Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Archiving

lowercase sigmabot III has just archived a couple of discussions which were only about 12 days old even though its age parameter is set to 30 days. The number of days after which archiving is carried out seems closer to the 10 days which MiszaBot, which is supposed no longer to be working, is set to. Is it possible that there is some interference going on?     ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"lowercase sigmabot III" is a replacement for MiszaBot, introduced because the latter had ceased to be maintained. The "template" {{User:MiszaBot/config}} doesn't actually do anything, except to serve as a repository to hold the various parameters used to tweak MiszaBot (it isn't even a template, it merely looks like one). To save having to make mass changes on thousands of talk pages. "lowercase sigmabot III" was written to use exactly the same parameters as MiszaBot. So the "template" at the top of this page which appears to be tweaking the (now defunct) MiszaBot is actually tweaking "lowercase sigmabot III". The template {{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30 |units=days }} merely displays a message displaying whatever is fed into its arguments, and has no effect on the archiving period. "lowercase sigmabot III" was originally set to 30 days, but had to be reduced (in this case to 10 days) when the war propaganda sewer pipe started up, pouring vast amounts of nonsense into both Corbyn's page and this talk page, but no-one bothered to change the displayed archiving period (age=) to correspond. --NSH001 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.     ←   ZScarpia   11:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

With the goal of producing neutral-point-of-view articles, the Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent essay describes how editing should be approached: "Editors must either create edits for the opposing point of view themselves, or at least allow it.

It very much looks to me as though that is not being practised in this article:

• Points of view are being presented as facts rather than opinions.

• Sources with a strong bias are being treated as though they were neutral.

• The 'expertise' of sources supporting favoured viewpoints is being exagerrated and that of sources doing the opposite understated.

• Rather than letting the unfavoured point of view being expressed, let alone doing that themselves, editors are actively blocking that being done.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes. Any article that touches on Israel/Palestine has the same issues.

This article also happens to be dominated by WP:RECENTISM; Corbyn has been a notable political figure for 30 years. This article focuses mainly on the last 30 weeks. MrDemeanour (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

State aid and the european Union and Corbyn

Just added this section to another page about Jeremy Corbyns political views. It really should be here as it is important information, as are his views on EU state aid which are not in the european union section of this article. The fact that its been mentioned by corbyn and the fact that the EU have already given a response means its important when it comes to Corbyn and Europe.

"In May 2017 The European Union said they would not accept a customs deal from a Corbyn led government, that involved changes to the existing EU rules on state aid. It has been previously suggested by Corbyn that the UK could abandon EU rules on state aid, once Britain leaves the EU.[220][221][222][223] Britain is currently bound to the EU rules on state aid, as are all states within the Single Market. The UK would need to adopt these rules to stay in the EU, single market and customs union[224]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackcandle (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The page i added it to was "Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn". It really needs to be on here as well in the Europe section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackcandle (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

silly me, forgot to sign it Quackcandle (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

In the European Union section I feel that this needs adding. ignore the "" thats just to say i am quoting the passage below. The section I think this belongs in is the European Union section under Corbyns Views.

""In September 2016 Corbyn urged the conservative government to abandon EU regulations on state aid, saying the rules will "no longer be valid". The European Union has since said that they would protect the single market to ensure a level playing field, between Britain and the block, and said they would respond with tarrifs if UK industry is subsidized in anyway. The EU is concerned the UK would have an unfair advantage if the rules on state aid are changed, and is considered a red line for any free trade agreement. Corbyn has also stated he wants a tarrif free agreement with the EU. "" Quackcandle (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Insertion as proposed is ungrammatical.

"The EU is concerned the UK would have an unfair advantage if the rules on state aid are changed, and is considered a red line for any free trade agreement." - it's not clear in that sentence what exactly is considered a red-line. It must be some previously-mentioned noun or noun-phrase: candidates are the EU, the UK, the unfair advantage, the rules, state aid. I don't think any of those is the kind of thing that can be spoken-of as a red-line.

• Insertion is cited to jacobinmag.com

I don't think jacobinmag.com is considered a WP:RS. As it happens I'm not OK with the current position on reliable sources, which essentially amounts to mainstream news outlets; I think they are increasingly unreliable (and obviously biased against socialism - even so-called left-wing and liberal outlets). Nevertheless, jacobinmag wears its socialist outlook on its sleeve, and someone will no doubt come along soon to nuke it because it is not a RS. So lets avoid that eventuality by not using jacobinmag.

