Talk:Spiked (magazine)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Spiked network - quotes

User:Doug Weller has reversed my addition of quotes around ‘network’ in the phrase 'Spiked network’. This ‘network’ is not a political party with a clearly defined membership. As far as I am aware, the existence of such a network has not been acknowledged by any of its members. The word is used by Spiked’s critics, and its existence is, in effect, an allegation. Instead of quotes round the word, it could be referred to as an ‘alleged’ network, but that seems to me to be going too much the other way. Therefore, I consider that the quotes should be restored. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The phrase is used in reliable sources without the MOS:SCAREQUOTES which also suggests we not use the word "alleged", both suggest something is not accurate. We go by reliable sources, not our interpretations. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

My quotes were not intended to be ‘scare quotes’, but to indicate that the word ‘network’ is not Wikipedia’s, but comes from the sources. The word network, in this context, has no precise meaning, and it is not defined in the article

I propose that the wording be changed to say that the people concerned are ‘associated’ with Spiked. I think this would be clearer for readers. This would give in the lead: ‘Activists associated with Spiked took part in Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party as candidates or publicists.’ And in the body of the text: ‘Activists associated with Spiked have been active in campaigning for the UK to leave the European Union, with a number of them being involved in Nigel Farage's Brexit Party as candidates or publicists.’

Also, since the Brexit campaign itself has been over for some time, perhaps ‘have been active’ should be changed to ‘were active’. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If I receive no comments from User:Doug Weller or anyone else, I shall make my proposed changes tomorrow. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: ok, but let's add something about "sometimes described as part of 'the Spiked network'", that links to the sources and in this case is an acceptable use of quotation marks. Quotes within quotes are covered at MOS:QWQ, I had to look that up! But it would actually look like: Activists associated with Spiked, sometimes described as part of 'the Spiked network', ... Doug Weller talk 10:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Amendments now made. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sex offenders and paedophile panic

The link to the article ‘The return of the paedophile panic’ doesn’t work. The article is still available on the internet, at https://www.spiked-online.com/2008/02/19/the-return-of-the-paedophile-panic/ but I was not able to make the citation work. Help!

Also, it seems to me that the actual article doesn’t support either the previous comment, or the latest amended one. It seems to me that the main point of the article is in this quotation:

“The real story here has little to do with paedophiles or their purported lynchers. It has to do with a government so short of popular support that it’ll fasten on to anything it believes the public agrees upon. Hence Jacqui Smith’s self-regarding congratulations in yesterday’s Sun newspaper: ‘I congratulate The Sun and its readers for campaigning on this issue.’ (4) And what could be better than the ready-made solidarity of the good fight against the paedophile menace? After all, you’ll not find many people coming out in support of child abuse.”

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The statement in the Wikipedia article ‘They have criticised laws making sex offender registries public as counterproductive to rehabilitation and conducive to mob violence’’ is not supported by the actual article in Spiked, so I intend to delete it. I do not think it is significant that a polemical magazine criticises the government of the day for scoring political points by using the public’s revulsion at paedophilia, so I shall delete all reference to the ‘paedophile’ article. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the lead 24 & 25 May 2020

User:Asdasd10011 has been deleting the 2nd para of the lead which refers to George Monbiot’s views on Spiked , and other aspects. The edit summary for the latest deletion is: I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a long history of friction between Monbiot and those that comprise Spiked. Thus it is unfair to spotlight his particular interpretation of their political beliefs.
If there is friction between Mr Monbiot and those at Spiked, it may be because they have different views on various matters, in particular on environmentalism. That is presumably why Mr Monbiot appears to be hostile to Spiked. It is not a reason for discounting his views. It is significant that a magazine which declares itself to be Marxist has been criticised for being right-wing, and readers should be informed of this. So I would support the reinstatement of the 2nd para of the lead.
However, as I see it there is a problem in that the lead does not make it plain that the magazine presents itself as left-wing. I tried to do this by adding inf to the lead that its editor, Brendan O’Neill, declares himself to be a Libertarian Marxist. This was moved out of the lead by User:Doug Weller.
Any suggestions? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted Asdasd10011, but the information about its editor doesn't belong in the lead. Find reliable sources for the magazine itself. I've no idea what he means by Libertarian Marxism anyway, it seems pretty broad church. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

