This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Spiked (magazine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I just want to raise a brief point here. Those who have edited the main page have made liberal usage of the opinions of journalist George Monbiot in constructing their arguments.
What I feel is concerning is the implication that Monbiot's opinions of the magazine are definitive. Monbiot is a well known left wing journalist who writes for the Guardian.
Why do the editors of the main page feel that Monbiot's views carry sufficient weight for them to be used in this way? I would not (for example) consider journalist Toby Young to be either "hard" or "far" Right as the quotation implies, any more than I might consider Monbiot to be "hard" or "far" Left. I don't know if the quotation is accurate, but in any event, Monbiot would view Young as his political opposition.
Monbiot is entitled to his views, but they are hardly non-partisan. I cannot speak for the magazine, but they would probably say they are defending the principle of free speech and not the views of the people themselves. Monbiot, however, seeks to smear the magazine by association with public figures that he considers to be undesirable. And as a figure of the Left Monbiot might be expected to do this.
There seems to be (in my opinion) too much eagerness among wikipedia editors to take sides and push a particular view, and then quote from media sources which tend to support that view. This article strikes me as politically biased.
But the function of wikipedia is surely to present information in a completely unbiased and non partisan way. The reader must be left to form their own opinion. John2o2o2o ( talk) 19:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@ TomReagan90: Please read the discussion above, under ‘Left-libertarian’. @ Bobfrombrockley: @ Newimpartial: What is your view on the change made to the lead on the political orientation of Spiked? Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I should have said "specialist academic sources" above - my assertion is that the 2017 YouTube book is "non-specialist", and that all specialist academic sources agree with right-libertarian. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Infamous for its right-libertarian and iconoclastic style, Spiked has gained notoriety...
Brendan O'Neill, the editor of the far-right libertarian Spiked!
‘Spiked’ have emerged as central conduits channeling the thinking of US libertarian right think tanks into the UK media.
an online journal that has an association with a particular voice in politics (whether libertarian or “right-wing” as attested to by Koch funding).
FFS, in a situation where all sources of class X say one thing, and no sources of class X say the opposite, then it is not OR to say "all sources of class X say one thing". For example, if all sources available in French said that Spiked was left-wing, and no sources in French said that it was right-wing, we would not need a source saying that all sources in French gave that attribution before we could include "French sources state that Spiked is left-wing" in the article - we would just cite the French-language sources directly. The same is true for "specialist academic sources state that Spiked is right-libertarian".
As far as what is or isn't specialized, we have three or four (three if you exclude Tourism) specialists in relevant fields identifying Spiked as right-libertarian. You may not like the Routledge and SAGE handbooks, but they offer relevant sources for nuance in the political domains where Spiked is operating, and Evan Smith has written a peer-reviewed book-length treatment discussing Spiked in relation to another of its fields of engagement. This is 100% of the specialized academic sources (3/3) and the substantial majority of all academic sources available (4/5), so the language I prefer - "specialist academic sources state that Spiked is right-libertarian" is amply supported by consensus reality out there. What you have repeatedly proposed is simply WP:WEASEL given the actually available sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Lots of sources call it libertarian (two more I've just seen: [1] [2]). A fair number call it right-wing, right-libertarian and/or conservative. Two that we've found call it left-libertarian. It would be wrong therefore to give equal weighting to left-libertarian. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Koch brothers funding: As there have been no objections to the change I proposed at point (3) in my post of 22:59 on 14 March 2021, I am making this change.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 16:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The idea that Spiked might be in some way left-wing is not supported by any British sources, it is a WP:FRINGE theory mentioned in passing by two American sources which make no analysis at all of Spiked, whereas all serious analyses puts them on the political right. To include this in the lede is WP:UNDUE, even the mention later on is probably a bit dodgy tbh. For that reason I have reverted. Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.[my emphasis]]. This guideline is not applicable in this situation, because comments on the political orientation of Spiked are not a theory.
there is nothing left-libertarian about spiked, neither they, their supporters nor their critics ever argue thiswas presumably made in ignorance of Mr O’Neill’s political stance.)
‘Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle.The article also says :
Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism. Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.So, neither my dictionary nor Wikipedia say that libertarianism is restricted to a right-wing viewpoint.
A) Your suggestion for obtaining a Third opinion WP:THIRD
It is my impression that this process is only suitable for matters where the question is a simple one. It requires someone who is not familiar with the matter to engage with the dispute, and give a simple answer to a simple question. The matter of how to describe the political orientation of Spiked is the opposite of simple. I don’t know whether you have read the original discussion above, in the section ‘Left libertarian’. I participated in that discussion, but I wouldn’t care to read it as a ‘stranger’ to this article. But anyone who is intending to give an informed ‘third opinion’ ought to read and digest the whole thing. I also feel that anyone who has not read that discussion is not really interested in this article, and so, should not be making a judgment on the wording of the lead. So I do not think that the ‘Third opinion’ procedure is suitable.