• Insertion is cited to dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Fail is a blacklisted source, for excellent reasons.

MrDemeanour (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"biased against socialism" That is a matter of opinion! Maybe we should just stick to the first sentence then? ""In September 2016 Corbyn urged the conservative government to abandon EU regulations on state aid, saying the rules will "no longer be valid"."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackcandle (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with that: The Independent def passes WP:RS. –Bangalamania (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thats good, Can't see the update though. Its defo worthy of being in there because Corbyns views on the state aid laws are vital when it comes to his opinions on europe/the european union. Especially since those views are incompatible with the tarrif free access to the single market, he said he also wants to see. I will try to find a more reliable source about the EU's response, there was an article from the times among my sources but you need to sign in, so not sure if we can use it. For now until this features more in the news, I am happy with that first sentence backed by a source from the independent. Quackcandle (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added this sentence, seems reasonable enough. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Quackcandle: I have access to The Times article. How about This prompted backlash from senior EU figures, who said that state subsidisation would lead to a possible trade war between the UK and EU. One senior figure told The Times: "We have to protect ourselves and the single market ... If a Corbyn government implements his declared policies the level playing field mechanism will lead to increased costs for Britain to access the single market because of distortions caused by state aid." for the EU's response? (Might be a bit lengthy, but I thought it would be best to have a direct quote - even if they are anonymous). This is backed up by the Times source you have given. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Bangalamania:

Yes that sums it up, I think it should be added.Quackcandle (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my objections were of a technical nature. Provided the insertion is grammatically correct, and doesn't reference Daily Fail or JacobinMag, I'm fine with it. MrDemeanour (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Added source (as well as comment that this would be a 'red line', which is backed up by the Times ref). I would also agree with MrDemeanour in that those sources and the grammar issues were the only main problem here. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the paragraph that was added because the it did not correspond to what was in the the source used. However I expect there is another source somewhere from 2016 that does have that information. The original paragraph can of course be returned with the appropriate source. The Independent did contain interesting information about Corbyn's view on state aid to industry though. Burrobert (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Media Reform Coalition - Report: Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm

Full Report: Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm (Media Reform Coalition) - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018.

Executive Summary: Executive Summary: Labour, Antisemitism and the News, A Disinformation Paradigm (Media Reform Coalition) - Justin Schlosberg, Laura Laker - September 2018.

Introduction to the report on the Media Reform Coalition's website: Media Reform Coalition - New MRC research finds inaccuracies and distortions in media coverage of antisemitism and the Labour Party, 27 September 2018.

Letter to The Guardian with 28 signatories which discusses the MRC report: The Guardian - (Letters) Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour Party: Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, Ken Loach, Brian Eno, Des Freedman, Justin Schlosberg and 21 others write about a recent report by the Media Reform Coalition, 30 September 2018.

[1][2][3] Following a grant from the 'Leverhulme Media Research Centre, Goldsmiths, University of London, set up the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre withing its Department of Media & Communications in 2007. During the following five years, the Centre carried out research on "changing media spaces and design" which focussed on five main areas, one of those areas being "Project 1: Spaces of the News", which studied the impact of the Internet on journalism. Further grants allowed the Project 1: Spaces of the News reseach team to set up the Coordinating Committee for Media Reform, which was later renamed the Media Reform Coalition (MRC), in 2011. The MRC was set up with the specific purpose of influencing the Leveson Inquiry, the Communications Review and the white paper which was subsequently issued. The MRC contains 30+ pressure groups and numerous academics. Each of its sections, which are designed to campaign on a specific issue, has an elected chairperson, all of whom are members of the Project 1: Spaces of the News research team. The Centre's research has influenced Labour and Conservative Party policy and was cited extensively in the report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Media Ownership.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An insignificant activist organization that sent a letter to the editor of the Guardian with a few signatories. Any actual SECONDARY coverage of this? Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Although some of the members of the Media Reform Coalition signed the letter to The Guardian, the letter wasn't sent by the MRC itself. The MRC operates under the purview of a university department and, although its purpose is to influence media-related legislation and codes of practice, as far as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the controversy over antisemitism in the Labour Party is concerned, it is no more "activist" than many of the sources being used in the article. In order to be neutral, the current article is obliged to report the different points of view and I suggest that the MRC report is one of the best supports for the view that the size of the problem is being exaggerated and misrepresented. Depending on how it's used, the report can be a secondary source and, since it is published under the aegis of a university department, in my opinion it should be regarded as having a reliable provenance.     ←   ZScarpia   12:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call a letter signed by the likes of Chomsky, Varoufakis and Loach insignificant. These are highly prominent people. That in itself makes it significant enough to cover. G-13114 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article about the media's non-coverage of the report by Media Lens here. A bigger question which has been raised here, is given that multiple academic reports have now found the mainstream media guilty of systemic bias, distorted reporting and fake news, whether they can be considered as reliable sources for information on any pages related to Labour of Corbyn? G-13114 (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