George Monbiot

In its current state, this article is no so much about Spike as it is about George Monbiot's views of the magazine. His name is mentioned no less than seven times! Rather excessive, isn't it? Marrakech (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marrakech: The problem is that George Monbiot is about the only person outside Spiked who takes a serious interest in it. Do you have any specific proposals for changes? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's material we should attribute and not say in Wikipedia's voice. And of course what Sweet6970 says. Also, the lead should summarise the body of the article. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Political orientation

This publication is evidently a typical example of self-congratulating, privilege-blinkered contrarians who identify or formerly identified as leftist veering towards libertarianism and eventually libertarian capitalism (Spiked doesn't seem to meaningfully oppose capitalism anymore, and rather attack its critics), railing against "political correctness" and any ideologically inconvenient scientific consensus, and defending the far right while claiming (unconvincingly) to disagree with them – according to the hackneyed maxim "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (widely attributed to Voltaire, but actually written by a woman, Beatrice Evelyn Hall, and aptly parodied on The Nib here and here), incessantly dragged up by free-speech absolutists, which is oddly only ever adduced in favour of the far right ... providing one of the more compelling examples of the horseshoe theory so beloved, ironically, by libertarian capitalists themselves.

It's a pity that the article isn't clearer on the fact that the political orrientation of this publication isn't meaningfully tied to leftism, socialism or Marxism anymore, and only publishes right-wing libertarian edgelord hot takes. However, I suppose reading the full article, which isn't that long, will suffice to convince the non-right-wing reader that it is lolbertarian trash. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A more charitable interpretation is that the quarrel between Spiked and what it dubs the "woke left" is of the nature of a turf war: we're the real opposition to the right, and you're impostors. I read Spiked occasionally, and I don't (or at least rarely) see anything favourable to the right that isn't embedded in a criticism of the "woke left" (with the emphasis on "woke"). H Remster (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this long winded post reveals more about you than it does about Spiked, Florian. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential additional source

This looks like a potentially useful source. It's labelled as an opinion piece so would need attribution, but it is by a historian who has written about Spiked/the RCP in a scholarly way. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It isn’t new – it’s just repeating the stuff which is already in this article, which is already very heavy on criticism of Spiked by Guardian writers – see the section above about George Monbiot. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, except it's not a criticism of Spiked and it's not by "a Guardian writer"; it's a detailed account by a historian, based on primary sources, of the history of the group and its publications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Let’s not argue about whether someone who writes in the Guardian is a ‘Guardian writer’. If you think there is something in your source which is not already in this Wikipedia article, please say what you think that is, and what addition to the article you are suggesting.

You say that Evan Smith ‘has written about Spiked/RCP in a scholarly way’. Are you referring to the Guardian article, or some other piece of writing?

I have to say that when I read the Guardian article, I wondered whether it had been lifted from Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think he's written twice for the G (whereas Monbiot is a regular). He's the co-editor of Waiting for the Revolution: The British Far Left from 1956 (Manchester University Press, 2017), Against the Grain: The British Far Left from 1956 (Manchester University Press, 2014) and No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech (Routledge, 2020). His G article cites things he has published on his website which are from the those books[1][2] as well as other academic publications.[3] BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don’t have access to the books you refer to, and they and the links you provide would seem to be original research. Is there something you wish to add to the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Re the books, you asked what the basis for me saying he had written in a scholarly way (and suggested he based his writing on reading Wikipedia articles), so I was pointing you to this historian's peer-researched books published by academic publishers. Re the links, I am not sure what you mean by original research. Wikipedia is supposed to use high-quality original research; it is us as Wikipedia editors who should not be doing original research. Perhaps you meant they are self-published sources? They are indeed, and our policy on self-published sources, WP:SPS, is as follows: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a respectable author is still an opinion piece. What do his peer-researched books published by academic publishers say about Spiked? H Remster (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces of course require attribution as acknowledged in my original post, but can be used as reliable sources with attribution if context suggests reliability, e.g. publication in a reliable source such as the Guardian or if the academic exertise of the author suggests reliability as with self-published sources by experts, so I don't see the problem. In dealing with opinions, the questoion is the noteworthiness of the opinion, dictated by due weight policies, where we follow the balance of reliable sources; the publication of Smith by a reliable source, the Guardian, would be one reason to believe Smith's opinion is noteworthy.

