the purpose stated above. Remsense 21:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no doubt we should use him for statements of fact, and indeed I think it would be a NPOV violation to deliberately exclude him. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RemsenseI don't understand what your view that he is "very reliable for direct statements of fact about the I/P conflict" is based on. Are you an expert in this field? The fact is that several leading experts in it have criticized his work very sharply.
    Examples from here and here:
    “No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites,” (Novick, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 7, 2001)
    "Norman Finkelstein is a notorious distorter of facts and of my work, not a serious or honest historian." (Benny Morris)
    "it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations" (Omer Bartov)
    Furthermore, NF academic credentials look unimpressive even from a dry statistical analysis. He didn't manage to get tenure in any university. Most of his books are published in non academic avenues. And in an academic career of 40+ years it seems that he published only 19 articles in peer reviewed journals (according to this Jstor search, if you try to replicate the search. please take care not to confuse him with another scholar with the exact same name who is an expert in Jewish literature and is responsible for most of the articles there) and of these only 5 in the last 20 years. Vegan416 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are repeating yourself ad infinitum. Have you ever read any book by Finkelstein, as apart from giving me at least the impression that the net is being scoured for dirt on him (this thread has taken on the lineaments of an attempt to conduct a trial on Finkelstein as a person rather than face the obvious fact that opn the I/P conflict he has distinguished himself by writing several forensic studies of the dissonance between the way information is packaged for one POV to damage the other POV, by measuring the disconnect between public rhetoric and the factual record?
    That is all that interests us here, not vague guilt by association insinuations. That Unz picks up some of his interviews and republishes them or that he remarked on the dissonance between the way we viscerally react to the obscenity of the attack on Hebdo (and one still grieves to recall there the murder of Elsa Cayat) and how we would react were some inflamed Jews to make a similar lethal attack on a a paper routinely publishing antisemitic cartoons, is neither here nor there. He stated that while antisemitic cartoons are repulsive and universally condemned, cartoons that skewer by gross ethnic caricature a figure sacred to a billion Muslims evokes no such distaste. His point is WP:Systemic bias, and while I, for one,might perhaps strongly disagree, his analogy forced me to rethink a sensitive issue. That is one of the primary functions of controversialists. His scholarship uses other principles: few can find any factual misrepresentations in them. Thisa thread should be archived as unproductive, unfocused and all over the place without any prospect of conclusiveness. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have wanted to respond to you but I kind of got lost in the postmodernist jungle of your second sentence... Anyway I agree that this discussion leads nowhere, so I'm leaving it. Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most concrete concerns provided in your links regard his aforementioned quotation of Benny Morris et al. I will reproduce an example here, apologies in advance for excessive quotation, but I think a complete-ish example of what we're talking about is needed here:
    Passages by Benny Morris (1987) and Finkelstein (2001)
    • In The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1987)—which I think was the first book-length work on the subject, based on documents that were newly declassified at the time—while discussing the exodus of Palestinians from Haifa, Morris quotes a statement Ben-Gurion made in 1949. Here's both the footnote and the paragraph it's attached to:[1]

    Mapam's Arab Department, probably in part on the basis of Krischer's report, in March analysed the Arab flight from Haifa. The department noted the Arabs' "fears ... for their future," both in the transitional pre-State period and under Jewish rule, and pointed out that it was mainly "Christians, professionals, officials" who were leaving. By 1 March, the mainly Christian districts of "Old Carmel" and Wadi Nisnas were "almost completely" empty. "The flight is less marked in the eastern parts of town, where the poorer classes, who are under the influence of the extremists, are concentrated," stated the Department. According to this analysis, the Christians were mainly worried about the transitional period, between the end of effective Mandate government and the start of effective Jewish government. They felt that they would then be "between the hammer and the anvil, the Arab terrorist operations and Jewish reactions." Arab public servants feared that their advancement would be blocked by their "lack of Hebrew." Arab railway workers worried about the fate of the railway under Jewish rule.[54]

    54. LPA 48/23 aleph, protocol of the meeting of the Mapai Centre, statement by Ben-Gurion, 24 July 1948. Ben-Gurion's statement was revealing about his attitude to the Palestine Arabs, especially in the light of their behaviour and flight during the war. "Meanwhile," he said, "[a return] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table ... and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nonetheless, we did not flee en masse. [And] so far no Arab Einstein has arisen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer."

    • Finkelstein in turn quotes this in his own footnote while discussing how he feels Morris's work dispels myths about the period while simultaneously creating new ones in his Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (2001): once more both footnote and a paragraph of context:[2]

    Morris repeatedly warns readers to treat with extreme circumspection the diary entries and public pronouncements of Ben-Gurion, yet uncritically reports certain of his conclusions. Morris notes that Ben-Gurion's testimony cannot be trusted because he was ‘driven ... by concern for his place in history and the image of himself and the image of the new state he wished to project for posterity' (Birth, p. 165; cf. Birth, pp. 136, 218, 292–3, 329–30, note 24, 335, note 40; 1948, p. 113). For example he ridicules Ben-Gurion's repeated assertion in 1948 and 1949 that 'Israel has never expelled a single Arab' as ‘a lie that even the most gullible journalists and UN officials found hard to swallow' (Tikkun, p. 82) Indeed, Morris singles out Ben-Gurion’s own 'histories' (the quotation marks are Morris's) of the Yishuv and Israel's first years as the 'purest expression' of the highly tendentious 'old' history (1948, p. 5).[12] Yet he cites without irony or qualification the 'major political conclusion' (Morris's phrase) Ben-Gurion drew from the Arab exodus from Haifa and elsewhere. Speaking to the People’s Council in early May 1948, Israel's first prime minister made the claim that no Jewish settlement to date had been abandoned in the war – in contrast with 'some hundred Arab settlements'. The Arabs, Ben-Gurion asserted, had abandoned 'cities ... with great ease, after the first defeat, even though no danger of destruction or massacre ... confronted them. Indeed, it was revealed with overwhelming clarity which people is bound with strong bonds to this land' (Birth, pp. 4–5) In fact, as we shall see presently, virtually every Arab settlement was abandoned precisely because of the 'danger of destruction or massacre'. What is more, at the exact moment that Ben-Gurion was sounding this 'major political conclusion', the Palmah was massacring some seventy Arab prisoners near Ein az Zeitun and several Arabs in the village itself (Birth, pp. 102, 321, note 133).

    12. Another reason that Ben-Gurion’s testimony cannot be trusted is that he was so extreme a racist, indeed, comically so. Thus, he observed that Arabs were not entitled to the same respect accorded Jews because 'so far no Arab Einstein has arisen. ... We are dealing here with a collective murderer' (Birth, p. 331, note 54). Incidentally, Morris's study reveals that even the findings of Zionists renowned for their sympathy with the Palestinian Arabs must be handled with some caution. Thus a Mapam leader and secretary of the League for Arab—Jewish Rapprochement and Cooperation, Aharon Cohen, early on in the Arab exodus sought to minimize the responsibility of the Haganah by faulting the British for 'sow[ing] panic' among the Arabs – a claim for which there is apparently no supporting evidence (Birth, p. 317, note 73; cf. Birth, p. 319, note 93). Cohen’s contention in this regard is consistent with the central thesis of his major study, Israel and the Arab World, New York 1970, namely that the British were the villains of the Palestinian tragedy – a claim for which the evidence is equally scanty. Cohen and the Mapam became convinced by mid-1948 that the de facto Zionist leadership was engaged in a systematic expulsion policy; see pp. 74–5 above.

    Really hoping this doesn't amount to copyvio, it's the smallest usable chunk I could directly honestly point to, I can't quote any further spidering of cross-references—but I hope this is at least an illustrative core of what we're talking about here. I simply am not able to see this as a dishonest distortion of either Morris or Ben-Gurion, to the best of my ability. It is simply a biased analysis. I don't really see it as sloppy scholarship, either. If one did have an issue with this, I cannot really wrap my head around it would amounting to a persuasive piece of evidence toward wholly disqualifying Finkelstein as a RS for the scope I've mentioned.


    1. ^ Morris, Benny (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge University Press. pp. 43–44, 331. ISBN 0-521-33028-9.
    2. ^ Finkelstein, Norman G. (2001). Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. pp. 54–55, 188. ISBN 978-1-859-84339-0.
    There are inherent limits to rejecting making your own judgments as to uphold WP:NPOV. I am not an expert in anything, never mind I/P, but I am fairly literate. That's what these discussions are for, we can and should pass most of the buck to reliable sources, but ultimately we have to operate the scales when weighing them. That's all I've done. Remsense 14:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense, as I told @Nishidani,
    1. I was thinking of leaving this discussion. But since you took the trouble to respond to me at length I'll reciprocate and stay here. However, I 'm not sure I understand the purpose of the quotes you brought. I didn't mention his example in my comments, and I don't know where you got it from. I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?
    2. However if nevertheless you want to go into specific examples then it does seem that in this case he misrepresented Morris at least. If I understand correctly what's going on (which is hard from this partial text) it seems NF claims that BM said that BG was racist whereas I don't see that BM said that. And here is an example of another error in NF work, this time quite egregious, that can be easily understood without being an expert. He claimed in one of his books that prior to 1967 only two Jewish American intellectuals supported Israel. This is patently false as is proven at length here. (The quotes from Einstein are particularly interesting to me since, coincidentally, I made a few edits on Einstein views on Zionism several weeks ago without any relation to NF. The fact that Einstein was pro-Zionist is very well known and it is bizarre that NF seems to have been unaware of it.
    Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just brought the general opinions of these scholars (Morris, Novick, Bartov) on the quality of NF work, without mentioning any details. Starting to go over particular examples and checking them ourselves is original research. Are we sure we want to get into that?

