Talk:New English Review

Note about recent text

The IP and added it a few months ago and the IP that restored it geolocate to the same place. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NER: political orientation

Editors keep removing a paragraph which describes NER's political orientation and modus operandi, taken from the NER's website. It seems others are being allowed to give an opinion on NER'S political stance but its own description is not allowed.

My reasons for reinserting the paragraph after its removal have been included in the edits: "Reinserted deleted paragraph with appropriate links. The paragraph is a factual description of what NER claims on its website."

Although it is correct to say the NER has been called 'far right', which is why I have not opposed this statement, it is incorrect not to allow a sentence which draws attention for the need to qualify this label. The cited works do not make a case for the label and do not themselves cite a valid source for their own claims. I have slsk made this clear in my edits: "The sentence in parentheses is a factual description of the content of the articles cited. Neither make a case for categorising NER as far right. It is correct to say they call NER far right but is also correct to say they do not qualify these statements in the articles cited."

It seems any attempt at objectivity, qualification or a differing view is not permitted and NER's description of itself is proscribed. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What would be best is a piece on the history of NER in a reliable publication. That would help to clarify its philosophic and political views both past and present. So far there doesn't seem to be anything like that. Thriley (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Is how NER describes itself not valid information to include on Wikipedia? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is valid to include that, yes. Thriley (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, we are not their "About Us" section. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Just browsing some other wikipedia entries, it seems quite normal to have references taken straight from the magazines, newspapers and organizations in question to offer descriptions of what they say they do or stand for. For example: New Statesman, The Sun Magazine, American Humanist Association, The Economist, The New York Times, Movement for Black Lives, The United Nations, EU. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've also been looking at Wikipedia's policies. Under 'Newspapers and Magazine Entries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote …" What I'm proposing ("NER describes itself as..."), although not a blog, surely comes under the same reasoning.

Also, under 'Questionable Sources,' "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves". Surely, even if NER is considered a questionable source, "NER describes itself as..." is a statement of fact which, is in line with Wikipedia's policies. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley Sorry to include you on this but I have requested dispute resolution for this entry because TrangaBellam keeps removing what we agreed would be reasonable to include Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127: Please don't get into an edit war over this. Your account will be blocked if you continue. It is best to discuss changes here on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your patience. As you can probably tell I am new to this and still trying to figure out how it all works. So may I suggest as the first paragraph to 'political orientation': The NER describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination," and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate." Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam so factual statements about what they say they stand for are not allowed? Only the opinions of those with a differing view? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

How other magazines describe themselves has been included for other Wikipedia entries. One example is New Statesman magazine. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PROMO: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. ... Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. What you wrote is excessively promotional, so much so that in content and tone it resembles the sort of thing I'd expect from their marketing department. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have taken your comments on board, which is why I suggested above, and will write here again, to change this to:

"The NER describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination," and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate." Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So the whole paragraph would read:

The New English Review describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination" and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate." It has been called far-right by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Philip Dorling. NER often hosts content that is sympathetic to the English Defence League, a far-right, Islamophobic organization in the United Kingdom. Scholars have also described New English Review as an anti-Islamic website. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That does look like it would address my concerns about being too promotional. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Egsan Bacon Sorry to include you on this but I have requested dispute resolution for this entry because TrangaBellam keeps remving what we agreed would be acceptable Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking at some of the sources cited in this article and it strikes me that it has been written in a biased way. The way they have been presented is not entirely accurate and goes against some of Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't want to make changes just yet until I've discussed them on this page. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. What the organization, a so-controversial one, claims about itself is irrelevant. To quote from WP:MANDY:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we attribute them when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming.

"X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he?