Re the question What do his peer-researched books published by academic publishers say about Spiked, Google Schoalr and JStor show there are several sources we could use, including Smith. Maybe I'll start adding some. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Smith's book has now been published by academic publisher Routledge. Lots in it about Spiked: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LuDaDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT5&dq=%22spiked%22+%22revolutionary+communist+party%22&ots=iXkRuEiOhY&sig=P-lQ8b-Qr3znHPp_FedfquYi5zQ#v=onepage&q=%22spiked%22&f=false BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. I think what concerns me is the move from "This is a reliable source" to "This is a reliable source on this subject". Your man might be an accomplished historian, but does that qualify him to classify Spiked as "right-libertarian" (which is a politico-philosophical matter)? The Guardian might be a reliable news source, but does that fact confer reliability on its opinion pieces? (These are rhetorical questions.) H Remster (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So another way of phrasing your questions would be (1) is a widely published academic historian specialising in the recent history of the left and of race politics, who has written and researched the RCP and its successors, a reliable source on the ideology of the RCP and its successors, and if so would that include an opinion piece in a reliable newspaper by that historian? (2) are several opinion pieces in reliable news sources characterising the RCP's successors' ideology as "right-libertarian" reliable for a statement of fact about the ideology or would we need to consider it opinion and attribute? Neither of those questions are clear-cut and we could always take it to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, but I think we have enough to consider them RSs. Note: among those who describe it as "right-libertarian" are: Evan Smith in the Guardian,[4] Amara Diwarkar in TRT (a news piece not an opinion piece, but in a less reliable news source),[5] political scientists (?) Winter and Mondon in a Routledge academic book,[6] and sociologists White et al in a Sage academic book.[7] Meanwhile, the Times, in a news article uses both "right-wing" and "libertarian" ("The articles were mostly in right-wing publications, including the British libertarian website Spiked").[8] Have we got sources describing it in other terms? If so, we could use those to show that some assess it as "right-wing" and "libertarian" while others assess it otherwise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. The re-phrasing of the first question would be: Is a widely published academic historian specialising in the recent history of the left and of race politics, who has written and researched the RCP and its successors, a reliable source on the classification of the ideology of the RCP and its successors, and if so would that include an opinion piece in a reliable newspaper with a strong political bias by that historian? I'd answer 'No' to the first question. The classification of ideologies is the domain of political philosophy, not history. I'd no more consult a historian on this than I'd consult Richard Dawkins on the philosophy of religion. H Remster (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@H Remster: although I majored in political science at Yale and am fond of the discipline, you're wrong. That's not the way we work. We use newspaper articles, we use historians as sources for politics. I'm not saying any newspaper article or any historian, just that our policies and guidelines don't work that way. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I can see that newspaper articles and historians will be reliable sources for establishing political events and their causes, but for classifying political ideologies? If it's what the policies and guidelines say, then it's what they say, but I'm sceptical. H Remster (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Edits 1 & 2 September 2020

@Doug Weller: I did not say the London Times was an unreliable source, I said that the source used was unsuitable. (I don’t see what the Times being right of centre has to do with it.) The story is by the technology correspondent of the Times, so it is dubious to use this as a serious source for the political stance of Spiked. The actual information is in the source from the Daily Beast, which I put into the comments in the ‘Stance’ section.

If you think the other sources which I omitted are suitable, please explain why.

The comments should be attributed.

The wording by User:Bobfrombrockley suggests that all of the sources say that Spiked is right wing and libertarian, whereas they disagree. I would agree to adding the attributed comments (in my wording) to the lead, but I do not agree with reinstating the previous alterations, as you have done, because this version gives a misleading impression - that there are numerous sources saying that Spiked is right-wing and libertarian, and also because some of the sources are unsuitable. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the lead should say something like they have "been described as 'right-wing' or 'libertarian'" (and any other asessements suggested by the weight of reliable sources) without footnotes and then go into more detail at the start of the stance section giving footnotes for each assessment. I would also say the Times is perfectly suitable: the tech article echoes the Daily Beast, accords with other RSs, and would have gone through editorial and fact-checking. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley:I am not in favour of this suggestion. I believe that many readers only read the lead, and it would give a false impression of the solidity of the opinions given on the political stance of Spiked - a reader needs to know the origin of the opinion in order to decide whether to give it any credence.

As regards the Times article, I agree that it echoes the Daily Beast, which is a reason for not including it, because this would give the false impression that these are 2 independent sources.