    To be clear, no it is not: it's a basic discussion and interpretation of sources so we can figure out how to use them; as I've said, this is required in editing unless there's some way to fairly represent sources without interpreting them first that I'm not aware of. Original research would be if this went into an article itself as wikivoice analysis.
    The "two Jewish American intellectuals" claim is a bit of a head-scratcher for me, I will freely admit. Remsense 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Camera is yet another crap source, proving nothing at all. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But as @Remsense said the discussion here is not bound by the regular rules of WP:OR and WP:RS. We are now on a mission of fact checking to determine the reliability of a source, not of writing an article. So do you suggest that when CAMERA quote NF as saying that there were only two Jewish American intellectuals who supported Israel before 1967 it is a fake quote and he didn't write this in his book?
    Taking a break for a while, but I will return Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying: the above was an example cited in numerous places, including Camera. I'm basically just reproducing it here so we know a little directly about what the field is. Sorry for not being clear about that. Remsense 16:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No hurry. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since some people here seem to cast doubt about whether NF really said this thing about Jewish American intellectuals before 1967 I went to the primary source, and found this:
    "Telling irony: Just about the only two public Jewish intellectuals who had forged a bond with Israel before June 1967 were Hannah Arendt and Noam Chomsky".
    This is patently false, in addition to the names of Jewish American intellectuals who publicly supported Israel before 1967 that are mentioned in the CAMERA article (particularly Einstein) I can also add several more names just of the top of my head: Mordecai Kaplan, Abba Hillel Silver, Leo Strauss, Eli Wiesel, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Vegan416 (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (To be totally clear, when I said it was a "headscratcher", I meant I do not understand what Finkelstein was getting out whatat when he said that, and he's obviously straightforwardly wrong.) Remsense 06:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I wasn't talking here about you. Vegan416 (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not going to convince anyone that NF is unreliable based on a couple of examples of details that you claim (without sources) are incorrect. Aside from the blatant cherrypicking of your approach (versus addressing NF's entire corpus of work), even pointing to a couple of errors would not make NF not reliable. Generally reliable means generally correct, not infallible. To attest NF as not GREL, you will need to prove a well-evidenced pattern of errance running through his entire body of scholarly work, or find a source that has already demonstrated the same. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remsense, can you explain what these extracts are showing? I don't think we can determine general reliability ourselves via close analysis of extracts. Presumably, if you showed us some carefully chosen extracts of David Irving, we might think it looks reliable. This is why we avoid original research but go with the scholarly consensus. You've said that NF is a leader in his field, and the way to show this would be to show that a considerable body of reputable scholars in his field (the fields raised by the OP were the Holocaust and Israel/Palestine) consider him a good source and that few consider him dishonest or sloppy. I don't think you can do this based on close reading of his own work. Or is your intention to show he's better than Morris? But that's irrelevant here, as that's not the question at hand. Maybe I'm missing the point? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is this is the most persuasive critique of the reliability of Finkelstein's work by his peers for our purposes that I've read so far. I have reproduced it here so people can more easily begin analyzing what we are talking about. Remsense 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Remsense. In re-reading I realise your point was clearer than I thought. On reflection, my conclusion from your analysis would be that in a case like this, where two scholars disagree with each other, we should cite neither of them as a source for facts without attribution, but where they give the same factual information we could cite both without attribution. Using our own reading of the sources to let us assume that either Finkelstein trumps Morris or vice versa would be original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Levivich, Finkelstein is a scholar whose opinions will often be due weight to attribute in prose. His writing is significant and reliable for some types of fact, but in a subject area where even many foundational, major events are interpreted differently by academics of different perspectives. — Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scholars who cite Finkelstein[edit]

    Let's look at what we're actually supposed to be looking at:

    1. Nur Masalha 2012, pp. 79, 180-181, 192 (citing Finkelstein's 1991, 1995, and 2001 works)
    2. Benny Morris 2004/1988, p. 64 (citing Finkelstein 1991)
    3. Ilan Pappe 2017, pp. 78 ("As Norman Finkelstein has rightly noted, if you wanted to destroy what was left of the Jordanian army and retain your relationship with the one Arab country most loyal to Israel, a short operation in the West Bank, without occupying it, would have sufficed.") and 147 ("In his typical way Norman Finkelstein takes the official narrative of Israel as presented by one of its best articulators, Abba Eban, and demolishes it.")
    4. Rosemary Sayigh 2013, p. 58 "Norman Finkelstein’s loss of his post at Hunter College and tenure denial at DePaul University is only the best known of numberless cases of dismissal, suspension, and delays in the appointment of junior faculty who have ventured into the forbidden realm of Palestinian studies."
    5. Rashid Khalidi 2020, p. 252 ("The book was mercilessly eviscerated in reviews by Norman Finkelstein, Yehoshua Porath, and numerous other scholars, who all but called it a fraud.") and p. 290 "Two excellent books on the Gaza wars are Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018)..."
    6. Avi Shlaim 2009, p. 369 "Finkelstein's career illustrates the venom with which the debate about Israel is conducted in America. Finkelstein is one of the most hard-hitting critics of the official Zionist version of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But while he uncompromisingly rejects the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line, he fully accepts Israels legitimacy within its pre-1967 borders. His position is coherent and consistent. Finkelstein specialises in exposing spurious American-Jewish scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
    7. Ahmad H. Sa'di 2007, p. 305 "Nonetheless the recent surge of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism in the West following the events of 9/11 and the United States’ pursuant wars in Afghanistan and Iraq enabled Dershowitz to resurrect these myths, requiring Finkelstein (2005) to painstakingly debunk them yet again."
    8. Ronit Lentin 2010, pp. 109-110 " Indeed Morris’s failure to ‘join the dots’ and see that the mass of documentation that he unearthed points to a policy of expulsion has been severely criticised (Pappe 1992; Finkelstein 1995) as has his failure to contextualise the events of 1948 within the overall framework of the Zionist plans for transfer (Masalha 2003) ... Indeed, right-wing Israeli intellectuals are increasingly comfortable with the idea that their country was built on ethnic cleansing (Gutwein 2002) with Morris expressing his disappointment that the Nakba was not more thorough (Shavit 2004; for a trenchant critique of Morris see Finkelstein 1995)."
    9. Neve Gordon et al. 2020, pp. 245 and 259 (citing Finkelstein 2018)
    10. Neil Caplan 2019, ch. 4 ("For important critiques of this work, see Finkelstein, N.G. (2001)."), ch. 12 ("In the US, nationwide campaigns were organized with the aim of destroying the professional reputations of, or denying tenure to, outspokenly pro‐Palestinian academics like Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, and Nadia Abu El-Haj."), and elsewhere
    11. Mark Tessler 2009, pp. 879-880 "For a forceful rebuttal to Morris's conclusion, which contends that the Israeli scholar's own documentation demonstrates the existence of a systematic Zionist plan to expel the Palestinians, see Norman Finkelstein, "Myths, Old and New," Journal of Palestine Studies 81 (Autumn 1991): 66—89. This issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies also contains another critique of Morris's study and a strong response by Morris. A further rejoinder by Finkelstein appears in volume 82 of the journal."
    12. Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg 2018, p. 37 (citing The Holocaust Industry)
    13. Helena Linholm Schulz 2003, p. 30 "Palestinian (and other) authors have challenged the main line of Morris’s argument, arguing that Zionist policy was before, during and after the war bent on ‘transfer’ or ‘expulsion’ of the Palestinian population from Palestine (Finkelstein et al. 1991; W.Khalidi 1992; Masalha 1992, 1997a, 2001)."
    14. Jerome Slater 2020, p. 432 (citing Norman Finkelstein, “The Camp David II Negotiations,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 2007.)
    15. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2019, pp. 110 and 115 (citing Finkelstein 2015 and 2018)
    16. Marouf Hasian Jr. 2020, p. 2 (quoting Finkelstein 2007)
    17. Marcy Jane Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 21, 47, 79, 114 (extensive quotation from and discussion of The Holocaust Industry)

    This wasn't methodical, just searching my personal collection of works for "Finkelstein". Also, my apologies to the community, I should have just done this first, instead of spending days arguing with people on the internet. Levivich (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that considerable effort. A pity its evidence will be talked past, but one must get used to that on wikipedia. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to foreshadow it if it's so inevitable. Yes, thank you Levivich. Remsense 11:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this valuable work Levivich. Just one observation: Almost all of these citations relate to I/P and not to the Holocaust, with two of them relating to his book The Holocaust Industry, neither of which I can actually read online so not sure how they use him, and the second of which (Knopf-Newman) is probably not a scholarly I realise that my first comment in this section didn't fully absorb the OP's question, which is whether his books can be used as sources for facts re I/P and the Holocaust. While I strongly hold to my view that his non-academic articles should be avoided (and haven't been convinced that he is either a "major political scientist" or the best historian in the history of history), there is no doubt that many of his published books on I/P and on the Holocaust "industry" are generally noteworthy (specifically Image and Reality, The Holocaust Industry, Beyond Chutzpah and Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom; I don't think his I Accuse, let alone his most recent book about wokeness, fall into this category). Given that he is not a Holocaust scholar, I cannot imagine why we would use his books as sources for facts about the Holocaust when there is so much good Holocaust scholarship available, but I think there are times when he might be usable as a source for facts on I/P or on the memorialisation of the Holocaust. However, these uses, many of which refer to his criticisms of or arguments with other writers, do not dispel my belief that we need caution, as pretty much all of his books are critiques of other writers, some of whom
    (Peters, Dershowitz) are not reputable scholars but some of whom (Morris, Anita Shapira are; in these cases, I don't think we should cite him as a source for facts without attribution, but rather attribute and triangulate with the attributed views of those with whom he disagrees. In retrospect, the generalness of the question that opened this noticeboard section has meant it has been a extremely unhelpful discussion; it would have been much better to discuss specific examples of types of uses. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course when there are scholars that disagree with other scholars what we should be doing is attributing each view, so I don’t see anything either wrong or out of the ordinary with that, but that doesn’t require some sort of caution. That is just standard practice regardless. nableezy - 10:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I guess that's right, but it is particularly important to bear in mind in his specific case because so much of his published work takes arguments with other scholars as its starting point, rather than e.g. taking particular research questions or archives as a starting point - his role, as Nishidani said earlier, is that of a "controversialist" - whereas there are plenty of sources (e.g. Abdel Monem Said Aly, Dov Waxman, Ian Black, Neil Caplan) that represent the scholarly consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I made the list by searching my own little collection of Nakba works. I didn't search any Holocaust works. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my comment was not intended as criticism. Reviewing his reception, I cannot find any Holocaust scholars using him as a source on the Holocaust, whereas I can find quite a few I/P scholars using him as a source on I/P. The OP combined both topics in one question, and I think it's important to differentiate them in answering. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob, I appreciate the distinction you are making, but with a reservation. Finkelstein's early life was lived in the shadow of the powerful memories of two parents who both survived the Warsaw Ghetto and several concentration camps, making him an importantr secondary witness,an experience that most Holocaust scholars over the last few decades do not, fortunately, have (to bear). That he is fluent in the literature comes from the special relationship he had with the founder of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, but, most importantly, an integral part of Holocaust studies is the way it is remembered and studied, as our own article on it underlines. And in this respect, Finkelstein is a leading scholar of its reception and the uses to which it has been put. Whether Holocaust scholars cite this or not is therefore immaterial, since they are focusing on the events 1933-1945 and he on the post-war ( 1967) uses to which the Holocaust is put in the long aftermath. He is certainly a major source on the latter part, Holocaust historiography. I agree that given the thousands of scholarly works on the Holocaust as an historical period, there is no need for him to be cited for that reconstruction of events. If he is then a simple {{better source}} tag is all that is required.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I know what you meant, I didn't take it as criticism :-) I was just saying the only reason the list skews towards works on the Nakba is because I searched my computer folder "Nakba" that has sources I used for the Nakba article. So it's a very not-methodological search, like literally just the Nakba books I happen to have lying around. But you reminded me that I have a computer folder of Holocaust works as well, which I will search. First hit, BTW: Finkelstein is cited by Christopher Browning in Ordinary Men, p. 355: " The two most detailed and sustained critiques of Hitler's Willing Executioners are: Ruth Bettina Birn, “Revising the Holocaust,” Historical Journal 40/no. 1 (1997), 195–215; and Norman Finkelstein, “Daniel Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique of Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” New Left Review 224 (1997): 39–87." I'll add more cites/quotes shortly. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I searched my "Holocaust" folder for "Finkelstein":