If any scholar or any credible secondary source notes NER to have no political alignment, please do add it. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellamThank you but we have been through this before. I previously pointed out (above) "Just browsing some other wikipedia entries, it seems quite normal to have references taken straight from the magazines, newspapers and organizations in question to offer descriptions of what they say they do or stand for. For example: New Statesman, The Sun Magazine, American Humanist Association, The Economist, The New York Times, Movement for Black Lives, The United Nations, EU" Given these organizations are allowed some self-description in their entries I cannot see we the same is denied to NER. It is not the last word. It is informational and provides balance - informing the reader what the NER claims. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I should also add, I have read the WP:MANDY article you have cited which states "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." Given your statement "If any scholar or any credible secondary source notes NER to have no political alignment, please do add it," it seems odd that this does not apply to the WP:MANDY article used to justify your reasons for removing the change. Egsan Bacon and Thriley, originally taking a similar stance to yours have entered into dialogue and the changes I made seem to have been accepted. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I have tried to engage in discussion but my points are never addressed (e.g. other organisations have entries with self decription) or justifications for removing changes are given which are not Wikipedia policy. I agree there has been controversy around NER posts in the past but the original Wikipedia article was written in a biased way (some of the citations do not stand up to scrutiny) and has taken this controversy as indicative of guilt by association. I would like to point out how the citations are inaccurately presented in the Wikipedia entry, exposing the biased way the article was written, but it seems you object to any changes which might mitigate presenting NER in a negative light. I have therefore requested dispute resolution in the hope that a genuine discussion can take place. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@ TrangaBellam You seem intent on not allowing any changes to the article which do not conform to painting a negative picture of NER and have removed further edits I have made. As there was an edit conflict, at the time I was inserting my reasons for the changes, you wouldn't have read them. Here they are: "Changed to past tense. NER has not posted articles by the contributor in question for over six years. Even Busher, in book cited, refers to these articles appearing on NER in the past tense. Removed ‘far-right’ for the Busher citation. He does not call the EDL far-right. He writes extensively about its heterogeneity, comprising a spectrum of political views (left and right). The label ‘far-right’ is not attributable to Busher, as the citation implies." The citations in the article are riddled with mistakes. They attribute things to authors incorrectly and even the citations are incorrectly referenced according to Wikipedia's policies. Please engage in discussion rather than constantly removing content you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You doth protest too much, methinks. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is true I disagree with you but are you willing to engage in discussion over some of the disputed content? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)— Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sure.

You claim,

The citations in the article are riddled with mistakes. They attribute things to authors incorrectly.

Please provide at least two examples.

You claim,

[t]he citations are incorrectly referenced according to Wikipedia's policies.

Please provide at least two examples.

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Re mistakes: The label ‘far-right’ for the EDL is not attributable to Busher, as the citation implies. Busher does not call or conclude the EDL far-right in his book. He writes extensively about how it resisted far-right elements trying to infiltrate it and how heterogeneous it was, comprising a spectrum of political views (left and right), anti-racists, anti-fascists and, surprisingly, Jews. The EDL may actually be far-right but not according to Busher, so reference to him should not imply he labels tem so (it falsely attributes an opinion to him, which he is at pains to point out is not correct).

As for what Busher actually says about the NER, the only paragraph in which he mentions them is in passing, where EDL supporters have recommended he look into their website. To quote him, the NER, “while not specifically associated with the anti-jihad network, tended to cover cognate and sometimes overlapping themes about the supposed failings of contemporary Western liberalism.”

Re incorrectly referenced: The SPLC does not list NER as a hate group or far-right. The citation is from a blog, written by a freelance writer, hosted on the SPLCs website. According to Wikipedia’s policies, blogs appearing on news organization websites should cite the writer’s name, not the organization’s.

However,

Re mistakes: Since the SPLC is an advocacy organization (not a news outlet and not neutral) and is not peer reviewed it does not come under Wikipedia’s definition of a reliable source, so should not be cited anyway. The blog is neither neutral nor peer reviewed (i.e. not a reliable source) and the writer has not had any work accepted in peer-reviewed journals of any note. Therefore the citation, unlike Busher's, requires complete removal

Mistake: Re: "Scholars have also described New English Review as an anti-Islamic website." The second citation should be taken out as the work itself does not deal with the NER but merely quotes the first citation. This would be akin to saying Wikipedia describes something in a particular way because it quotes a source that does. In either case, no opinion is given but rather a report of someone else’s opinion.

These are just factual issues about the citations (note I have not objected to claims for other citations as I simply do not know what the case is or do not dispute them - my only agenda here is accuracy and unbiased potrayal). But it seems you are editing the article with a purpose in mind: to paint as negative a picture of NER as possible. I say this because you have removed content I inserted twice (content which other contributors, including a senior editor agreed to) but without addressing the issue that some self-description of what organizations do is allowed for other article entries (I included names of some of these earlier). Wikipedia states "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment (WP:NOTADVOCACY) but it seems the article is being written in an advocative way for propoganda purposes (i.e. to put the NER in a negative light) "selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception" (Wikipedia's definition of propaganda). Further evidence of this is the trouble taken to insert further such references as an immediate response to, and removal of, attempts to provide balance. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Re SPLC:

Community consensus is that,

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.

That being said, you have a point about the branding appearing in a blog rather than a detailed profile. Hence, removed.

Re Busher:

We do not care for Busher's opinion on what EDL is and is not, and fwiw, you are misrepresenting Busher. Our article on English Defence League is a GA and the sources for the labels are there.

Re Roycroft:

Removed

Re NER's self-description:

You have been pointed to WP:MANDY. Please take the RfC route out.

Re motives of mine:

WP:ANI is thatway. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Re Busher, it's where the citation is placed that matters. Putting it at the end of the sentence about Busher's book makes it seem as though Busher is calling EDL far right. This matters for the NER article because the argument that he links NER to Islamophobia in his book through the EDL references might be correct but it is not correct to say he links NER to the far right through the EDL (because he does not designate the EDL as far right). I am suggesting the footnote goes after "English Defence League," rather than at the end of the sentence to avoid this confusion. If you feel I am misrepresenting Busher I am happy to be corrected but I have already quoted him.