And I really don’t know what you mean by ‘fact-checking’. What is left or right or libertarian is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion, depending on your own political position, and where you think the centre is. Ascribing a political stance to a publication adds another layer of opinion. Because of this, I would prefer not to have any such opinions in this article, but perhaps I am in a minority on this. (The criticisms by George Monbiot are in a different category, because these relate to factual matters. ) Sweet6970 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast and The Times are both reliable sources for this information. Further, they are independent sources, in that they are independent of Spiked and each other. Reliable sources are perfectly free to cite other sources. The political position of reliable sources is mostly irrelevant to whether or not they are reliable. Neither the Time source nor the Daily Beast source appears to be opinion pieces. This is an article about Spiked, not The Times and not The Daily Beast. Readers of this article will expect the article to tell them the political position of Spiked, and these sources are useful for this reason. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the political position of reliable sources affected their reliability, but that, as with individuals, their opinion of where another publication is on the political spectrum is affected by their own political views. Therefore, if readers are to get any useful information from statements about the political stance of Spiked, they need to know who is making them. In addition, readers need to know that sources disagree about where Spiked is on the spectrum. Therefore, if information is to go in the lead, it should be attributed, so that readers can assess what significance the opinions have for them. Therefore, I suggest adding to the lead:

According to the Daily Beast, Spiked is libertarian. According to Paul Mason of the New Statesman, Spiked is libertarian. According to Tim Knowles, the technology correspondent for the Times, Spiked is right-wing and libertarian. According to Heft and others, in a study published in Policy & Internet, Spiked is right-wing but not libertarian.

This would be repeated at the end of the ‘Stance’ section, with the references. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the lead can't be cluttered with attributions, although we can use the body to go into more detail. What about just seperately footnoting "right-wing" and "libertarian" in the lead, to show that some use one, some use the other and some use both. Heft et al don't say Spiked is not libertarian; they just don't use that word. In the meantime, I might add the quotes to the footnotes to make it easier to see. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

1) You are wrong about Heft et al. If you read the source you are citing, you will find that it says: ‘We exclude libertarian, as well as religious sites, to make our selection more comparable internationally, as this is a particularly U.S.‐based phenomenon.’ Spiked is included in the study. Therefore, according to Heft et al, Spiked is not libertarian, but is right-wing.

2) My proposed version of the statements of the opinions about Spiked’s political stance is a bit wordy. But I think it is important to make clear who said what, and it is particularly important to explicitly make clear that there is no agreement about Spiked’s political stance. As regards putting stuff in footnotes: I think it’s a sign of galloping middle age when you actually start to read the footnotes, and I would not expect the majority of readers to bother. Do you have any draft proposal for an abbreviated version?

3) This article is about the magazine. You have added stuff about the supposed Spiked "network", which includes reference to people who no longer write for the magazine, or never did, and organisations that are supposedly part of a network which has no objective existence. This stuff is at best irrelevant, and at worst, misleading, and it should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In context, using the Heft et al. source to say that Spiked is not libertarian is a stretch. Not necessarily wrong, but a very weak source for this specific point. The study is excluding libertarian/religious sites as a block for methodological reasons, not as commentary on any one specific site. The source is contrasting sources from six different countries, and is specifically referring to "libertarian sites" as an American thing. Since Spiked isn't an American site, it's not even clear this is relevant. Regardless, the source doesn't directly say "Spiked is not libertarian". The article already explains that Spiked is a Koch-funded project with a self-described libertarian editor. Disputing the libertarian label in the lead isn't going to work without context, and this context likely wouldn't belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I was not intending to say that the Heft et al source was a source for saying that Spiked is not libertarian – my point was that the sources do not agree on whether Spiked is right-wing, or libertarian. The fact that the sources do not agree on how the magazine is to be characterised is a significant point which ought to be made clear in the article. @Grayfell: Do you have any suggested wording?

By the way, if the article ‘explains’ that Spiked is a ‘Koch-funded project’, then it is not reflecting the sources, which only say that the USA company has received some funding from the Koch brothers.

Per my note (3) above, I am deleting the irrelevant material. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Re (1) thanks for the clarification. I missed the exclusion of libertarian websites. This is easily dealt with if we seperately footnote "libertarian" and "right-wing", and could also be further clarified by expanding the quote in the footnote to cover the exclusion criteria. Re (2) I think lead could be roughly as now but with seperate footnotes for "libertarian" and "right-wing" and then the Stance section could perhaps include a couple of more nuanced sentences as per this diff.