B) Use of the word ‘libertarian’
I think that the use of the word which you are referring to may be common in the USA. That does not determine the general meaning of the word.
C) There is no consensus for your proposed change WP:NOCON
Includes: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
There is no consensus for your proposed change, therefore the article should remain as it is.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
An advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.However, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is why something supported by only two poor quality American sources should be included in the lede.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
the proposed change, I meant the removal of both left- and right-libertarian. I do not oppose the removal of left-libertarian (if right-libertarian is retained) since (1) "left-" isn't accurate for the publication in its current form and (2) it isn't supported by the highest-quality sources for this purpose. However, since it is supported by certain non-specialist sources, I also do not oppose the inclusion of "left-", as long as the sources are characterized accurately (as they are in the current lede) and "right-" is prominently retained. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources for "contrarian" have already been provided in previous discussions; they include The Guardian] and the paper by White et al. As I have previously pointed out, I think "contrarian" is one of the most relevant terms to use in this context, though of course it should not be added to the lead without adding it also to the body. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Bobfrombrockley: Hallo, and I hope you had a good Christmas. You have referred to Munira Mirza as a regular contributor to Spiked. [7] But I have just done a search for her on the Spiked website, and the most recent article by her which I saw is dated 2017. Most of the articles which come up on the search date from 2007. I don’t remember seeing any article by her in the last few years. So I think you need to amend your wording. Regards. Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I question its labelling as "libertarian". It was founded from Marxism and never publishes economically liberal content, instead its editor and Brendan O'Neil are obvious socialists who support radical trade unionism (read their articles on strike action) and oppose free market capitalism. Just because it may sway from standard "liberal left" politics does not make it truly right-wing, as economics is typically the most important factor to determining something's place on the political spectrum. In addition, I can't believe no commentary has been added to Wikipedia about its largely anti-transgender (and anti-LGBT and anti-drag) articles which frequently appear. This makes me actually regard as it as Marxist/socialist which disregards social liberalism/progressivism instead. 2.98.183.194 ( talk) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Spiked (magazine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I just want to raise a brief point here. Those who have edited the main page have made liberal usage of the opinions of journalist George Monbiot in constructing their arguments.
What I feel is concerning is the implication that Monbiot's opinions of the magazine are definitive. Monbiot is a well known left wing journalist who writes for the Guardian.
Why do the editors of the main page feel that Monbiot's views carry sufficient weight for them to be used in this way? I would not (for example) consider journalist Toby Young to be either "hard" or "far" Right as the quotation implies, any more than I might consider Monbiot to be "hard" or "far" Left. I don't know if the quotation is accurate, but in any event, Monbiot would view Young as his political opposition.
Monbiot is entitled to his views, but they are hardly non-partisan. I cannot speak for the magazine, but they would probably say they are defending the principle of free speech and not the views of the people themselves. Monbiot, however, seeks to smear the magazine by association with public figures that he considers to be undesirable. And as a figure of the Left Monbiot might be expected to do this.
There seems to be (in my opinion) too much eagerness among wikipedia editors to take sides and push a particular view, and then quote from media sources which tend to support that view. This article strikes me as politically biased.
But the function of wikipedia is surely to present information in a completely unbiased and non partisan way. The reader must be left to form their own opinion. John2o2o2o ( talk) 19:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@ TomReagan90: Please read the discussion above, under ‘Left-libertarian’. @ Bobfrombrockley: @ Newimpartial: What is your view on the change made to the lead on the political orientation of Spiked? Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I should have said "specialist academic sources" above - my assertion is that the 2017 YouTube book is "non-specialist", and that all specialist academic sources agree with right-libertarian. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Infamous for its right-libertarian and iconoclastic style, Spiked has gained notoriety...
Brendan O'Neill, the editor of the far-right libertarian Spiked!
‘Spiked’ have emerged as central conduits channeling the thinking of US libertarian right think tanks into the UK media.
an online journal that has an association with a particular voice in politics (whether libertarian or “right-wing” as attested to by Koch funding).
FFS, in a situation where all sources of class X say one thing, and no sources of class X say the opposite, then it is not OR to say "all sources of class X say one thing". For example, if all sources available in French said that Spiked was left-wing, and no sources in French said that it was right-wing, we would not need a source saying that all sources in French gave that attribution before we could include "French sources state that Spiked is left-wing" in the article - we would just cite the French-language sources directly. The same is true for "specialist academic sources state that Spiked is right-libertarian".
