Talk:UK Defence Journal

Various issues
There are so many issues with this article, I don't know where to begin. Most of the claims made in the article before I started either did not match the source or were merely passing references. I've pruned the article way back to less than half of the original sources because most simply mention the website. The next bunch which go a step further say what kind of website it is and that is it. and I have retained these for the lead, however that leaves a single reference (bar the one I added) which is from their own about page. This is pretty awful and I question greatly how this article made it past the review stage. The article creator submitted their draft (Draft:UK Defence Journal) a second time but created this page at the same time, by passing the draft submission stage. The Draft shows that the page was rejected previously, as shown here. The article was merely rewritten with an extra section added and some references added that barely mention the subject. I've pruned it right back but left the claims given as per WP:PRESERVE. I welcome other users to find references to improve the article and potentially fill those gaps. I am a preservationist and would rather see the content remain, unless of course it is seen by one as controversial, offensive or is copyrighted.

One of the interesting things I found in looking for sources of this article was the substantial references to it in on Google News (1,220), although when one opens or simply looks at the previews, the vast majority are mere passing references to the subject, mainly the agency in question reporting that UKDJ has reported on the issue, which whilst showing some notability, isn't substantial coverage in itself. On this basis, in my opinion, it is rather questionable as to whether this "publication" is indeed notable, or at least notable to have an article on Wikipedia as it is without question that they have some notability. The Plymouth Herald says that UKDJ is a a well-respected online publication covering military matters. If such is the case then I would expect alot more visible coverage on the website itself. I could barely find anything on Google Books either, which is the next place to try. I didn't think there was much point looking on Archive.org or Usenet either, based on how futile the former was.

In my opinion, the article is notable and should remain, however it needs a hell of alot more sources and a major expansion. Hopefully time will be kind to us! UaMaol (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, especially that references should be expanded. Riazto (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies UaMaol, I removed the notability tag as I mistakenly believed that there was consensus here about the site being notable enough for the article to remain.Riazto (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, so it was yourself. I assumed it was the IP user who re-added various sources I previously removed. In your opinion is it notable? UaMaol (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say so. The site is effectively a UK equivalent of Defense News and has a significant following online due to its own articles being somewhat prolific (that's how I found it) but the issue of sources remain. I would suggest that because the site publishes news rather than becomes news itself (if that makes sense) then we may struggle to remove the additional citations tag. To answer your question, I believe due to the status of the site in UK media it is notable but my issue (like you) is the issue with citations. It might make sense to trim it down to what we can see on the Defense News article if we can't find enough to expand it substationally? Riazto (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you, it is (just) notable as per the WikiProject Magazines guide on the notability of magazines as it is considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in its subject area and is frequently referred to by reliable sources. It needs to be tidied up though as the content doesn't make much sense, too many 'broken stories'. Imperialpeace (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that the website is not a magazine, it is a blog. As far as I am aware, it has never produced a 'volume' that would entitle them to be considered to be a magazine. Even a digital edition of a magazine would count but as far as I can see there isn't one. UaMaol (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They appear to have produced a few digital editions of a pdf magazine. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/edition-one-now/ Riazto (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "status of the site in UK media", so far it seems like the UK media are using it as a primary source, similar in the way in which Reuters, AP and the BBC are used. A difference to those however, is that UKDF is effectivly a trade blog largely dedicated to a single country's national military. This is a very niche area and many of the articles read like they were taken directly from the MOD themselves, as in lots of praising and not a single shred of criticism. Until UKDF can get covered properly in notable media, or preferably someone can find a blurb on a notable website/publication about them, there's not alot we can do. The Ministry of Defence calls the site a "specialist blog". This says a lot in itself. UaMaol (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with what you say above but they do appear to criticise the Ministry of Defence, I've found some articles that appear to correct claims made by the Ministry of Defence or expose wastage/poorly managed contracts in the MoD, a recent article that appears to have garnered widespread attention is the UKDJ exposing the spending of 75m on VIP minister transport aircraft and another is criticial of the status of housing British troops endure. Going back far enough there's one apparently calling out a previous Def Sec for lying about the size of the British navy. It seems that the website splits actual journalism into its own section away from the 'Army buys new tank' type headlines. Riazto (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears we've all reached a consensus on the topic meeting notability guidelines. I have a few articles I want to tidy up before coming back to this one but my next step is to tidy this one up with regards to the actual content if I can find out more, especially about references to a magazine. I'll create a new section here for future improvements in a few days, take care all. Riazto (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that.Imperialpeace (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too, happy for that tag to go as per 'Maintenance template removal - When to remove'. 185.58.164.47 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Some sections too niche?
Added tag saying "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience" given the subject matter, are mentions to specific types of vehicles too niche or given they're the subject of some claims, are they fine? 2A00:23C5:24E4:8C00:98F1:B61C:EF7A:B7DB (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is fine. Riazto (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also fine by me.185.58.164.47 (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