Re (3) (here is the diff) I think content on "the Spiked network" is very relevant to an article on Spiked, especially given the large number of reliable sources which use this term suggesting due weight. For ease of reference to get other editors' views I'll paste the deleted content here: Notable figures associated with the Spiked network include Frank Furedi, Claire Fox, Fiona Fox, Mick Hume, Brendan O'Neill, James Delingpole, Michael Fitzpatrick and Munira Mirza. Organisations that are part of the network include the Science Media Centre, Sense About Science, Institute of Ideas and Battle of Ideas, and the Manifesto Club, as well as the charity WORLDwrite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that In context says ‘Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; ….’. This supports the view I expressed originally about the Times source – the reference to Spiked is made in passing by its technology correspondent, in the course of an article about fake journalism. The Times source is unsuitable as a source for the political stance of Spiked.

The irrelevant material I have deleted includes a statement that the Science Media Centre is part of the supposed "Spiked network". According to the Wikipedia article on this organisation, it was set up with the assistance of a well-known scientist, and is housed in a wing of the Royal Institution. So you are implying that this scientist, and the Royal Institution, are somehow connected to the RCP. As well as being absurd, this may be defamatory. This material is irrelevant to the article on Spiked. Save it for your blog.

I am still hoping that someone will actually come up with an alternative wording for the lead statement on the political stance of Spiked. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Re CONTEXTMATTERS: one operative word in "may not be be reliable" sentence is "may" - it's not saying such a statement is unreliable but that you need to be sure. In this case, the technology correspondent is writing about a group of right-wing websites which were hoodwinked by a fake persona. I don't see the problem, especially given it accords with other RSs. If other editors agree it is problematic, we could use other articles in the Times.

There are are also other Times sources for the Spiked network too if you feel there aren't enough RSs.

It is true that there are fewer sources for the Science Media Centre being part of the network than the Manifesto Club or the IoI, but again there are reliable sources for this, specifically Melchett, Monbiot and Small, all already in the list of sources, but it might be better to use language like "has been described as". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A) Deletion of conspiracy-type material

1) One basic reason for removing this material is that it is irrelevant. a) As I said previously, and as presumably you are aware, you have included in the list of people who are supposedly in this network, people who no longer write for Spiked, and who never did. You have not addressed this point. b) You speak about ‘the network’ as if it exists, but don’t explain what it is. The impression given is that anyone who was ever a member of the RCP is in some sort of dark political web, trying covertly to interfere with politics. But it appears that the accusation only amounts to the fact that some people know each other. How is this relevant to this encyclopedic article about Spiked magazine? c) Presumably you are aware that there is an article about the RCP Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978). (I think this is the right one – it refers to Living Marxism.). If you want to add information about the later careers of ex-members of the RCP, then this might be a better place to put it, though, of course, the editors of that page may consider that it is not relevant. However – see (2)

2) The other basic reason for the deletion of the material is that either this material is defamatory, or it is meaningless. In addition to making possibly defamatory statements about a well-known scientist, and a well-known scientific institution, you are also suggesting that a charity is part of the ‘network’. This can only mean that the charity is engaged in covert political activity. I would expect that you know that UK charities are not allowed to engage in political activity. Your wording, in effect, accuses the trustees of the charity of improper conduct. And, of course, if there was some evidence of this, then the Charity Commission should be informed. But it seems that the idea is just that anyone who has ever written for Spiked, or been a member of the RCP, must be part of some political conspiracy.

3) You have mentioned the views of George Monbiot. There is already a question of whether this article gives undue prominence to Mr Monbiot’s views. He is mentioned 5 times in the text. This is the same as the number of mentions of Brendan O’Neill, the current editor. This is particularly odd because Spiked does not currently have a great deal of coverage of environmental matters.

B) Regarding ‘context’ : You refer to a ‘group’ of right-wing websites; I think this is misleading – as far as I am aware, the websites were not part of any organisation. However, I would accept having the Times article as a source, provided that it is made plain who is making the judgment about Spiked’s political stance, so that readers can make up their own minds as to whether to take any notice of it.