    1. Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men [10], p. 355: "The two most detailed and sustained critiques of Hitler’s Willing Executioners are: Ruth Bettina Birn, “Revising the Holocaust,” Historical Journal 40/no. 1 (1997), 195–215; and Norman Finkelstein, “Daniel Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique of Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” New Left Review 224 (1997): 39–87"
    2. Dan Michman 2019 (chapter 19 in Beyond "Ordinary Men", I don't have a page number): "However, precisely because of its growing centrality and the recognition of its “Jewishness” and its unique features, the memory of the Holocaust – denounced by Norman Finkelstein as a “Holocaust Industry” - became also heavily politicized and criticized, especially since the late 1990s. For extreme critics of Israel (and Zionism), Israel, and especially post-1967 Israel, “benefited” from the global centrality of the Holocaust (and according to Finkelstein Israel and its supporters even invented it in order to thwart criticism of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Ghaza), and thus its uniqueness had to be negated and the ways Zionism and Israel benefited from it had to be exposed and emphasized." and "The book [The Holocaust Industry] was translated into many languages and embraced by both extreme left-wing anti-Zionist circles and Eastern European right-wing anti-Semites. For a scholarly critique see Alvin H. Rosenfeld, “The Assault on Holocaust Memory,” American Jewish Year Book vol. 101 (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2001): 3-20."
    3. Dan Stone (historian) 2013, p. 160: "First, there are attacks on ‘memory studies’ in general. Among these Norman Finkelstein’s polemic against the so-called ‘Holocaust industry’ is probably the best known: ‘Currently all the rage in the ivory tower, “memory” is surely the most impoverished concept to come down the academic pike in a long time’. Indeed, Finkelstein’s ‘Holocaust industry’ could be seen as a subset of a wider ‘memory industry’ (Klein’s term).", p. 163 "Manea’s criticisms, however, remind us that this is not an antiquarian enterprise or a fruitless postmodern game, as Finkelstein would have us believe, but that the study of memory may itself contribute to the creation of an ‘age of commemoration’ in which all memories other than the celebratory and efficacious are smothered or occulted." and p. 166 "This is a way of understanding memory that does not see it only as embedded in sites such as memorials; rather, Confino and Fritzsche point up the real weakness of Finkelstein’s claim, by showing how collective memories are created and passed on to some extent by design but also unconsciously, by virtue of, and in the process helping to define, existing social structures and networks."
    4. Donald Bloxham 2009 p. 319: "As far as the strictly historical scholarship is concerned, the uniqueness ‘debate’ has lost most of its steam. Yet the idea of uniqueness, and thereby universal significance, is important to the establishment of various Holocaust memorial days and museum exhibitions across the Western world. If there is a ‘Holocaust industry’, these areas of didactics and commemoration are its workshops and uniqueness one of its most important raw materials. It is no accident that assailants of that ‘industry’ have directed much of their energy at the uniqueness claim.", citing (p. 381 n. 46) Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life
    5. Donald Niewyk and Francis Nicosia 2000 (Columbia Guide to the Holocaust), p. 89: "This sweeping monocausal explanation of perpetrator motivations has attracted little support from scholars, some of whose reactions may be sampled in Norman Finkelstein’s A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth." and pp. 359-360, discussing Finkelstein and Bettina Birn's "A Nation on Trial" book: "The authors dispute Daniel Goldhagen’s controversial argument that the Holocaust must be explained solely in terms of an antisemitism unique to Germany, one that embodied a national will to exterminate the Jews."
    6. Adam Sutcliffe in Journal of Genocide Research 2022, "Several trenchant critiques of the sentimental and political instrumentalization of the Holocaust appeared around the turn of the millennium, but these arguments did not gain traction and were widely rejected as distastefully hard-hearted or cynical," citing The Holocaust Industry as one example, along with Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life and Tim Cole's Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold [11]
    7. Tim Cole 2004 (chapter 4 in The Historiography of the Holocaust edited by Dan Stone (historian)), p. 68: "Damning what he saw to be the emergence of a fully-fledged ‘Holocaust industry’ from the late 1960s onwards, Norman Finkelstein mocked Steven Katz’s thesis of the uniqueness of the Holocaust: ‘To avoid any confusion, Katz elucidates that he uses the term phenomenologically “in a non-Husserlian, non-Shutzean, non-Schlerian, non-Heideggerian, non-Merleau-Pontyan sense.” Translation: The Katz enterprise is phenomenal non-sense.’" and cited elsewhere in the chapter
    8. Zoë Waxman 2004, p. 487 (another chapter in the same Dan Stone book): "Against the prevalent idea that survivors have only recently come forward to tell their stories out of a new, flourishing culture of witnessing (a view espoused by Norman Finkelstein in his polemical attack on the so-called ‘Holocaust industry’), witnesses were aware of the historical importance of their experiences as they unfolded."
    9. Stanislav Kolář in Geneology (disclosure: it's an MDPI journal) 2019, p. 8: "My Holocaust is Reich’s response to the abuse of Holocaust commemoration, to what Norman G. Finkelstein (2000) has termed the Holocaust industry, exploiting the memory of Jewish suffering for political and financial gain."
    10. Judith Hughes 2022, p. 131 lists The Holocaust Industry as a general reference in the bibliography
    11. Nawal Musleh-Motut 2023, p. 4 (passing mention of 2009 post on Finkelstein's website)

    Again, this is a very non-methodical search of books that I just happened to have on my computer. But for me, this kind of settles it: at the point at which you're being cited by the likes of Brown, Stone, Bloxham, Michman, Nicosia, or being mentioned in the same sentence as Birn or Novick... this is kind of a "who's who" of Holocaust scholars, if they take Finkelstein seriously enough as a scholar to cite his works alongside other serious scholars, even if they disagree with his conclusions, it's demonstrable proof that Finkelstein is not fringe or anything like that, he's "in the club," a bona fide scholar cited by other bona fide scholars. There is no reason not to consider his works RS. And I don't care if he is published by Unz, heck he could be published by Stormfront, he could be the Grand Wizard of the KKK, it doesn't matter: he's clearly widely cited, including by other preeminent scholars in the field of Holocaust Studies, and in the field of I/P. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And the fact that this same Novick, whom you praise so much here, described Finkelstein scholarly work on the holocaust as "trash" and "a twenty-first century updating of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and “As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein . . . the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) ‘debate’ but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. . . . No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites" doesn't bother you at all? True, it is common for academics to have personal rows, but it's not so common for one to describe the other's work is such sharps terms. Vegan416 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are sidestepping Levivich’s serious evidence and much else as you persist in scouring mediocre sources for ‘dirt’ on Finkelstein. Did you read all of the article (the second above) by Isi Leibler (I grew up enjoying his once informed opinions in Australia)? It is a defense of the superiority of Alan Dershowitz’s book, which has no standing in scholarship, over Finkelstein’s work, part of which demolished D’s book’s pretensions to be original research. But what you missed is the following admission by Leibler (who has no grasp of the scholarship by the way)

    Finkelstein's ravings are boosted, among others, by a long parade of academics of Jewish origin praising his lies and describing his distortions as scholarship.