G-13114, [I raised the same question on the reliable sources noticeboard]. The so called left and centre of the mainstream media (Guardian/BBC) have been found to be badly deficient in the reporting on Anti-Semitism particularly when these concerned Jeremy Corbyn. In contrast certain 'blogs' have been found to have properly checked their facts despite possessing minimal resources. To provide any sort of balance of this subject these should be accepted for reporting in this area only, at least until the MSM get their act together. I don't think the Guardian/BBC/Sky failures in this area accurately affects the quality of their non-political reporting which remains of a relatively high standard.--Andromedean (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

David Abulafia

I believe there are a number of problems with this;

• It's an opinion piece (not a disqualifying issue in itself, but ...)
• It makes a number of allegations against Corbyn and other BLPs that it does not back up with evidence
• It's not the first time that Abulafia has used the media to criticise Corbyn (this is a blog, but it references a BBC radio programme where be appeared)
• It's published in a magazine, the political posturing of which is to have previously made numerous other accusations about Corbyn - consider this, from only a month ago, which states "for Corbyn and his allies, it represents Israel’s intrinsic evil". Or this ("The truly shocking fact that 40 per cent of the voters supported a hard-Left party led by Jeremy Corbyn"). Or this ("...his political discourse seems to be confined to the recycling of generally discredited Marxist clichés").
• Even if the article was notable in itself (i.e. it had received a number of reactions in reliable sources) it is still probably UNDUE in that paragraph.

I have removed it from the article per BLP and will continue to remove it if a good reason is not given why it should remain here. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I support the removal, mainly for the reason given last, that of due weight. There is nothing noteworthy about this criticism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Abulafia's claims are far from extraordinary, and Abulafia himself is a significant academic figure (all be it - general European history as far as I can ascertain). However, what is lacking for inclusion is WP:SECONDARY references to this primary opinion. If such references emerge - I would support inclusion, otherwise not. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of Morning Star as a source

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) The RfC is closed with a Yes, plus some caveats. The discussion has been open for time long enough for it to be reasonably assessed as exhausted. The Yes !votes outnumber the No !votes by the wide margin of 18 to 8, but qualitatively as well, the !Yes votes are better reasoned.
Editors objected against using as a source that particular paper on the grounds that this would give its texts "undue weight". However, that would be equivalent to placing this historical newspaper of the British communist left (previously a formally official organ of the CPGB) in the non-reliable sources list. There has been no community decision towards such an action; not even a pattern of such a practice. Actually, the opposite is happening, with editors widely using the paper as a source, e.g. on sound artist Mark Peter Wright, political magazine The House, conservative politician Graham Brady, activist Barbara Grace Tucker, punk literature in general, the novel Nine Inches, and so numerously on.
Other editors objected on the grounds of the paper's content, confusing tabloid format for tabloid journalism. However, the paper under examination may have been accused of bias, lack of objectivity, and other such sins but never seriously of tabloid journalism.
Actually, the paper's "lack of objectivity" has been a major argument against its use as a source (with one editor claiming the paper follows "an uncritical Russophile line"). Evidently, we cannot seriously argue that there exist newspapers in the UK without viewpoints and political orientation, but neither can we argue that all degrees of political bias are the same in newspaperland. What this means for us Wikipedia editors is that the Morning Star can be used as a source but we should strive for context and, if we can help it, try not to have it as the sole source except when clearly opinions are put forth (we do not censor presentation of opinions; we contextualize). In other words, WP:BALANCE is our friend. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the Morning Star be used as a source in this BLP article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Voting