C) Wording for the stance in the lead I suggest the following wording for the lead: ‘There is no agreement on the political stance of Spiked, which has sometimes been described as libertarian, and sometimes as right-wing.’ I don’t think that footnotes would be helpful to clarify this- hardly anyone reads them. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

1) I think "the Spiked network" is relevant to Spiked, as suggested by how it is named by reliable sources, but let's see what other editors say.

a) I have given reliable sources (four, plus two more in my comment on Friday) for all of the names listed in the sentences you removed. Of these, almost all have mentions of Spiked in their Wikipedia articles. Delingpole has not written for Spiked for some time and Fiona Fox never has. We could easily address the past tense element by phrasing as "Notable figures who have been described as associated with the Spiked network", and we could compromise by removing Delingpole and Fiona Fox, as they are only mentioned in one of the current footnotes.

b) We could beef up the description of the network based on the reliable sources. Here is how Desmog describe it: The group emerged from a libel trial and bankruptcy of the ‘Living Marxism’ magazine in 2000, has roots in the Trotskyist left, and is now the factory behind a production line of far-right polemic that has infiltrated mainstream media and politics. It currently has its public home on Spiked — a website dedicated to belligerent, populist, anti-environmental, Islamophobic ‘analysis’. Or here's another academic source:former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a group which by the early 1990s had rebranded itself under the auspices of LM magazine and was now promoting an extreme libertarian, anti-environmentalist ideology with little apparent connection to Marxism Or another academic source: that strange group of former Revolutionary Communist Party members and Living Marxism writers who have been so active in discourse on science in Britain in recent years. As Andrew Rowell and George Monbiot have documented, a small network of ex-RCPers has become remarkably influential within science communication circles, running the Institute of Ideas (which holds public debates and conferences) and the Spiked web site, as well as holding influential positions at the communications and lobbying groups, the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science.) We can discuss how best to summarise these.

c) I agree we should not go on at length about the RCP as there is a seperate article for that, but all I am suggesting is two sentences.

2) I am not sure which well-known scientist you think the text is defamatory about. I agree we need to follow BLP guidelines. Maybe you can be more specific about which bit is against BLP rules and how?

3) You're right Monbiot should not have undue weight. As he is one of the people who has written most about them in reliable sources, it is inevitable he will feature. But the two sentences you have deleted don't refer to him or footnote him, so take the weight away from him by significantly expanding the number of reliable sources.

B) Several reliable sources talk about a group or network so I'm not sure why we should shy away from this. Where we are citing opinion pieces we should attribute; where we cite relaible news sources we shouldn't. But in any case, I'm not suggesting we use the Times/Daily Beast formulation "a group of right-wing websites", just arguing that these are reliable sources for the words "have been described as right-wing".

C) The problem with the "no agreement" wording is that there is substantial agreement. We currently have five reliable sources for their stance (seven including the two Times sources in my Friday comment) of which 4 say "libertarian" and 4 (six including the Friday ones) say "right-wing". I would simply say "Spiked has sometimes been described as libertarian, and sometimes as right-wing". It doesn't matter whether people read footnotes or not (I do!) but we need to follow Wikipedia rules on verifiability and if we make a claim of fact we need to source it.

Finally, even though three editors have now argued for inclusion of the two sentences and only one has argued against, I've not reverted your second deletion as it would be healthier if we heard from more editors. Possibly we could go to the NPOV and/or BLP noticeboards if we don't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Last comments first

You say ‘Finally, even though three editors have now argued for inclusion of the two sentences and only one has argued against,….’ Your statement is untrue. You are the only editor who has argued in favour of the inclusion of the ‘conspiracy’ material. The other editor involved in this discussion has not expressed a view on this material, but commented regarding the wording for the ‘stance’ statement. The edit which was reverted on 2 September was of the statement in the lead on the stance; the editor commented in the edit summary about this statement, not about the ‘conspiracy material’, which, as you surely remember, had not yet been added. The editor who reverted me on 4 September has not participated in this discussion. If you want me to continue assuming that you are acting in good faith, you should stop making false comments. The assumption of good faith can be rebutted.

As regards the fact that I have deleted the ‘conspiracy’ material – the onus WP:ONUS is on the person wishing to include it to justify inclusion. ‘The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content .’ You were aware that I disputed your version of the ‘stance’ statement. It was dubious behaviour on your part to add further material, which was likely to be disputed, whilst the discussion was still ongoing.

Detailed response

A) Deletion of conspiracy-type material

1a) The names you have given are:

Frank Furedi  ; Claire Fox – latest article on the website: 2017; Fiona Fox – no articles on the website -you have agreed is irrelevant? ; Brendan O’Neill - current editor; James Delingpole – only article on the website: 2008 -you have agreed is irrelevant?; Michael Fitzpatrick; Munira Mirza – latest article on the website 2017, and it looks like before that it was 2008.