    Leibler calls the ‘long parade of Jewish academics in Israel and beyond who praise Finkelstein’s work as ‘renegades’, a particularly odious label since there is a mitzvah which dictates death to those who renege Israel (the slip/faux pas/gaffe is typical of such cheap polemics). In other words, he admits the record shows Finkelstein has many scholarly admirers, but they are traitors to their people. You cherrypick for the smear word 'trash' without even troubling yourself to carefully evaluate the abysmal quality of the source you adduce. The careless, and ineptness is embarrassing. And you are bludgeoning the page in repeating yourself. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems highly irrelevant. While it's clear that Novick and Finkelstein have differences of opinion, it's not our place to adjudicate who of the two is right merely how have they been received by the field. The answer is that they've been received very similarly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's extremely common for scholars to describe other scholars' work in such sharps terms, and I think nowhere is it as common as it is in the fields of Holocaust Studies and Israel/Palestine Studies. Levivich (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was any of the others holocaust scholars that you mentioned above criticized in such terms? Do you have an example? Vegan416 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen - I read a lot of Philosophy works and a lot of critics of Foucault call him everything under the sun from the killer of truth, the enemy of reason or even "ontologically evil." When you read enough of this sort of stuff it's kind of par for the course. Does that mean I want to trawl through the criticism of a bunch of holocaust scholars just to appease your curiosity? Absolutely not. It's irrelevant and immaterial. In the extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say that I disagree with this criticism of Foucault's work. Despite the fact that he was pro-Israeli :-) In any case I give up on this discussion on NF. He is not important enough for me to be accused of "bludgeoning" over him. Vegan416 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what I noticed is that all the quotes of Peter Novick calling Norman Finkelstein's work "trash" seem to come from second-hand sources, e.g. none from Novick himself, and I can't seem to find where Novick supposedly said or wrote this. Same goes for that inclusion of this material in the Wikipedia article about Norman Finkelstein; I wonder if it's true.
    Anyway, Novick himself is no stranger to being called names. His NYT obit notes people called him a "self-hating Jew" for his work on the Holocaust, and quotes a review that calls his work "a tough-minded work, sharp, brusque, and sometimes nearly Swiftian in its acerbities."
    Same in I/P. That 2004 Benny Morris book I cited above, in that same book, p. 8, this is what he says about Efraim Karsh: "his criticisms are of such brazen mendacity and distortion – regarding what I wrote and what is in the documentation – that they are not worthy of detailed treatment."
    Meanwhile, here is what Nur Masalha 2012, which I also cited above, says on p. 157 about Benny Morris: "his illiberal conclusions and subsequent support for the racist, murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestine.", p. 170, "Morris began his scholarly career by arguing for ‘shared responsibility’ for the Palestinians over their catastrophe; he ended up with the claim that the Palestinians had brought the Nakba on themselves. He became the symbol of a ‘new history’ in collusion with ethnic cleansing, neo-colonialism and war crimes in Palestine, past, present and future.", and on p. 175 here's what Masalha says about the rest of the New Historians: "Almost inevitably, since the late 1980s the Israeli ‘new historians’ in general and Benny Morris in particular have come to be seen in the West as the ‘ultimate authority’ on 1948, the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem and the Nakba. The ‘new historians’ fitted the bill. They were all Western-educated (with connections to Oxford and Cambridge universities), male, white, young, Ashkenazi descendants of the ancient Hebrews, highly professional and scientifically minded and authoritative; their work is grounded in official documents and state archives, and so they could now represent everyone, especially those indigenous Palestinians located at the bottom of the pile. Exaggerating the impact of ‘new history’, and trumpeting their newly found fame, the ‘new historians’ even sought to patronise the ‘annoyed’ and ‘jealous’ Palestinian historians."
    Sharp words are par for the course in these topic areas. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already announced leaving this debate. But since you asked about the ultimate source for Novick's quotes on Finkelstein here it is:
    Peter Novick, “Offene Fenster und Tueren. Ueber Norman Finkelsteins Kreuzzug”(Open Windows and Doors. About Norman Finkelstein’s Crusade.) in Petra Steinberger, ed., Die Finkelstein-Debatte [The Finkelstein Debate] (München: Piper Verlag, 2001), p. 159 Vegan416 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are different sorts of sharp words here.
    Masalha is sharply critical of Morris' interpretations and conclusions but crucially does not say that Morris is unreliable for facts, whereas Karsh and Finkelstein accuse Morris of lying. Morris responds to Masalha much more respectfully than he does to Finkelstein or Karsh, seeing Masalha as wrong in his interpretations but Finkelstein as actively dishonest about the facts: outworn preconceptions and prejudices prevail. These underlie -and tarnish- Finkelstein's and Masalha's articles. In the case of Finkelstein, the critique is accompanied and reinforced by innuendo and distortion. Morris and Masalha are both biased scholars working in a controversial area, who we could cite without attribution as a source for facts unless their claim has been specifically disputed. Same with Novick: he was attacked by activists and journalists, but not accused of distortion or dishonesty by mainstream scholars.
    To me, Karsh is the mirror of Finkelstein. Despite his academic affiliation and publication by academic presses, I don't think that we should ever cite Karsh as a source for facts without attribution, as his views are extremely controversial (like Finkelstein, we could use Nishidani's word "controversialist" for him) -- although like Finkelstein the number of people cite him, often as an example of an extremely partisan position on this controversial area, so his opinions might be noteworthy.
    BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Levivich for the thorough work again. I think this shows that he is very much noteworthy in debates about Holocaust memory but that he is viewed as controversial. Few if any of these are citing him as a source for facts; most are citing him as an example of the polemical intensity of debates at the turn of the century. I keep having to remind myself of the question the OP (Davest3r08) posted: are his books reliable for "verifying general statements in [I/P and Holocaust] related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature"? I'm not sure what was meant by "general statements" but if it means "can we cite him without attribution for facts about the Holocaust?", then I don't think these scholarly citations enable us to do that. However, I think the case that his opinion is noteworthy in articles about the history of the post-67 reception/memory of the Holocaust is now pretty definitively made. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP original request was "Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter (my italics), and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature." This question is about the IA conflict specifically and not the Holocaust. Of course, that he is also cited by scholars for Holocaust material merely adds to his standing in general. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx Selfstudier. I don't think I got the significance of "on the latter" and I seem to have introduced a major distraction. Sorry. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the reliability of Allkpop for K-pop-related articles?

    Allkpop is the English-language K-pop and celebrity gossip site and fan blog owned by 6Theory Media, which also owns Tokyohive. The site contains extensive Korean culture-related news coverage and rumours that are aimed at non-Korean audiences, this does not itself as a generally reliable source and also claims to be cited by major news organizations. They also made occasional interviews and special reports, which counts as first-hand journalism. It also licensed to stream MAMA Awards. I consider the site itself was generally unreliable for K-pop articles. Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: sjh (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
    It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Allkpop)[edit]

    Let's see... this article describes Allkpop as the "latest celebrity gossips and news" and the website claims to be "the premier source for all the latest K-pop celebrity gossip and news". This website is generally unreliable (option 3), and for the love of God, please do not use this in a BLP. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: Super Unreliable. WikiProject Korea deems it unreliable and it is a celebrity gossip site. Definitely should not be used in BLPs, like ever. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 - generally unreliable:. Per various arguments provided above. Shadowwarrior8 Shadowwarrior8 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3: generally unreliable. A good amount of their articles are sourced from unreliable Korean sites like Insight or Wikitree (relevant pages in Korean here and here respectively; though they're from the user-generated wiki NamuWiki, the articles are good for getting a feel on how the sites are viewed), and the other half is gossip pulled from biased, even less reliable K-netizen translation sites. Their third hottest article at the time of writing is this gossipy, substanceless mess. I'm having a hard time finding any coverage up to par with actual news outlets such as Korea Herald - just gossip, gossip, and more gossip. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Allkpop)[edit]

    Hi SarahJH07, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion since this discussion was not set up as a formal request for comment, which would solicit input from editors through the feedback request service. If you would like to make this discussion a request for comment, please apply the {{rfc}} template to this discussion according to the instructions at WP:RFCST and add "RfC:" back to the section heading. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)[edit]

    What is the reliability of entertainment coverage, including reviews, from the New York Post ( HTTPS links HTTP links) and its sub-publications Decider ( HTTPS links HTTP links) and Page Six ( HTTPS links HTTP links)?

    — Newslinger talk 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Page Six to RfC question per Endwise's suggestion in the discussion section. In your response, please clearly specify the publication and/or sub-publications that your evaluation refers to, and the types of coverage (e.g. film reviews, celebrity news) that you are evaluating. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)[edit]

    • Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLAtlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited[reply]