• No, as it uses tabloid style journalism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, It is not a tabloid source. Tabloid journalism refers to a style of journalism that emphasizes sensationalism, not the specific printing format, which several papers like the Times, Guardian and Independent also use. There is no evidence that the Morning Star falls into the Wikipedia's definition of tabloid unlike the Daily Mail which the community has deemed unreliable because of its inaccurate reporting. Separately the Morning Star is no more partisan than the The Jewish Chronicle and if we're going to use sources like The Spectator and the Telegraph etc which are well known for their political bias against the Labour Party then we can't really argue against using one of the rare newsmedia sources which are politically biased the other way to help provide an overall WP:NPOV. It is one of the longest standing newspaper titles in the UK, established since 1930. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per Bod, but we need to be cautious-----Snowded ^TALK 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• No, highly BIASED communist source that uses over the top language generally. Has supported pro-Russia/Assad conspiracy theories - e.g. denying the Douma chemical attack in [4], [5], and a few other pieces. Coverage of "fake news" calls by MS and others - here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Morning Star story you provided a link to says, "chemical inspectors found no evidence that nerve agents had been used in Douma....[but] found traces of chlorine that it said was possibly used in the area."[6] The BBC reported the same day that inspectors concluded that "chlorine may have been used...but there was no evidence of nerve agents."[7] So in this case I would rate the Morning Star claim as true or at least says the same thing as mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but they lead off with "BRITAIN, France and the US’s case for missile strikes against Syria appears to have crumbled after chemical inspectors found no evidence that nerve agents..." -a stmt of fact, when the allied bombing was based on of chemical weapons in general and not nerve agents in particular. They indeed report the OPCW correctly (so does RT) - but make conclusions, in their own voice, that are not made in other sources. Their coverage of [8] - is entirely uncritical and does not seem to even mentions, as done in say the BBC, that this testimony was a coached and coerced stunt.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, no proof of a chemical attack was found, contrary to the fact Macron claimed their was proof. And the BBC did not say the evidence was a stunt, but quoted the U.S. and France as saying that. TFD (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

One would expect a RS to portray a balanced picture - not cherrypick what fits its agenda. The Morning Star has a very clear agenda - it is closely linked to the Communist Party of Britain and its editorial policy is based on strict adherence to the Britain's Road to Socialism programme. This is essentially a political advocacy outlet - not a news organization.[9][10][11]Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This source [12] says it has "varied between Stalinist, Euro-Communist and Democratic Left views." G-13114 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