'Broke the news'
As pointed out above by another user, do we need so many 'Broke the news of' entries? Riazto (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth looking at entries for similar sites and see what they have. Imperialpeace (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Blog vs News Website
I've noticed a revert to an edit back to a revision from years ago, to use the term "blog", I do not believe that to be accurate. This has in fact awakened my intention to volunteer here again, so that's a good thing. Anyway, the term "blog" typically implies a more personal, less formal, and often individual-led platform. In contrast, a "news website" suggests a structured, possibly editorially staffed operation that adheres to journalistic standards. The classification of UKDJ as a "blog" might not seem reliable, particularly in light of its regulation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Being regulated by IPSO implies compliance with stringent journalistic standards, which are generally not required for blogs. This includes obligations to correct errors, handle complaints professionally, and adhere to ethical journalism practices, practices more aligned with news organisations than personal blogs.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (WP:RS), sources that are regulated by recognized authorities like IPSO are considered highly reliable. This enhances the credibility of UKDJ’s self-description as a news website. Moreover, under Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:VERIFY), this is a critical piece of verifiable evidence that supports the classification of UKDJ as a news outlet rather than a blog. UKDJ's own description on its website is a primary source. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), such sources can be used directly for descriptive claims about themselves, especially when they provide straightforward, non-controversial information. If UKDJ identifies itself as a "news website," this self-description is significant and generally reliable for basic information about its operations and identity.

Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and weight (WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) mandate that the article must not give undue weight to outdated or less substantiated descriptions. The presence of IPSO regulation should be given significant consideration when determining the primary classification of UKDJ. Since IPSO does not generally oversee personal blogs, this regulatory detail supports a more formal and structured understanding of UKDJ as aligning with the operational standards of a news website.

The process of achieving consensus on Wikipedia involves evaluating the presence and consistency of sources as outlined in the notability guideline (WP:NOTE). The consistent identification of UKDJ as a news website by multiple current and reliable sources significantly reinforces this classification:


 * Sky News describes UKDJ as "an online news site focused on defence issues."
 * The Scotsman refers to it as "a military news site."
 * The Herald mentions UKDJ as a source that "publishes international defence news and analysis."
 * Plymouth Live describes UKDJ as "a well-respected online publication covering military matters."
 * The Guardian refers to UKDJ as "a military news website."
 * The BBC calls it "the military news website UK Defence Journal."
 * The Australian Naval Institute noted UKDJ as "the first news website in the country to break this story."
 * Anadolu Agency recognized it as "a British defense news website."
 * Newsweek describes UKDJ as "a defense news website."
 * The Telegraph reports that "It has been claimed by the military news website UK Defence Journal."

These references from reputable outlets, along with the site’s IPSO regulation, demonstrate a clear consensus of UKDJ being recognized as a professional news organization rather than a blog.

It's worth noting that the classification of UKDJ as a "blog" by the Ministry of Defence blog is six years old and singular, whereas more recent and consistent descriptions from a variety of reliable sources support its classification as a news website.

Consistent and recent references from respected media outlets, supports the classification of UKDJ as a news website. Riazto (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)