    03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

    • Option 2. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. Jessintime (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the Kyle Smith (critic) listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. S5A-0043Talk 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I'm the person who started the Decider question, as pointed out by the discussion below. Most of the entertainment articles from the sub-publications seem to be from established journalists so I do not have a problem with those, but if contentious claims are made, maybe using that source is not the best. It's kind of like the Screen Rant situation. Spinixster (chat!) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC. Because the general matter is already under discussion in the unclosed previous post, because a pro-censorship result on this guideline page is not policy and cannot override WP:NOTCENSORED, because it's not clear what's "entertainment" (to me sports is entertainment), because context matters; because blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 Applies to Decider only. CapnZapp (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 They may not be reliable for facts but reviews are opinions. It's a case-by-case basis as to whether the review deserves inclusion such as the author and their credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. Sometimes the paper has smart stuff in it, and sometimes it has dumb stuff in it. If people are incapable of understanding this, they shouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles. Moreover, there's no amount of bureaucratic source classification that's going to make them capable of doing so. jp×g🗯️ 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Only for entertainment proposes. Nothing more. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 I'd continue to steer far away from the Post for general news, especially politics and CTOPs; however, for entertainment news/reviews, the points raised by Jessintime and Traumnovelle stand. The Kip 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 (entertainment to be construed broadly and include sport and celebrity) their political issues are well known, but the points above, inclusion with attribution may be valid in cases where they aren’t highly controversial and the reviewer is acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I am not a fan of carveouts like this for sources that we already consider generally unreliable. The editorial standards for entertainment news are highly unlikely to be better than for any other topic, so what we're really saying here is that it matters less for the topic of entertainment than for other topics, and I don't really buy that. I also notice a lot of the "option 2" votes above really seem to be about reviews specifically, which are already allowed (with attribution) because they're opinion and not factual. I'd therefore say most of the option two arguments here fall under the "generally" in "Generally unreliable".----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - As per others, and to allow us to exercise judgement from time to time while avoiding automated or semi-automated censorship.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Reviews are inherently opinions even if they can be considered expert opinion. I don't see any reason why we would avoid using the NYP reviews but might use reviews from many other sources. For example, why refuse a NYP movie review but accept one from say a Huston news paper? BTW, this is also one of the flaws with our RSP blanket RfCs. They are often way too broad when we should be looking at claims on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Of course exceptions can exist, just like for any unreliable source, but it's necessary to actually present and articulate those exceptions on a case-by-case basis; the default is unreliable. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on. In-text attribution alone is not a substitute for this reliability. And the Post doesn't reach that threshold - publication there, whether as a review or an opinion or whatever, confers no reliability. It can still be cited occasionally, but only in the same way that Reddit posts or YouTube videos or blogs or personal websites can be cited - publication there means nothing because they lack rigorous editorial controls and the reputation that would give their masthead meaning. And like those, that means the default can only be "unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - The default is unreliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Everyone has an opinion. I certainly have never heard of the NYP as a goto source for entertainment (other than their often humorous views on politics and economics). O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this RfC as worded is maybe unnecessary. It seems clear the community thinks GUNREL sources like NYPost can still be usable (depending on context) for something like film/music reviews, but probably we should've already known that. I think a more useful consensus to come to for the actual issue at hand would've been something like "it is not appropriate for David Gerard to blanket delete all uses of NYPost without regard to the context, and he should stop". Endwise (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Journalism is, by its nature, not highly reliable and so each case needs to be judged on its merits. Looking at a sample used in the article Entertainment Weekly, I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per Chetsford and Aquillion, basically. Entertainment news coverage must be evaluated by our standards for factual reporting, including WP:BLP, and there, the Post doesn't really have a leg to stand on. For reviews, as opposed to news, the default presumption should be that they are simply unnecessary. The case-by-case burden is on those who wish to include them. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on, as Aquillion argues. In broad strokes, opinions published in venues whose factual reporting is generally unreliable aren't opinions that we need to cover. If I'm a subject-matter expert in one area, my personal blog might be an acceptable source for exceedingly uncontroversial statements in that area, but there would still be no reason to cite my blog post reviewing a movie I happened to see. My blog would be "generally unreliable" outside very narrow limits; using it as a source for unrelated opinions would be unencyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for reviews, no change for "entertainment news", Page Six or Decider. When deciding whether to include a review, the core question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion carries weight. If a noteworthy critic like Richard Roeper took a contract writing film reviews published in the NY Post, the reliability and importance of his review isn't altered by the venue it is posted in. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or Option 2, since no examples of falsehoods have been provided by the editors who voted for 3/4, and due to the presence of well-known critics, per u:S5A-0043. Alaexis¿question? 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Its reviews are fine, and they tend to carry some weight among critics (particularly so for the New York City musical/theatre arts scene). Additional considerations apply because there are some broader problems when using for contentious information on BLPs, but I think that the culture and entertainment reviews are fine. The notion that, as one editor puts above the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons is a bit overkill when applied to mundane information (who the lead actors are in a Broadway play, etc.), and I would stress that such language is a gross oversimplification of the source's utility in this scope. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC
    • Option 3 I would say to generally just avoid unreliable sources for everything, including reviews. It's not worth the time and effort to look at every article and decide whether it is acceptable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
    • Option 2, Most sources need additional considerations. The sources/articles should be looked at upon their own merits. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 for Decider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Option 2, otherwise Option 3 - I'm basically going to copy what I wrote when a similar thread came up about NYPost's sports coverage last April: Support a carve-out for entertainment, which is sufficiently tame/reliable from what I've seen. Two exceptions which would need to be included in the RSP entry for me to support option 2: (1) nothing from the prurient/scandalous side of the Post (e.g. objectifying female actors), and (2) nothing with any overlap with politics (diversity/representation in Hollywood, the Times Up movement, reviews of movies that deal with political issues, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - If this was about the NY Post sports section it should be option 1. But while there are tabloid elements to the Post's entertainment section, there is no evidence that it is generally unreliable. There is certainly no reason a review in the Post should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for Decider per RunningTiger123. Some of its interviews or reviews are usable, but it's not the highest-quality source so avoidance of highly sensitive or exceptional BLP claims would be wise. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)[edit]

    The New York Post has been discussed nine times on this noticeboard, including a 2020 RfC which concluded that the source was "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police". Discussion at #Reviews from unreliable sources indicates that there is an ongoing disagreement over the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment reviews, and the currently unanswered question at #Using Decider / for interviews and reviews indicates that the reliability of Decider (a publication of the New York Post) is an open question. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this should also cover, a celebrity gossip site ran by NYPost which does entertainment reviews as well. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked this editor for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I have concerns about the New York Post's reliability, especially in political and controversial topics. However, when it comes to entertainment reviews, such as film, music, and television, these pieces often represent subjective opinions and are less likely to impact BLP integrity compared to factual reporting. Reviews, being inherently opinion-based, should be judged on the merit of the individual piece and its author rather than the general reputation of the publication. This approach allows for a nuanced inclusion of potentially valuable cultural perspectives. FailedMusician (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle East Monitor[edit]

    The New York Times recently published an article on the proliferation of fake news from Russia, specifically a story about Zelensky’s mother-in-law purchasing a villa in Egypt.

    Most sources that publicized this claim are already considered generally unreliable, with the exception of the Middle East Monitor, which is used widely on Wikipedia and whose involvement the New York Times describes as:

    It also appeared on the website of the Middle East Monitor, or MEMO, operated by a well-known nonprofit organization in London and financed by the government of Qatar. A journalist who once reported from Moscow for The Telegraph of London, Ben Aris, cited it at length on the platform, though, when challenged, he said he had just made note of the rumor. “I don’t have time to check all this stuff myself,” he wrote.

    The article is still up, meaning they've failed to correct the error when it was revealed to them, and the statement by Aris is highly concerning, which suggests a general issue at MEMO of them publishing and promoting fringe conspiracy theories without any attempt to verify that they are true. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.
    I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a misuse of the board. Instead of asking "Is source X reliable for statement Y" as is the norm, we instead assert unreliability without reference to any dispute. Cheered on by the chorus. Is the offending information cited to MEMO anywhere on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

    Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury.

    Al-Alawi never existed, and was not found dead, whether by a cerebral haemorrhage or other means.

    In a recent interview, the deceased’s brother Ahmed Al-Alawi said that Mohammed’s investigation was his brother’s first big job, but that he started to receive death threats following its release.

    Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.
    Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.
    Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.
    Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?
    And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [18]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.
    As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.
    I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.
    Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the invitation to provide any evidence at all for the claims made has been ignored, I’ll assume that means the claim itself has been dropped. nableezy - 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable for the story about Zelensky's mother-in-law. In general, I think that we should be very careful with using a source financed by Qatar (one of the worst countries when it comes to the freedom of speech and a supported of various Islamist movements) and that has been described as a "lobby group." Alaexis¿question? 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally reliable. It is obviously financed by Qatar, but so is every other self-proclaimed independent media state-financed, including the BBC, which has been publishing extremely misleading coverage of the war. All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; which applies more to the New York Times than Middle East Monitor, as far as I have seen. Nothing justifies downgrading the reliability of this source so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is laughable to compare the amount of control that the British government exerts on the BBC to the amount of Control that Qatari government exerts over Al Jazeerah. The UK is a democratic country committed to the freedom of speech and of the Press. Qatar is neither of these. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegan416: With control or without alleged government control; that doesn't change the fact that editors can be biased and unreliable. Democracies have been implicated in serious human rights violations, claiming that they are immune to it, is egregiously of touch with reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is immune from committing human rights violations, and nobody claims to be immune to that. But still non-democratic states are much more likely to commit them (all else being equal) than democratic states. And in particular in this regard of the freedom of press I repeat that it is laughable to claim that there is no difference in the level of control the governments have on state-owned (or even private) media companies, between democratic and non-democratic states. And it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be assigned the same level of reliability. Vegan416 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is not based on government type, but editorial controls and track record on content. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's actually ridiculous is to suggest that the reliability of a source depends on factors external to the quality of its reporting, and that all western sources monopolize the truth. This western-centrism is the root of systematic bias on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Makeandtoss @Iskandar323
    The reliability of a source depends on many things, among them editorial controls and track record on content. And editorial controls are heavily influenced by the government type. It is much more likely that the editorial controls in a non-democratic state will be in the hand of the government. Especially is state controlled/financed media. So the default assumptions in each case are different. At the very least we can say that the onus of proof that the editorial controls are not in the hand of the government is much higher in the case of non-democratic state media. Vegan416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this hasn't been discussed before in the context of AJ? No one is going to change the assessment of the reliability of AJ based on your personal opinions and suppositions about its editorial procedures. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would ask people not to !vote here, this is not an RfC, and if it were it would be a bad one as it is not formulated in anything approaching a neutral way. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having a quick look, there are also issues on their coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; they haven't corrected their articles from immediately after the explosion that blamed Israel without equivocation, and even months later they continued to repeat those claims such as in this article where they say Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your position appears to be if a source doesn’t repeat some dominant POV of western sources that means it is unreliable. But that isn’t what that means, and there remains a dispute about the responsibility for that explosion, and a source taking a differing view than say the NYTimes doesn’t make that source unreliable. nableezy - 06:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably BilledMammal's position here is simply that Middle East Monitor is claiming as fact something that is either untrue or unproven.
    Also, @BilledMammal, the source you've provided was not published "months later" after the attack.
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're right - I misread the date. Published a month and a half later. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m saying a source that continues to unequivocally blame Israel despite most evidence suggesting PIJ is to blame is probably unreliable, and is definitely highly biased. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some evidence advanced by allies of Israel suggests that, other evidence, such as the analysis by Forensic Analysis, suggests otherwise. You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable. And last I checked, that is not what reliability means here. nableezy - 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption. Sheesh. nableezy - 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable." Obviously this is not what BilledMammal is saying.
    However, regarding "your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption", this is concerning actually. BilledMammal has seemingly misrepresented the source by claiming that "they say 'Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza'", despite that fact that this "claim" only appears as the caption of a cartoon at the bottom of the article.
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, we treat captions the same way as we treat the rest of the article - there is no WP:HEADLINES for captions. If I am wrong, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:Headlines: "Headlines [...] may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
    You don't think that applies to captions? Especially a caption on a cartoon...
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the concern is that headlines are often clickbait created by individuals other than the journalist or researcher, while captions aren't because if a reader is seeing the caption they have already been convinced to click.
    However, if I'm wrong and that does apply to captions we should update WP:HEADLINES to explicitly include captions, as I suspect I'm not the only editor who believes that policy doesn't apply to them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect most editors don't think about that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how many editors aren't even aware of WP:HEADLINES you are probably right, but I still think that if I am wrong and it does apply to captions we should clarify that policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is indeed the conclusion BilledMammal is reaching. That if one does not favor the conclusions of Israel’s allies it is unreliable and or biased. nableezy - 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I'm reading it right, that cartoons are part of the moderated journalistic content of a newspaper. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call unusual or fringe views happens to be those that articulate the views, news and facts of a two-sided conflict, as those are perceived by one half, the defeated or crushed party. NPOV demands extreme care to maintain balanced narratives, and drying up access to the few newspapers that take on the burden of expressing the generally silenced perspectives of one party only consolidates the WP:Systemic bias we have to cope with in this area.
    There are many cogent reasons why we should retain our use, always careful, of less 'mainstream' sources. The most important is the systemic bias of our default newspaper RS, New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and even Haaretz (the Guardian gives more coverage but not much) is known to all, and was underlined by a remark made in the NYTs the other day. The Israeli sources we accept are all now extremely pro-war and partisan, and much of their reliable content exemplifies a battle to show whose coverage is more patriotic, something that in turn feeds into the copy and paste Western newspapers. Chipping away, as has been done recently at the putative unreliableness or 'fringeness', even of the handful of newspapers that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective, is nothing more than indicative of a tendency to spin reportage according to the dominant perspective of one of the contendents.