But the test for whether or not a publication is reliable is whether the facts reported are reliable, not its editorial position. Every newspaper in the U.K. has a political position. TFD (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes The Morning Star is a well established daily newspaper in Britain. It's been in existence for almost 90 years. Of course it's left-leaning, but then the vast majority of the other British daily newspapers are right-leaning. They're still used repeatedly as 'reliable' sources. So too should the Morning Star. Garageland66 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• No fringe paper with a very troubling history colored by a conflict of interest as it was the mouthpiece of the British Communist party, and the Soviet Union effectively bankrolled the paper by regularly buying tens of thousands of copies, which were occasionally used to force the paper to adhere to the "correct" line if it ever strayed [[13]][[14]][[15]]. That the paper today continues to tow an uncritical Russophile line is not encouraging, and this is damning where Corbyn is concerned, given that one of the most sticky criticisms of the man's stances is knee-jerk anti-Westernism, Corbyn being accused by critics of being a Trumpian (but leftist) populist with views that are compatible with Putinist interests. [[16]], [[17]] Thus-- highly inappropriate -for this topic. We can't rely on it with a clear conscience. -Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as per Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn/Archive_13#Are_the_Morning_Star_and_"Ekklesia"_non-tabloid_sources? The Morning Star is no more partisan than the The Jewish Chronicle. However, there's no evidence that this meets Wikipedia's definition of tabloid such as the Daily Mail which the community has deemed non-RS because of its inaccurate reporting. Subjective opinions such as tabloid style paper, fringe political stance, Communist bias (similar arguments could be applied many other publications) aren't valid reasons for deeming a source as unreliable but its fact checking. RevertBob (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, The Morning Star is not mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources one way or the other. It has been used as a reference on 17 Wikipedia pages. I have read the previous discussions from 2010 about whether it is reliable ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Status_of_Morning_Star_(UK_newspaper) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Morning_Star_(UK_newspaper) ). In both discussions there were varying opinions. Editors can look for themselves but my impression is that the Morning Star was regarded as an RS but that some care should be taken with using it as a reference, that decisions about referencing from it should be made on a case by case basis and that if a “more reliable” source was available then it should be used instead. In neither discussion were examples presented which would indicate it could not be treated as RS. I have not seen any examples in the current discussion either showing that it is not RS. Burrobert 02:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)
• No Several reliable sources describe the MS as a tabloid, and regard it to have left-wing bias. The MS might be carefully used on other articles but not on BLP ones, IMO. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Several? I was wondering on which part of the political spectrum those might lie. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could copy them here? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a paper known for anti-Zionism, calling MS known for "bone-headed Stalinism", the quote coming from a former editor of a socialist paper, Tribune [[18]]. Their pieces often look like they could have been written by Putin fangirls. --Calthinus (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. Ktrimi has posted at least one source down below. Of course the Morning Star's astonishingly uncritical coverage (uncritical acceptance of the Kremlin narrative on.... everything international pretty much it seems) is not limited to Syria, Corbyn, and Russia, but also the Balkans, where the Morning Star defended its darling Slobodan Milosevic, a vaguely "socialist" leader who happened to also be a Greater Serbian ultranationalist whose rule oversaw attempts at ethnic cleansing by the Yugoslav army of Kosovar Albanians[[19]]. No surprise -- as already elaborated by Icewhiz, it is the mouthpiece of the British Communist party. --Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It is true that the MS is the organ of the British Communist Party. MS should not be cited for statements about that party. Note that the term 'communist' is super-scary to some people (notably conservative americans). And at one time the BCP did indeed follow a stalinist line. But Stalin is long-dead, and the BCP is nowadays considered to be well out on the right of british left politics, and has been so for decades. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I came here because of the notification on RSN and was initially only interested in fixing the question wording, but looking at it a bit more deeply, it seems that it is in fact several of the "No" !voters who are the ones who are trying to turn this article in a tabloid-style rumour piece (including citing, via intermediary sources, the Daily Mail), which calls into question their good-faith in describing one of the RSes cited by the "Yes" !voters a "tabloid". I don't see any citations of the "reliable sources" that "describe the MS as a tabloid", and I strongly suspect the reason for that is that when this description is used it is a neutral description of the paper size/format, not a judgement on the quality of its journalism; if anyone actually linked me to such a source that countered this suspicion of mine, I'm open to changing my mind, but the lack of direct citation of these nebulous sources makes me very skeptical. The "Yes" !voters, on the other hand, have a pretty compelling argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Imo, Daily Mail should not be here (I have never once used it as a source and have usually removed it upon detection), and neither should an openly communist newspaper which nowadays acts like a Putinist mouthpiece and is known for ["its reputation for bone-headed Stalinism"]. --Calthinus (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So ... what exactly is it being cited for in this article that is instinctively opposed to anything supported by any western power, in particular the United States? Or is someone trying to insert pro-"single-party ‘socialist’ states" into this article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is the only reason we have the section on Wreathgate? Are you saying they should not be mentioned because their story is in some way just a fanciful fabrication with no basis in reality? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what view you're attributing to me, but I don't much care to find out. I'm only posting this because it would be rude to reply to Calthinus and not you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to Calthinus. Sorry if that was unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It may have political bias, as do all news sources including the BBC. However, it does not fall into the Daily Mail camp of made-up rubbish where it is not just biased but invented out of thin air or deliberately distorted out of all semblance of reality. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:BIASED which states:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.....