When you state "our article" as justification for references to the EDL isn't this self-referential? The argument used for denying NER a sentence on its modus operandi (which was written before any of the citations used so is not a response against them).

WP:MANDY is again self-referential and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It would be interesting to discuss disagreemnts over this article with you but that would be a distraction for current purposes. "What do you mean by take the RfC route out."?

I don't understand your last comment re: "motives of mine" Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 Did you read the closing comment at dispute resolution? Doug Weller talk 18:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Apologies, I find it difficult navigating through all of this. Where do I find it? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 Where you filed your request. WP:DRN.

But for everyone’s benefit:

“The main dissenter has chosen not to participate so I am closing this DRN. I will add this- while it does seem discussion is continuing on the talk page, please be wary of edit wars in the process. Also, please review WP:PRIMARYCARE which gives guidance about when primary sources can and should be used- and it is actually pretty clear in this case. As for reforming the rest of the article, that is less clear and probably should not be supported by primary sources. If you desire more imput you can do an WP:RFC or ask at the teahouse or WP:RSN. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)}}“

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean. Am I the dissenter for filing te request or would that be TrangaBellam? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 TB. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So what happens now? I did not see your message for dispute resolution before it was closed (so that route is closed?). How does this work then? I inserted the line "The New English Review describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination" and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate," which seemed acceptable to user Thriley (senior editor) and was accepted by user Egsan Bacon after some discussion (this all appears in the Talkpage). TrangaBellam objects this is self referential but as I have also stated in the Talkpage some self-description has been allowed for New Statesman, The Sun Magazine, American Humanist Association, The Economist, The New York Times, Movement for Black Lives, The United Nations and EU entries. "Given these organizations are allowed some self-description in their entries I cannot see why the same is denied to NER. It is not the last word. It is informational and provides balance - informing the reader what the NER claims." Isn't it contradictory to allow this for some and not others? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Have I understood WP:PRIMARYCARE correctly by interpreting it as meaning: a primary source can only be used if the content quoted from it is in agreement with the rest of the Wikipedia article? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 18:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doug, it's the second time you have sent this to me but I'm not clear what you are saying. Are you saying we continuing talking on this Talkpage? If so, I've outlined my reasons for including a one sentence self-description for NER but they keep being ignored and the sentence removed. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Dorling's Australia Institute reference, Wikipedia describes the Center for Media and Democracy as "progressive". The CMD hosts SourceWatch, which describes the Australia Institute as funding "commentators who appear on radio and TV and pretend to be 'non-partisan'.” The Australia Institute, then, is not a neutral organization and so not a reliable source. Even Wikipedia describes as progressive the organization (CMD) describing the Australia Institute as progressive. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 We do not require sources to be neutral. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Point taken but neither does come under Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are free to open a generic discussion at WP:RSN on whether The Australia Institute is a RS or not. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 why not? Doug Weller talk 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of a source Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ibn Khaldun 127 Yes, but that’s not an exclusive list. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the only list I could find on Wikipedia clarifying what is reliable. Are there other sources listed as reliable? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

SourceWatch is a wiki and not reliable for determining reliability or lack thereof. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

So I go back to what started all this disagreement in the first place. I do not dispute NER is controversial but why is a sentence informing the reader of its claimed modus operandi denied when all the other articles I cited contain some self description of the organization in question? You responded with WP:MANDY "but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word." But shouldn't Wikipedia be consistent? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We are not guided by precedent because it is always possible to find some or the other article which do not fit the pattern. Consult OpIndia etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

But if there is no consistency doesn't that mean entries aren't subject to the same rules? Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/01/how-geert-wilders-became-americas-favorite-islamophobe/

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/david-yerushalmi-sharia-ban-tennessee/ TrangaBellam (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Board

Kendra Mallock, a white woman who is the "Managing Editor" of NER and brings an "informed aesthetic" to the project, supports (1, 2) Trump to the extent of refusing to vote for anyone else from GOP and believes that the election was stolen. Why am I not surprised. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Mallock appears to be the daughter of Tabitha Zuckerman a notorious Zionist and garden-variety conspiracy theorist who has been profiled to such effect by local dailies. Ironic that she died of COVID-19 after comparing Fauci to Mengele and spreading vaccine hesitancy. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Bynum's Twitter profile is quite interesting too. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

E.S. v. Austria

N.E.R appears to have published the defendant of a a quite famous trial: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Will add a line once I get access to a particular vernacular source. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

unsupported bias

"Scholars note the magazine to have platformed a range of far-right Islamophobic discourse including conspiracy theories." Not supported. Any such opionion must be subject to review. Far too many articles, including those on Wikipedia, include this sort of spam.

Bull. There are at least 8 sources. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)