    A study by the University of Arizona’s Maha Nassar found that of the opinion articles about Palestinians published in The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2000 and 2009, Palestinians themselves wrote roughly 1 percent. Peter Beinart, The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life,' The New York Times 22 March 2024

    I.e., NYTs practice (and they are the most 'liberal' of the venues cited) is to delegate 99% of opinion articles on Palestinians to non-Palestinians (Americans, American Jews, or Israeli Jews normally). Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the opinion is of Haaretz, not the "lobby group".
    Second, we aren't here to right great wrongs; we don't use unreliable sources because no reliable sources contain the perspectives we believe should be included.
    Third, your comment about the percentage of opinion articles seems irrelevant. How many opinion articles in the NYT about Russia are by Russians? How about Turkey? China? Israel? I suspect Palestine isn't a significant outlier among non-anglophone states of global interest.
    Finally, regardless of reliability, I think it is clear that this is a biased source that should only be used with attribution, particularly now that FortunateSons has presented that Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, it was telegraph and Haaretz, not Times :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinion I referred to is conspiracy theories, the holding views you dislike is referring to the Telegraph article. Holding views that agree with the Brotherhood or Hamas for that matter has nothing to do with reliability. You may want this to be a Zionist project where only sources that toe a certain line are allowed, but it is not and it has nothing to do with reliability. Not liking the views of a source is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. There is nothing disqualifying about holding views that promote a supposed pro-Brotherhood or pro-Hamas view of the region. Would holding that the Palestinian refugees have a right of return be disqualifying? Because that’s a pro-Hamas viewpoint of the region. You may keep trying to change the purpose of this board to be that of instituting a political test on sources, but I’ll keep calling it what it is. nableezy - 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s WP:AssumeGoodFaith and beWP:CIVIL here. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When people attempt to rule out sources because of the views they hold they are misusing this board and attempting to institute a political test of their liking to sources. Again, holding pro-Hamas views has nothing to do with reliability, nor does holding pro-Israel views. You are the one making this about the views they hold. Is it a sign of unreliability to hold views associated with a state credibly accused of an ongoing genocide? Should all news sources that have been identified as pro-Israel be censored because of those views? Or do you only apply this test to the views you don’t like? nableezy - 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn’t the moral position of the source, its opinions are just clearly perceived as fringe by the sources cited by me. While there is some systemic bias, being in favour of terrorist groups is going to very likely put you in fringe territory regardless of which terror group it is: the same would have probably applied to a pro-Rote Armee Fraktion source had Wikipedia existed back then. If said source was also distributing conspiracy content enough to be noticed by MSM for it, even worse. FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe doesn’t mean what you think it means. Holding pro brotherhood or pro Hamas positions isn’t fringe. nableezy - 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think supporting terrorist groups and spreading conspiracy theories while not fact-checking or retracting stories is a factor when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source. It’s ok if you disagree FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I have ur permission to disagree as well? Thanks in advance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you did ask so nicely FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is true, please don’t make bogus assertions and expect people to pretend like they are true. nableezy - 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were referred to as all 3 by RS, and the story is still up FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, holding pro-Hamas viewpoints is not "supporting Hamas", and the Community Security Trust isn’t a reliable source, sorry. Again, holding views you don’t like is not something that matters here. Holding views that one right wing source calls pro-Hamas has nothing to do with reliability. It’s a funny thing that happens here, people forget we are supposed to include all significant views published by reliable sources but then try to define what is reliable based on the views sources hold so as to suppress those significant views they dislike. But bias, supposed or otherwise, has nothing to do with reliability. So despite the effort to create a list of beliefs one must not hold to be cited our policies remain diametrically opposed to such efforts. nableezy - 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, publicising media while being pro-Hamas and having a mission statement which includes The use or misuse of information is central to the conflict in the Middle East. There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. and As such, we regularly interface with politicians, editors, lobby groups and various other stakeholders to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the Palestine issue. is totally and meaningfully different from “supporting Hamas”.
    The CSR wasn’t discussed as an RS (though I would be tempted to say they are generally analogous to the ADL). Additionally, we do exclude fringe views already, and we don’t need a pro-Hamas viewpoint for the sake of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE], there are decent pro-Palestinian sources even before the war and particularly now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing remotely fringe about MEMO or its views, and therefore, nothing to exclude. Frankly, this joke is now officially a time sink that is wasting our resources without a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that a pro-Israel viewpoint should be included but we should be excluding sources for having similar views to Hamas, besides being a basic association fallacy, is one that is not in keeping with our core policies. If you want a website in which only views that you like are allowed you can go start your own, cus this one ain’t it. nableezy - 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I believe that we also should exclude any news source with the same reliability issues that’s pro Ku-Klux-Klan, pro Jewish Defense League, or probably pro Kach (political party). We don’t have to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way into pro-terrorism viewpoints. There are good and diligent sources that express pro-Palestine views and those ought to be included even where I disagree with them, Memo just isn’t one of them. The inclusion of RS and the exclusion of fringe and unreliable sources is an important part of Wikipedia. FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But not pro state credibly accused of genocide I guess. And again, there is zero evidence of pro-terrorism, repeatedly making false statements isn’t the best look. nableezy - 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, they are not pro-terrorism, just pro-terrorist-group. FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes the others (like NYT) pro-Genocide (when committed by a friend). M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That also is not true. What your one right wing source says it has pro Brotherhood and pro Hamas views of the region. Which could be in favor of anything from lifting the siege on Gaza to supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees to agreeing that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation and racist domination. None of that has anything to do with anything, and your attempt to redefine RS to exclude views you dislike is not one that has any policy backing. Nor even much support on this board. nableezy - 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're confusing bias with reliability. The anti-Palestinian bias of the New York Times doesn't prevent the NYT from being treated as RS. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and there are significantly biased (not:fringe) sources that are also reliable, and this isn’t one of them. Nevertheless, I agree with your last comment that this discussion is unlikely to produce results, we will just have to wait for when this comes up again. FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been told this before, but I'll repeat it here: 1) Fringe doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) There is nothing remotely fringe about either MEMO or its views. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who receives what donations is always depended on a variety of circumstances and is unrelated to reliability in this context.
    I too would prefer if there were more and better mainstream reliable sources on the pro-Palestinian side then there currently are, but using an unreliable and fringe source is not the solution to the western systemic bias, it’s the long term creation of reasonable and reliable sources on both sides, something that I (and probably you) don’t have the ability to do. As said above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the solution to a geopolitical and sociological issue. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look we have here this long thread and have proved what exactly? Not a whole lot, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, both 'sides' provided good arguments for the inevitable RfC, otherwise, who knows. Maybe someone else will find something additional to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors fomenting a storm in a teacup does not a case for an RFC make. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are at least 5 participants, and considering the conduct and use of the source, I think it’s quite likely that it will be an RfC at some point. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, perhaps when there is an actual live dispute over the use of the source on Wikipedia, that could be considered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, something that I would consider probable FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well if the great bastion of race-baiting that is the Telegraph has made some aspersions about people with foreign sounding names, I'm sure we're good as gold to take the info as writ. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to take a look at the author of that piece. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If a news outlet is routinely posting disproven information, incorrect information, or misinformation, it probably isn't a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, never knew that. Are you saying that applies to MEM0? Another evidence free accusation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that isn’t the case here at all so I don’t see the relevance to that general statement. nableezy - 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No case has been established. I've never paid much attention to MEM and I don't think I have ever cited it. However, to eliminate a source requires much better evidence than I see here. Once arguments that really amount to "I don't like its politics" are removed, there is practically nothing left. Overall this is an unusually weak case. Zerotalk 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see MEMO as a non-reliable source that has no editorial standards and exists mainly to amplify a particular political position. I haven’t seen incidents of it actually promoting falsehoods apart from the one mentioned by the OP. But I believe the CST is a very reliable source (not a lobbying organisation, and far more reliable than the ADL, who are currently being discussed elsewhere on this page, so if they say MEMO promotes conspiracy theories I take that seriously. I don’t think, contrary to some comments here, that we should relax our standards in order to accommodate more that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective: there are plenty of far stronger sources that do (Al-Jazeera, +972, Al-Monitor, The New Arab, the Independent, the Guardian…). I also object to the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith that have been a feature of this discussion. In a thread above, I am accused of not considering Norman Finkelstein reliable because I want to hide the truth; in this thread a second person agreeing that this source is unreliable is described as soon as coordinated chorus; and the accusation has been made that this is somehow instigated to defend NGO Monitor. (The fact that I’ve defended Al-Jazeera and 972 and opposed NGO Monitor as reliable sources doesn’t seem to stop such allegations.) Instead or these allegations against editors, defenders of this source would be better off giving examples of use by reliable sources or other actual reasons to trust it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's all very well, where though is the actual evidence of unreliability? It wasn't CST saying that they promote conspiracy theories, that was Haaretz (Anshel Pfeffer) saying that - "The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff." What are these conspiracy theories?
      So no, the burden remains with those accusing the source of unreliability to demonstrate that, not just allege it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, use by others. How about (Wikipedia Library links): Insight Turkey ([19]), Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses ([20]), International Crisis Group ([21], [22]), Journal of Palestine Studies ([23]), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([24]), Arab Studies Quarterly ([25]), and that's just when I got bored going through the JSTOR results. That enough evidence to go against your completely evidence-free opinion here? nableezy - 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Nableezy. That kind of evidence posted early on would have been more useful than (evidence-free) allegations that editors were here to hide the truth. Re CST, they did indeed say MEMO promotes conspiract theories, albeit a while ago:

      Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a pro-Palestinian lobbying group which generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. We have had cause to write about MEMO on this blog before, because they commonly promote conspiracy theories about politicians in Western nations being beholden to Jewish or Zionist political manipulation and financial inducements, along with other classical antisemitic canards and tropes.[26]


      MEMO has featured repeatedly on the CST Blog for peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK Ambassador to Israel simply because he is Jewish. MEMO also continued to spread the untrue story that the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film was a Zionist plot to stir up hatred of Muslims, several days after it had been widely established that the film was made by Egyptian Christians. One MEMO article, titled 'How money from pro-Israel donors controls Westminster', was even praised by American neo-Nazi David Duke. In 2009, when Channel 4's Dispatches aired a programme about pro-Israel lobby groups, MEMO illustrated their article about the programme with this image that implies Jewish or Israeli financial influence over the UK Parliament. A reverse Google images search suggests that this image originated on the thoroughly antisemitic Radio Islam website.[27]

      And: There is much else that is problematic in MEMO's report, not least the repeated Zionist conspiracy-mongering that is becoming their stock-in-trade. But this example illustrates a lesson they ought to heed: if you make things up as you go along, sooner or later people will stop believing what you say.[28] In the first cite above, CST actually goes further, saying that MEMO included a quote from Ariel Sharon that they say has been thoroughly debunked since it first appeared in 2001 in a press release from the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine. IAP's claimed source for the quote, the Israeli radio station Kol Yisrael, had never broadcast it, and their political correspondent confirmed that Sharon never said it. No other source has ever emerged to confirm IAP's claim.[29] Finally, in other pieces, CST accuse MEMO of multiple inaccuracies in relation to Raed Saleh.[30][31] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And is the CST material used by others? Those are CST blogposts you are citing there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are these particular CST pieces cited by others? Well, we got to them because Ha'aretz cited them so yes. If you want a general discussion about the reliability of CST, probably better to open a new thread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Blogposts are not RS, so no need. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite right. See below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that CST is generally reliable. In addition, it’s clear that the relevant citations confirm what the original RS source said. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They are blog posts. MEMO > blogposts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the blog of a reliable monitoring organisation not a self-published blog in the sense used by WP:SPS. It should have a similar status to e.g. SPLC Hatewatch or the Hope Not Hate blog, sources we've discussed before and ruled reliable. If you wanted to get pedantic, MEMO is essentially a blog if this is: MEMO is an organisation with a particular political perspective publishing its own content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Lots of RS orgs have blog post sections, they are just opinions, MEMO is a newsorg. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assessment of use by others[edit]

    I've had a moment to look at reputation and use by others a little more systematically, by going through mentions in news articles via Google news and factcheck sites via Poynter Institute. Here's what I found:

    • Favourable:
      • DW has used it as a reliable source on the Palestinian Authority in 2016, calling it a "not-for-profit policy research institute".[32] (They also used it a "pro-Muslim Brotherhood website" the same year.[33])
      • The Misbar fact check website uses MEMO as a reliable source in factchecking a fake claim on social media.[34]
      • Snopes lists MEMO among "numerous international news outlets" reporting on the Saudi Miss World entry[35]
      • AFP occasionally uses it as a reliable source in factchecks.[36]
    • Unfavourable:
      • AFP reports MEMO passed off an anti-Saudi satirical article as true. The story may have been intended as light-hearted fiction, but other websites have since reproduced it without clarifying that it was made up for fun. The Middle East Monitor and Zambian entertainment site Tumfweko relayed the story, as did India’s Times Now before issuing a correction.[37]
      • Annenburg's finds it misrepresenting a video of IDF violence (In addition to the video, the post includes a link to an Oct. 30 article in the Middle East Monitor, a website that says it supports the “Palestinian cause.” That article includes a quote that reads: “Israeli commanders made ‘difficult decisions’ including ‘shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages.'” The quote is attributed to a security coordinator at Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the settlements attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7. But the aerial footage shown in the post comes from a longer compilation video shared by the IDF on Oct. 9 on X [which] shows aerial bombings at several sites[38]
      • Misbar finds it (along with Al-Mayadeen) falsely claiming on its social media channels that a settler stabbed a Palestinian woman, based on video that was in fact an intra-Palestinian domestic incident (as debunked by an Al Araby TV reporter).[39] The same website reports MEMO reporting fake news about Nike quitting Israel.[40]
    • Ambiguous:
      • Logically Facts lists it among "news sites" (the others are Al Jazeera, The New Arab, and Jordan News) using false reporting from Channel 14, Israel's version of Fox News.[41]
      • Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting[42]
      • Highly reliable fact checking site Lead Stories mention their report being used in social media misinformation about October 7 but not clear if their report is accurate or not[43]
      • It features in a failed fact check from Polygraph about Libya, but it's the person they're quoting that is failed rather than MEMO.[44]
      • An AFP factcheck of a false claim made in a viral video mentions a Middle East Eye and Middle East Monitor videos as the original sources of the video; the MEMO version was not falsely dated (as in the viral version), but was misleadingly captioned.[45] Elsewhere, AFP describes MEMO as "a UK-based not-for-profit press monitoring organisation".[46]
      • Politifact describes MEMO as "a publication that calls itself a supporter of the Palestinian cause"[47] Elsewhere, fact checking a viral video, it lists MEMO among "Some pro-Palestinian news outlets [that] shared the video that’s been circulating social media, but they provided no additional information to substantiate the claim."[48]
      • CAMERA UK, a partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about a Daily Express (low quality right-wing UK tabloid, which we consider generally unreliably ) report that it says reproduces Palestinian Authority propaganda, and adds "Moreover, it’s quite telling that the only other site we could find that covered this “horrific” report was the pro-Hamas site Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Interestingly, though, MEMO’s headline (“Report: Israel imposes $28,000 fines on Palestinian children”, June 4) is significantly more restrained than the one chosen by Daily Express editors."[49]
      • HonestReporting, another partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about an International Business Times report (we consider IBT unreliable): "The journalist gets his information from a range of sources and links to sites including: Terrorist organization Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website; Iranian government propaganda outfit Press TV; Anti-Israel hate site Middle East Monitor (MEMO)."[50]
      • CheckYourFact calls it "a pro-Palestinian lobbying group".[51]
      • Several fact checks have found its videos being repurposed with fake information in viral social media posts, but this doesn't say anything about its own reliability.

    Conclusion: not enough evidence of unreliability to call it "generally unreliable" but definitely enough to not call it "generally reliable" so probably yellow flag rather than red or green. Some RSs consider it a news organisation, but many consider it a lobbying group. I'd say: use with extreme caution, always attribute, try to triangulate if only partisan sources are available, be cautious if it's the only source, replace with better sources if any are available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's a long way around of saying attribute anything controversial, I would go along with that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Is this over at last? That was a fairly big mountain of molehill. I must admit in the past of producing long documents adhering to all the standards when I wanted people to just give up and let something pass without comment, but that doesn't seem to work on Wikipedia thankfully. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ]Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting
    Their unconfirmed claims are actually significant evidence that they are generally unreliable. The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies. This is scientifically impossible; for such organs to be viable the individual has to have died in hospital with the organs removed almost immediately. There is no way that organs can be retrieved from bodies that have been buried or left in morgues for any length of time. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post said that a whole slew of sources reported that, not just MEMO, who were mentioned once only in passing. So no, that is not significant evidence at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies That claim is attributed to Euro-Med.
    It's about time we closed this time sink. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely; MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ theft. They also say "Moreover, Israel has made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs." The first part of this is true - the second part is a falsehood. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read that article and it sounds to me as if the Euromed call for an investigation is on the right track.
    "There have been reports in recent years of the unlawful use of Palestinian corpses held by Israel, including the theft of organs and their use in Israeli university medical schools. Israeli doctor Meira Weiss disclosed in her book Over Their Dead Bodies that organs taken from dead Palestinians were utilised in medical research at Israeli universities’ medical faculties and were transplanted into Jewish-Israeli patients. Even more concerning are admissions made by Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine, about the theft of human tissues, organs and skin from dead Palestinians over a period of time without their relatives’ knowledge or consent. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiss stole from Israeli's, Palestinian's, and foreigners. Weiss' book discusses his actions; the fact that these sources omit these highly relevant facts raise serious questions about their reliability and neutrality, but it does not support these claims. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said stands: you misattributed a statement to MEMO.
    What MEMO said cannot be dismissed just because you don't agree with it.
    What has been quoted by Selfstudier makes JP's dismissal of the well-founded concerns look ridiculous. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I misattribute? MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ harvesting. They also say, in their own voice, that Israel has made it lawfully to steal Palestinian's organs. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quoted (in green) what you misattributed to MEMO. Please don't do that again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article I linked also says that it is documented that bodies were taken from hospitals, and these are the bodies it is referring to when it says there is evidence of organ harvesting. You are right that it does fully attribute the claim about dug up bodies - I confused the various different sources I have seen on this, and will try to be more careful in the future - but the substance of my statement was correct.
    Can we now move on to discussing what MEMO actually said? BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the substance of my statement was correct the substance of your statement is based on a misrepresented source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuentes video[edit]