Bearing this in mind, it hardly seems to me to be unjustified for a newspaper which broadly supports Jeremy Corbyn's politics to be used as a source to give balance to an article about Jeremy Corbyn. In fact I would argue that it is effectively impossible for this article to be balanced or neutral if it uses only "mainstream" sources because nearly all of the mainstream media is vehemently anti-Corbyn. G-13114 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess we should add Breitbart News to balance Donald Trump per this argument. We reflect the balance of sources (which in a well covered topic - Corbyn - or Trump - usually means mainstream sources).Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I hardly think the two are remotely comparable, Breitbart News has been well documented as a fake news factory. G-13114 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Breitbart News is excluded because it has a history of posting false or misleading stories without retractions and therefore lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:RS requires, not because it has a political perspective. The Wall Street Journal also has a political perspective, but it passes WP:RS easily due to its reputation. If it weren't for WP:BIASED, people would push to eg. exclude every US-based newspaper from reporting on controversial stuff about the US, every Britain-based newspaper for controversial stuff about Britain, every Israel-based newspaper for controversial stuff about Israel, and so on. What we care about isn't the source's perspective but whether they can be relied on to report things accurately. (The perspective does matter somewhat for WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, and extremely WP:FRINGE sources can be excluded on those grounds, but that's not what people are objecting to here. I think it's difficult to argue that one sentence or so devoted to this source is WP:UNDUE.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Opinions should always be cited as opinions which is always true, and too often ignored. Straight facts are fine. Interpretations of those facts are opinions. almost all "political articles" are zealously guarded by partisans who make sure that the lines are blurred. I may be in a minority on those, but neutrality is not really well settled by "votes" of the most interested editors on any issue whatsoever. Collect (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but it should be contextualized. If it is this ref for this diff then it should read According to left-wing paper Morning Star Corbyn has a long history record of opposing bigotry. - the rest of the diff along with this other diff is WP:PUFFERY. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Left wing does not cut it. It is described as Stalinist[[20]] (this from a paper known for anti-Zionism). --Calthinus (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair the 'Stalinist' quote was made the former editor of a rival publication. G-13114 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment On the situation of journalism in the UK, meaning of "tabloid" and concerns regarding the MS read [21]. Furthermore, other reliable sources elaborate on the positions of the MS [22], [23]. The latter source says The Morning Star was the only newspaper explicitly identified as ideologically motivated, though others might be described as 'biased '. As Oakland says, the positions of the MS depends on the opinion of its readers. The MS should not be used for controversial claims that are not accepted by other sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Depends. It's a valid primary source for statements made in its pages by notable individuals, and a fair source for the views of British communists, but I would not use it to source anything stated as fact. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it passes WP:RS easily. The objections above seem to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:BIASED; simply having a perspective doesn't disqualify a source (after all, "mainstream British politics" is also a perspective.) Similarly, the style of publication does not matter at all, so I'm confused by the people calling it a "tabloid-style publication." What matters is whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; and nobody seems to be calling that into doubt. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! The point I've made in this discussion and the previous one. Much like the corporate, right-wing biased media the obvious impartiality here is pretty obvious. Fringe and undue arguments are causally used a lot when content isn't liked. RevertBob (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, The Morning Star has a Factual Reporting of HIGH on mediabiasfactcheck However, it is a left leading paper and the wording might need to be adjusted into neutral terms and balanced with alternate views. The entire mainstream media including the BBC, and the Guardian are failing badly to report issues surrounding Jeremy Corbyn fairly and accurately at the moment. The Morning Star and various left leading blogs are the only sources for information which could balance this strong bias. What UK papers are currently allowed for referencing on Wikipedia? I recall the Mail was banned. All of the UK tabloids have a lower score for factual accuracy on this site. (Andromedean (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC))

Andromedean, you might be interested in the current debate about the use of Evolve Politics as a source. G-13114 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, with a qualifier that I would prefer much less reliance on media in general; but if we are going to include media with a pro-Tory bias in the article, we should include this one too. The tendency to deny left-wing sources RS status is not an endearing flaw of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Absolutelypuremilk, the distinction between tabloid format and "tabloid journalism" (in the BLP sense) was explained to you a month ago on this very talk page, and the Morning Star is not the latter. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to where I said that the Morning Star should not be used because of its format? I thought it was obvious that I meant its journalism, for example the description by the New Statesman here where it says the Morning Star uses "a brisk, populist tabloid style". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This ambiguity also means that our characterization of the Morning Star as a tabloid newspaper in the body is loaded language. Entirely factual, if you happen to follow the piped link to Tabloid (newspaper format) and take in all the fascinating details about whether a tabloid is 280x430 mm or 280x400 mm, but come on. Seriously? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The word is misleading and the link offers no added value over the adjacent link to Morning Star itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

_{(Aside ~ memory lane ~ ahh my dad used to buy the daily mail everyday apart from Sunday, when we had the *quality broadsheet* the News of the World, which was not in tabloid until the 1980's, but def tabloid journalism.)}