So what are we left with? That the editor, Brendan O’Neill, Frank Furedi, and Michael Fitzpatrick write for Spiked, and that some other people used to write for Spiked several years ago, and that Fiona Fox never has. How is this encyclopedic material?

1b) Your quote from DeSmog includes : ‘…is now the factory behind a production line of far-right polemic that has infiltrated mainstream media and politics….’ This is meaningless. It is classic conspiracy-theory language. The quote referring to Rowell and Monbiot (again) includes ‘… a small network of ex-RCP-ers has become remarkably influential within science communication circles, running the Institute of Ideas …. and the Spiked website…’ This is saying that ‘the Spiked website’ is in ‘science communication circles’. Uh? And again, what does it mean to say that some people are ‘remarkably influential’? No specifics are given. This is meaningless.

1c) Any information about the subsequent careers of ex-members of the RCP should go either in the RCP article, or in the articles of the individuals. It is irrelevant to the Spiked article.

2) Re the well-known scientist -this scientist is mentioned in the article on the Science Media Centre. As I said in my previous post of 4 September, you are implying that this scientist, and the Royal Institution, are somehow connected to the RCP. Also, you have not replied to the point that your proposed material impliedly accuses charity trustees of misconduct.

B) ‘network’

The article doesn’t ‘shy away’ from talking about a ‘network’ - there are already 3 mentions of it in the text.

C) Wording for the stance in the lead

You contradict yourself. If some of the sources say ‘libertarian’ and some say ‘right-wing’, then there is no agreement among the sources.

Conclusion

Wikipedia should not be hosting meaningless or defamatory conspiracy fantasies. Is there a Wikipedia noticeboard for codswallop? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970 Leaving aside the personal insults and assumptions of bad faith, I'll just note that Newimpartial in response to your accusation on their talk page clearly opposed the deletion of the two sentences, and Doug Weller's edit summary clearly opposes the deletion, so there seem to be three editors to one on this issue, although you're right Grayfell was replying to the edit to the lead and not to the two deleted sentences. Re the "well known scientist": that scientist is not mentioned in this article so again I cannot see a BLP violation. Re the network: we have multiple reliable sources describing Claire Fox and Munira Mirza as members of a "Spiked network"; the fact they haven't written for it since 2017 is irrelevant. Responding to anything else would just be repeating myself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Oh and just to clarify on whether there is disagreement or not on the ideology: we have seven reliable sources, and 4/7 say both right-wing and libertarian. If there are reliable sources contradicting this assessment, feel free to present them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You have done it again. Despite the fact that I have carefully explained the chronology of your own edits, you are falsely claiming that Mr Weller’s edit summary relates to an edit which you had not yet made. Factual truth matters. If you want the benefit of the assumption of good faith, you should behave in good faith. You have no support for the addition of the conspiracy material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not your blog. Sweet6970 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to Doug_Weller and to you Sweet6970. Re-reading the diff which I linked to, you're absolutely right. It was also relating to the edit to the lead, which uses many of the same sources as the two sentences you've deleted. Sorry everyone. I am striking through the mistaken text. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thank you. I apologise for the accusation of bad faith, which was clearly wrong.

Re the wording in the lead for the stance - I would accept the wording you proposed on 7 September: "Spiked has sometimes been described as libertarian, and sometimes as right-wing." You suggested separate references for ‘libertarian’ and ‘right-wing’. The reference from the Hackney Gazette (currently [9]) is unsuitable. ‘….which some commentators have accused of being right-wing rather than left-wing as it claimed…’ This is too vague, and reads as if it might have been lifted from Wikipedia.

Re the wording in the body – on 4 September you suggested that the wording in the body could be based on my version of 2 September [9] Do you accept this as it stands, or are you suggesting an amendment to this? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sweet6970. Re the lead: Totally happy with that wording and leaving out Hackney Gazette, which I agree isless suitable. By the way, if there are reliable sources making the assessment Spiked is left-wing (as their text suggests might be the case) we can always include that later. Also totally happy with the 2 September version for stance. Re Heft, as she has no WP article, might be sensible to say something like "According to Free University of Berlin digital media expert Annett Heft et al" or just "According to a study published in Policy & Internet" but I have no strong views on that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I have now made changes to the article which I believe are as agreed with you. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sweet6970. Good to reach consensus on this at least! Personally, I still believe the quotes should be included in the footnotes, as they provide nuance we don't have space for in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You’re welcome. I have no objection to having quotes in the footnotes, though I doubt that many people will read them. But I have no idea how footnotes work – would you like to add them? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

References

@Sweet6970:. Sure. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the quotation marks in "'left-wing' faction"?