    Revising down my opinion of MEMO a little having noticed they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic. They just call him an “an American political commentator” and apparently approve of his view that Israel “controls” America “through bribery, espionage, and corruption”. Currently top of their “current news” section (news! even though obviously opinion). [52] BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And Myron Gaines also features in the clip, interviewing Fuentes as if he’s the voice of MEMO, and saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. This is Gaines: BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, massive red flag for me. Even a modicum of research would show who Fuentes is, and either they didn't do the research, or they don't care. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as if he’s the voice of MEMO, how did you come to that conclusion?
    saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. some people have a very good reason to believe that's the case, so where's the problem with that and why should MEMO censor him when the so-called RS give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just put it here Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with MEMO. Is there anything else or is that it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is much more at his wikipedia article. And the point was this "they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic" and "Currently top of their current news section (news! even though obviously opinion)". Vegan416 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to do censor him to please Israel and its allies who give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind (without describing as such). M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not here to right great wrongs. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't do it then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first saw the video, I assumed it was MEMO interviewing him and Gaines was the interviewer. I only subsequently realised it was an extract from Gaines’ podcast. They took an extract from a Nazi podcast, of a prominent fascist being antisemitic, and put it on their website — as “news” — with absolutely no context. That’s simply not the behaviour of a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is an American political commentator, that's a fact, everything else is an opinion that professional journalists such as those working for the BBC wouldn't use. So where is the problem? M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the first citations on his article, you would see that there are quite a few choice words to describe him other than commentator. FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat, him being a commentator is a fact, everything else is an opinion or a label that professional journalists don't use. Did you read what I wrote about the BBC? M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bbc describe him as far-right and white nationalist FortunateSons (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when they are interviewing him. Is there anything else? M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not possible to prove a negative, and perhaps some indication of political leaning would have been appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the so-called RS (associated with Israel and its allies) give an indication of the political leaning of the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians that they often interview (when not stating their BS as facts)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an interview of one of them with someone who is as prolific as Fuentes? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't and I certainly don't intend on looking for one. Back to the subject: is there anything else about MEMO that we need to discuss? M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this will be likely heading for an RfC anyway in the long term, so I don’t have anything for now FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the BBC ever interview him? Vegan416 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, but I have never seen them insult a host. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody asked them to insult him in his face during the interview. But when publishing the interview they could add a description of his extreme views in general, so the viewers can asses him better. Or better they could refrain from interviewing him in the first place. Like the BBC apparently did... Vegan416 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They could do all kind of things that you approve of, but like the other RS, they don't have to and as long as they don't fabricate stories (like the NYT), then everything is how it should be. Also, they don't have to copy anyone or let someone else decide for them on whom they should interview (for the sake of freedom of speech, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not an interview, it’s a video from a podcast posted to their instagram account. Should they have posted that? I wouldn’t have. Does it have anything to do with their actual reporting? Meh. nableezy - 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct it’s not an interview. Nor is it “news”. What it has to do with their reporting is: they chose to bring very fringe views into their news section even though it isn’t vaguely newsworthy, they mislabelled very extreme opinion as news, they gave so little context in simply calling him “an American political commentator” as to be misleading. I don’t see how you can’t get that makes them an unreliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    put it on their website — as “news” they didn't. What they did do is mention what an American commentator said in his own voice. Is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They literally did. It was filed in the “latest news” section of the website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the tagging or section on the website, the actual content consists purely of an Instagram link and a headline, so it is self-evidently not their own reporting or news. There's not much more to be said than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly distinguishing between opinion and news is a usual indicator of a reliable news source, often invoked on this bulletin board. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They did mention what an American political commentator said in his own voice. Again, is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but it’s just an instagram post, yes also posted the same to their website, and I get the problem here but this isn’t reporting or something that anybody would cite anyway. So meh. nableezy - 22:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they’ve taken down the video. They have also posted Bill Maher saying the Jews have right of title to Palestine. That they post people talking on podcasts isn’t the newsiest thing to do but I don’t see how this is really something to spend time discussing. nableezy - 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sad reality is that Nick Fuentes is a not-insignificant American political figure despite the fact that he's horribly racist, and he famously had a meeting/dinner with former President Donald Trump. Describing him as "an American political commentator" is not inaccurate, nor are his statements not newsworthy.
    Per Iskandar "Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information."
    - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His meeting with Trump was newsworthy. His guest slot on a Nazi podcast isn’t. If it was newsworthy, a news organisation would report it, explaining who he is. MEMO didn’t do that; they just put him out there as a legitimate voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news agencies (secondary sources) decide what is newsworthy and what isn't, that's their prerogative. M.Bitton (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. |"nick fuentes" "donald trump"| generates hundreds of google news hits, while |"nick fuentes" "myron gaines"| generates just ten, most from Media Matters for America, and all of which describe Fuentes as a white nationalist Holocaust denier and Gaines as a Nazi-embracing misogynist manosphere activist. The extent to which MEMO is an outlier here shows how fringe it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot of irrelevant WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Media analysis is not OR FortunateSons (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant "whatever" that is based on someone's analysis is always irrelevant. The bottom line is that news agencies are free to give a voice to whomever they choose (that's what freedom of the press is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Media sources, including very reliable ones, publish the views of questionable figures all the time. The NYT published a piece written by a Hamas politician a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, the WSJ published a piece by a far-right who has a history of making racist anti-Arab statements. An no, the WSJ did not mention Smotrich's racist statements when presenting him as an author.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did NYT and WSJ file these opinion pieces under “news”? Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas? I agree Smotrich is a disgusting racist, but he’s a government minister and WSJ make it clear who he is, and in fact his (clearly labelled) opinion piece is premised on the fact the US media sees him as “far right”. If MEMO had chosen to interview Fuentes or give him an op ed, that would reflect badly on their integrity (and might suggest they are fringe) but would not be a reliability issue. But what they did was showcase his appearance on a Nazi podcast, gave no context whatsoever, and filed it under news. This is a reliability issue. I’ll try not to come back to this again because obviously it’s not the only piece of evidence to be weighed, but it’s important not to misrepresent what happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas?" Actually, yes. They simply introduce him as mayor of Gaza city (which is true) without mentioning his Hamas credentials. Likewise, the WSJ doesn't mention Smotrich's racism when presenting him. Giving context for Fuentes is absolutely not necessary for MEMO's reliability. The only issue I see here is MEMO accidentally misfiling this under news instead of opinion. VR (Please ping on reply) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read through this discussion, I'm impressed; the lead of our article on MEMO makes it sound like they're super fringe, so one would think it'd be no trouble to cite lots of examples of them being unreliable, but instead this discussion is this long and the only evidence seems to be a couple nothingburgers where they reported that someone said something which that person did say, or reported stories other, bigger RS also reported. I'm just not seeing anything actionable here...? -sche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-opinion articles containing falsehoods and antisemitic canards:
    1. More extremist than their Israeli paymasters - In this, MEMO denies that Raed Salah made antisemitic remarks. Salah had previously said We [Muslims] have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood. Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread - indisputably blood libel. The article itself comes close to antisemitic canards such as "Jews control the media".
    2. MEMO Comment: Is Britain's new ambassador to Israel really going to be objective? - MEMO describes Matthew Gould as having two masters, with Israel being the second one because of his Jewish faith. Clearly Antisemitic trope#Dual loyalty.
    Opinion articles written by MEMO's senior editor, expressing antisemitic canards:
    1. George Osborne needs a reality check - It is almost de rigueur for politicians to pay homage at the court of the Board of Deputies and, in the process, pledge allegiance to, sorry, support for the State of Israel.
    2. Is Israel now the unofficial 51st State of the United States of America? - quotes a long disproven line saying "Jews control America", along with other canards.
    Outside of its publications, MEMO has tweeted antisemitic images, such as by depicting Israel as an octopus, organized lectures by Holocaust deniers and had their employees deny the holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Reliability of WION[edit]

    Following both previous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#WION News, should WION News can be considered as unreliable? (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would kindly ask you to add the voting options used for RfC on this noticeboard. FortunateSons (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the reliability of WION, also known as World is One News?

    Unlike Daily Mail, which is considered unreliable and depreciated. WION is an Indian news channel owned by Essel Group, which also owns Zee Media. The site contains extensive India-related articles, celebrity facts, and others does not itself as a generally reliable source. Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: -- (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 3. I watched a lot of WION before, and I stopped watching it as it is geared towards the ruling BJP party. Ahri.boy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Jazeera reliability[edit]

    Very concerning incident this week surrounding AJ reporting and keeping on their website for more than 24 hours erroneous reports of rapes committed by IDF soldiers in Al Shifa hospital.

    AJ quietly deleted all references to the supposed incident and has not provided any retraction. A former editor (and current AJ journalist) has come forward to provide context, but the organization has remained mum.

    Keeping up this completely unverified story for a day, then removing without retraction is potentially in serious violation of RS standards. I understand AJ more often than not abides, but this is an egregious violation nonetheless, and well beyond any acceptable journalistic rules:


    Times of Israel: Al Jazeera takes down video falsely alleging IDF rapes in Shifa Hospital

    Haaretz: Al Jazeera Deletes Video Claiming Woman Was Raped by Israeli Forces in Gaza Al-Shifa Raid

    New York Sun: Al Jazeera Says Its Story That IDF Soldiers are Raping Gazans Was Fabricated Mistamystery (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This reportage all comes from sources with deep ideological biases and as such I'd question us taking them at their word that Al Jazeera isn't reliable. Frankly it'd make a mockery of WP:NPOV to deprecate Al Jazeera but not Times of Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're evading the core point. Al Jazeera staff literally confirmed the retraction. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources provided, it's well attested beyond those three posts. Mistamystery (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're evading my core point. That it'd be disingenuous to begin treating AJ as unreliable on the basis of this considering the multiple times that Times of Israel and Haaretz have reported IDF talking points as fact that later proved to be misinformation, often without retractions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please provide examples of IDF talking points that were published and later proven to be "misinformation", as opposed to later updating of information.
    2. This is far more significant. This is direct reporting from what they claimed to be a verified source who was - in fact - completely fabricating the story. Mistamystery (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the Jerusalem Post claiming a killed baby was a doll and then silently removing the story from their webpage? And no, al-Jazeera never claimed it was a verified source, that is completely made up. nableezy - 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post appears to have made an announcement retracting and apologising for that story, which is more than Al Jazeera has done. I also note you’ve described JPost as JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine, so I’m not sure why you think saying Al Jazeera is no different to JPost is a defence of Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the Jerusalem Post actually said that this wasnt a baby, this was a doll and the evidence was fabricated, and all of that was a lie. Al-Jazeera only said that there is a witness saying that this rape happened, and that was true. Al-Jazeera later determined that person was not being honest, but they did not report as fact something that was a lie. Jerusalem Post did, and does often. Like here claiming there are confirmed images of burned and beheaded babies from October 7 (there is not). That story is still up for the record. nableezy - 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that story is still up. Unbelievable. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]