As far as what is or isn't specialized, we have three or four (three if you exclude Tourism) specialists in relevant fields identifying Spiked as right-libertarian. You may not like the Routledge and SAGE handbooks, but they offer relevant sources for nuance in the political domains where Spiked is operating, and Evan Smith has written a peer-reviewed book-length treatment discussing Spiked in relation to another of its fields of engagement. This is 100% of the specialized academic sources (3/3) and the substantial majority of all academic sources available (4/5), so the language I prefer - "specialist academic sources state that Spiked is right-libertarian" is amply supported by consensus reality out there. What you have repeatedly proposed is simply WP:WEASEL given the actually available sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Lots of sources call it libertarian (two more I've just seen: [1] [2]). A fair number call it right-wing, right-libertarian and/or conservative. Two that we've found call it left-libertarian. It would be wrong therefore to give equal weighting to left-libertarian. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Koch brothers funding: As there have been no objections to the change I proposed at point (3) in my post of 22:59 on 14 March 2021, I am making this change.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 16:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The idea that Spiked might be in some way left-wing is not supported by any British sources, it is a WP:FRINGE theory mentioned in passing by two American sources which make no analysis at all of Spiked, whereas all serious analyses puts them on the political right. To include this in the lede is WP:UNDUE, even the mention later on is probably a bit dodgy tbh. For that reason I have reverted. Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.[my emphasis]]. This guideline is not applicable in this situation, because comments on the political orientation of Spiked are not a theory.
there is nothing left-libertarian about spiked, neither they, their supporters nor their critics ever argue thiswas presumably made in ignorance of Mr O’Neill’s political stance.)
‘Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle.The article also says :
Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism. Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.So, neither my dictionary nor Wikipedia say that libertarianism is restricted to a right-wing viewpoint.
A) Your suggestion for obtaining a Third opinion WP:THIRD
It is my impression that this process is only suitable for matters where the question is a simple one. It requires someone who is not familiar with the matter to engage with the dispute, and give a simple answer to a simple question. The matter of how to describe the political orientation of Spiked is the opposite of simple. I don’t know whether you have read the original discussion above, in the section ‘Left libertarian’. I participated in that discussion, but I wouldn’t care to read it as a ‘stranger’ to this article. But anyone who is intending to give an informed ‘third opinion’ ought to read and digest the whole thing. I also feel that anyone who has not read that discussion is not really interested in this article, and so, should not be making a judgment on the wording of the lead. So I do not think that the ‘Third opinion’ procedure is suitable.
B) Use of the word ‘libertarian’
I think that the use of the word which you are referring to may be common in the USA. That does not determine the general meaning of the word.
C) There is no consensus for your proposed change WP:NOCON
Includes: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
There is no consensus for your proposed change, therefore the article should remain as it is.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
An advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.However, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is why something supported by only two poor quality American sources should be included in the lede.
Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
the proposed change, I meant the removal of both left- and right-libertarian. I do not oppose the removal of left-libertarian (if right-libertarian is retained) since (1) "left-" isn't accurate for the publication in its current form and (2) it isn't supported by the highest-quality sources for this purpose. However, since it is supported by certain non-specialist sources, I also do not oppose the inclusion of "left-", as long as the sources are characterized accurately (as they are in the current lede) and "right-" is prominently retained. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources for "contrarian" have already been provided in previous discussions; they include The Guardian] and the paper by White et al. As I have previously pointed out, I think "contrarian" is one of the most relevant terms to use in this context, though of course it should not be added to the lead without adding it also to the body. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Bobfrombrockley: Hallo, and I hope you had a good Christmas. You have referred to Munira Mirza as a regular contributor to Spiked. [7] But I have just done a search for her on the Spiked website, and the most recent article by her which I saw is dated 2017. Most of the articles which come up on the search date from 2007. I don’t remember seeing any article by her in the last few years. So I think you need to amend your wording. Regards. Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I question its labelling as "libertarian". It was founded from Marxism and never publishes economically liberal content, instead its editor and Brendan O'Neil are obvious socialists who support radical trade unionism (read their articles on strike action) and oppose free market capitalism. Just because it may sway from standard "liberal left" politics does not make it truly right-wing, as economics is typically the most important factor to determining something's place on the political spectrum. In addition, I can't believe no commentary has been added to Wikipedia about its largely anti-transgender (and anti-LGBT and anti-drag) articles which frequently appear. This makes me actually regard as it as Marxist/socialist which disregards social liberalism/progressivism instead. 2.98.183.194 ( talk) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)