Apologies if this has already been covered – I've searched the page for the word "left" and not found the answer – but what's the rationale for the quotation marks around "left-wing" in the phrase "'left-wing' faction"? Given what I've seen in other articles, I'd expect to see "left-wing faction". H Remster (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a view on the quote marks around "left-wing" but they should not be around "faction" as that word is not used in the source cited. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The double quotation marks are part of my comment. It's the single quotation marks that are part of the article. Compare: "left-wing faction" (what I'd expect to see); "'left-wing' faction" (what's currently in the article); "'left-wing faction'" (which may or may not have been suggested by someone else). At all events, yours has been the only response, so I'll make the change. H Remster (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Heft et al – ‘populist’?

There was agreement on this Talk page that, because Heft et al’s study explicitly excluded libertarian websites, this article would report that according to Heft et al, Spiked was not libertarian. Without agreement, Grayfell deleted this, saying that this was not allowed, because it was an implication only. However, Grayfell has added to the article, without agreement, A study in Policy & Internet by Heft et al described Spiked as populist, saying that it has "roots in the radical left‐wing scene, but now oppose the political establishment from a position on the right side of the spectrum." The Heft et al article says:‘However, alternative media also display a broader tendency associated with populism: the subjugation of traditional left/right polarization under the opposition between the people and those understood by populists to represent “the elite.” Indeed, some of the sites included in our study—such as the British Spiked or German Compact—have roots in the radical left‐wing scene, but now oppose the political establishment from a position on the right side of the spectrum.’In my view, this does not say that Spiked is populist. It might, perhaps, imply it, but I do not read it that way. Any implication that Spiked is populist is much weaker than the implication that Spiked is not libertarian.

Please would other editors give their views on this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

When including quotes from a source it is good practice to also include a link to that source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/poi3.219

This summary is incomplete. The surrounding paragraphs are also directly about populism, defining it as relates to alternative media and describing it as a "thin ideology" which is attached to "thick ideologies". Heft et al is saying that Spiked's shift from left to right is explained via populism, and I do not see any other plausible reason the source used Spiked as an example. There is certainly room for improvement, but it would severely misrepresent the substance of this source to remove "populism" completely. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I have looked again at Heft et al, and I don’t see any strong implication that Spiked is populist. Since Heft never actually says that Spiked is populist, and two editors can disagree on whether this is implied, this should come out of the article, as it obviously is not a clear implication. Sweet6970 (talk) (this was posted on 26 September)

As there has been no response from any other editor, I take it that there will be no objection if I go back to the previous version which does not include reference to the disputed label ‘populist’. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Your disagreement is not itself an argument. I have explained why the source supports "populist". There has been no further interest in interminable debate. Start and RFC if you insist on dragging this out. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you and I differ in the interpretation of Heft et al demonstrates, as a matter of fact, that the implication of ‘populist’ is not clear. If there are no comments from other editors, then the reference to ‘populist’ should be deleted, because there is no consensus to include the disputed text. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I refer you to WP:ONUS ‘The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The Heft source flatly states "associated with populism" and "populist dynamics" with respect to Spiked; objecting to the inclusion of "populist" in this article because of the semantic quibble that the article doesn't say "Spiked is populist" strikes me as wrongheaded. This is also a completely different situation from 6970's prior proposal to include "not libertarian" in this article on the grounds that the Heft source excludes certain libertarian publications from its frame - a "logic" that I still regard as rather tortured. Newimpartial (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that there is another paper by Heft et al.'http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2018/08/IPP2018-Heft.pdf] Some extracts: Our study focuses on far-right and right-wing populist online news media which are part of the political information environment in digital times... Such sites are marked by populist communication styles...as they refer to ‘the people’ combined with an antiestablishment, anti-elite tone and take up right-wing, anti-hegemonic positions on many issues...we provide a short overview on research on digital news infrastructures and focus on research on far-right and right-wing populist online news media. We then present the design of our study including 70 alternative online news media on the far- and populist right from six countries BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Thank you for the additional text from Heft et al, which gives a more direct implication of populism. In view of this, and of the views of other editors, I would withdraw my objection to the inclusion of the word ‘populist’, if this source is added. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)