Talk:The Jewish Chronicle

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

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :The Jewish Chronicle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "thejc1":
From Cecil Moss: 
From Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party: 
From The Lynching: 
From Michael Klinger: 
From Jenny Manson: 
From Tulip Siddiq: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:The Jewish Chronicle]] 

message: The lead says the newspaper "was acquired from the liquidators by a private consortium of political insiders, broadcasters and bankers". Is this WP:NPOV and supported by the references or instead inferred via WP:OR? JezGrove (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think it may be NPOV? There is a source (not from me) behind a paywall at the end of the article. Jontel (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see behind the paywall, but wondered, given the frequent antisemitic conspiracy theories that Jews control the media, the financial system, etc., whether the source itself used similar wording or if WP had (inadvertently) introduced an antisemitic trope by characterising the new owners in a particular way. It is very likely that the current wording is an accurate reflection of the original source, but perhaps a direct quote from it might be better for clarity on this issue given that other readers will also be on the wrong side of the paywall? JezGrove (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The individuals concerned are listed in the Publication data and finances section. I have amended the lead to include this point. Thank you for raising the issue. If you think that it is an incorrect description, by all means say so. Jontel (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescue from liquidation 

message: This is expressed in a rather abstract and unilluminating way. Could we make it more direct to convey the issue clearly? There is also an inaccuracy, which is corrected in the second version. For example, change it from: 
In April 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published a ruling by IPSO that articles it had published on May 2017 and April 2018 about an author critical of Zionism contained inaccuracies regarding venue denial activity by Jewish organisations and the author's views on the relationship between Zionism and Nazi Germany and that it had failed to issue a timely correction. The Jewish Chronicle said that they had relied on comments made by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
to
In April 2019, The Jewish Chronicle published a ruling by IPSO that articles it had published on May 2017 and April 2018 about an author critical of Zionism had falsely claimd that the author had been banned from speaking at a Quaker venue and had falsely claimed that the author had asserted that Zionist leaders had “encouraged antisemitism in Germany to force Jews to move to Palestine”. It had also failed to issue a timely correction. The Jewish Chronicle said that they had relied on comments made by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews with regard to the venue. Jontel (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's slightly clearer, but I'd question whether this incident is noteworthy. Is there independent coverage of it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very surprised BobFromBrockley didn't bring this up during the RS discussion. I see they've been caught lying about Marc Wadsworth again. The JC has a really impressive record of false reporting on leftwing activists. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lasuits, rulings and criticisms - April 2019 ruling 

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

message: The JC started to publish a large number of libellous and inaccurate stories around 2010, the section which includes this information will necessarily focus on stories from that 10 year period. This is not slanting towards recent events it is simply reporting them, the JC appears not to have made a habit of libelling people (with one exception in 1968) before then. Therefore the slant tag is unjustified, it would only make sense if there were evidence of libels in the intervening period which are not covered in the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It feels like WP:RECENTISM to me that an encyclopedia article about a newspaper 180 years old would have so much content focused on the last decade, including several paragaphs on corrections and lawsuits, finances, and criticisms. In terms of lines, 62% of the body focuses on the last ten years, 38% on the previous 170. That can't be right. (See also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOMUCH.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its unreliability and constant demonstrable lying (alongside misleading reporting falling just the right side of sanction) and its lurch from crisis to crisis are probably the most notable things about its modern form. I'd be happy to see more written about its past, when it was a reliable community newspaper, if there are sources for it. If there aren't, then there is no presentism, just an imbalance in the notability of different periods of its existence. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a convincing argument if there was vast amount in RSs about the recent unreliability, but our sources for that are almost all primary (IPSO or the JC itself) plus the relatively fringe and partisan Morning Star, or the Press Gazette, which has indeed reported a lot about the JC but is only cited here for negative things. Our article is badly imbalanced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of slanted to recent events template

message: Hi all,
Seems to be a bit of intermittent discussion about working on the article - sorry if my edits are intrusive  on what's being worked on - but just wanted to let everyone know that I made some minor alterations w/ regards to wording and some neutral point of view changes to the lawsuits & ruling section. 
Please let me know if you disagree/would like to discuss further.
Thanks,
Moshe
Moshe1022 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: My recent edit