• Yes, it is not "tabloid journalism" as some people referred to it, generally has good factual reporting according to statistics (mentioned above). It does have, like nearly every other media source, a perspective, which doesn't disqualify it. BeŻet (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• No It's a sensationalist tabloid with a fringe old-school communist view and a circulation of 10,000. People have some guts here to claim it's not really a tabloid. Just Google Morning Star newspaper and you see their front pages with "BLOOD ON HANDS", "TAX THE RICH", "WAR CRIMINAL NOT WELCOME", "A SHOCKING CONSPIRACY", "BANKER'S PM PLOTS NEW ATTACK ON WORKERS" taking half of the cover, as if any non-sensationalist daily newspaper would do this. --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is it also full of lies? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At the moment their main page has Labour’s fifth column won’t end its attacks until Corbyn is hung out to dry - the discourse of Fifth column having some history.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd see that more of a biased prediction than an untruth. But I was more concerned about what's printed inside. I'm not sure we usually quite headlines, from any newspaper, to support article claims. Perhaps Pudeo could explain to us what algorithm Google search uses to rank its results? All of those images seem to have been published by other organisations. I wonder why? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh - it's in the body of article as well - "Labour’s enemies, including its most embittered fifth column, have tasted blood and won’t end their attacks until Corbyn is hung out to dry." - the last paragraph. If we are to treat them as a RS, then the existence of a fifth column within Labour would be factual.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well they don't even give a definitive blood type there, so you may have a point. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• No Simply put, the Morning Star has far too much of a left-wing pro-Corbyn bias. It may be useful for other articles and BLPs, but I think in this instance, if the information is truly worth putting in the article, it will be in other sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I counted 8 places where it's currently used as a source. You're saying that each one of those "has far too much of a left-wing pro-Corbyn bias" to be used? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per BOD's and User talk:Ktrimi991's rationales. The source should be used but should be acknowledged in the text. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment although there may be more yes !votes, none of them have addressed in a meaningful way the very real issue of whether a paper that is known to have in the past accepted being bankrolled by the Soviet Union for regurgitating its propaganda (obviously an enormous ethical scandal), never repented or stated that they would hold themselves to a better (or actually existent) code of journalistic ethics in the future, and continues the same pro-Kremlin patterns after the fall of communism, is without reasonable doubt, a reliable source. This is not an attempt to convict the source -- instead users who vote yes are vouching it is reliable. --Calthinus (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the MSM are bankrolled by advertising, so it seems reasonable their impartiality could be compromised by narrow corporate interests. Surely we need to balance views using a newspaper that relies minimally on advertising? (Andromedean (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC))
• Comment Quick tally ~ Currently 5 No, 15 Yes & 2 Partial Yes ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Tentative yes. I am not acquainted with the Morning Star; but reading through this, I'm not seeing solid evidence that it is unreliable, ie has published factually inaccurate statements, or that it is an actual mouthpiece for the communist party. A priori it meets the requirements for a reliable news outlet. It's editorial position is not a reason to discount it; if its positions are minority positions, rigorous enforcement of WP:DUE takes care of that. Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• No. Corbyn had a regular column in the Morning Star till at least 2010, and it is unsurprising that this publication unquestioningly supports him. It can hardly be considered a WP:NPOV source when discussing this. For those not familiar with this publication here [[24]] is an overview of the MS by the New Statesman. This MS article [[25]] is demonstrative of the attitude of the MS with regard to this whole issue. There are other articles which I could link to which show an ideological Anti-Zionist fixation coupled with a strong whiff of Conspiracy theory. This [[26]] is a good example. The MS editorial staff do not seem to grasp that most British Jews find Corbyn problematic, so it must be a Zionist conspiracy. Finally I should mention WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Point 5 here is of particular relevance to this discussion.

Boris Johnson has a column in the Daily Telegraph but that's still widely used on his BLP. RevertBob (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[13] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[9]

reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. WP:EXTRAORDINARY should be applied to sources as well as WP editors. I do think that Martin's comment If the article wants to say that Corbyn wrote something in The Morning Star, with a quote, then yes, I think it's appropriate to use The Morning Star as a source for those quotes. The article makes it clear what Corbyn's connection has been with that publication. But I'd have no issue with using secondary sources, if they are available, as well as, or instead of, the MS. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC) could be used as a compromise regarding alternative secondary sources. Simon Adler (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, per arguments of others - MS has an overt political bias, but is not a 'tabloid' in the negative sense. I am assuming that this is about the text beginning "In March 2018, the Morning Star said that Corbyn had a record of opposing fascism, racism and antisemitism." All the examples given of JC's voting/action record are in the public sphere and all the MS is doing is collating them. The opinion is attributed to MS and there is little that is exceptional about their claims. JC's record of voting and action are somewhat more substantial info than some of his Facebook 'gaffes', which form the substance of many allegations against him. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• No Their opinion are clearly WP:UNDUE.If this opinion would be notable it would be published by all major news outlets --09:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I hope the closing editor will acknowledge that a source is determined to be reliable based on its accurate reporting and fact checking. Invalid subjective opinions such as tabloid-style paper, fringe political stance, Communist bias (similar arguments could be applied many other publications) should all be discounted. RevertBob (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:BIASED which states: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Most Newspapers, if not all are biased or highly biased. Also, I am not against rewording of the relevant section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Should have been take to the reliable sources noticeboard. Note that page requires that you provide the exact article used in the source and the text it is supposed to support. That is particularly useful because it allows editors to find better sources. Note that there is absolutely nothing controversial in the information provided by the Morning Star article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Writing that Corbyn has a record of opposing ... antisemitism, sourced supposedly to MS, is highly controversial considering a reknowned expert in the field of antisemitism has recently penned Jeremy Corbyn’s Ironically Ahistorical Anti-Semitism, The Atlantic, Deborah Lipstadt.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying the events of the 23 April 1977 or 23 April 2017 or for that matter[[27]] did not take place? As John McDonnell you've said "really have misinterpreted Jeremy. I've known him for over 30 years. His whole life has been devoted to anti-racism, to peace and justice." [[28]] ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

His anti-fascist stance (which is well documented, including academic sources) is a separate issue from his positions on Jews (the left, generally, is anti-fascist - this does not mean that all leftist movements are opposed to antisemitism - e.g. see Antisemitism in the Soviet Union).Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The examples given concern him actually opposing fascist marches, or celebrating the successful stopping of those marches in areas where the is a significant Jewish residence. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Tbh, WP:POINT. In addition to the sourcing issues, I have doubts about the relevance of this deserving its own section. Corbyn has not made "support for Jewish causes" part of his political brand. An individual incident or two, great. It's POV too, to assert in Wikipedia's voice that these (tabloid-reported) episodes boil down to "support for Jewish causes", as opposed to mere opposition to fascism and other far-right ideologies. --Calthinus (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• If the article wants to say that Corbyn wrote something in The Morning Star, with a quote, then yes, I think it's appropriate to use The Morning Star as a source for those quotes. The article makes it clear what Corbyn's connection has been with that publication. But I'd have no issue with using secondary sources, if they are available, as well as, or instead of, the MS. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is this section for a discussion about the Morning Star's reliability. It seems to also have some discussion about the section "Actions against antisemitism"? The section "Corbyn's Voting Record" elsewhere on this page already has a discussion about "Actions against antisemitism" including a vote on whether to include Corbyn's voting record in the article. An editor has questioned whether this is the right venue for determining whether a source is RS. Does anyone else know anything about the protocol? Burrobert 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

• @Absolutelypuremilk: I've slightly modified the wording of your RFC question, as the talk page of the Jeremy Corbyn article is not the proper forum to establish whether a daily newspaper is a reliable source for BLP articles in general, and that was what your original question asked. I haven't looked into the context of this question further to establish whether my answer would be "yes" or "no" to either form of the question, and have only done this as a procedural matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Morning Star's reporting ([29]) on the state of affairs in the German Democratic Republic on 11 November 1989, some two days after something totally inconsequential fell down is quite enlightening (though back in the day, they were subsidized by the USSR buying 15,000 copies daily). Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the bit of MS history there from 29 years ago. You don't think we're just possibly, very slightly, moving away from the point at issue here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No - this is an organization that for most of its existence was heavily subsidized by the USSR (and whose writing was an English language version of Pravda) - and even in this post-USSR world adheres to the Britain's Road to Socialism program. It would also seem they are for the most part (aside from pieces on socialist nostalgia or opinion pieces (e.g. Corbyn) quote from them - ignored by academia and news orgs). This is a non-independent advocacy organization.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Looking forward to some RS evidence in support of your extraordinary Pravda claim. But perhaps at a different venue. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Far from extraordinary.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/29/marxism-today-forgotten-visionaries-whose-ideas-could-save-labour, Guardian, 2015, "As an ex-Communist Party member myself, I am amazed to see that the paper that most symbolised unquestioning support for the horrors of Stalinism is still alive a decade after the Communist Party of Great Britain dissolved ..... Until 1974, the Morning Star was bankrolled by the Soviet government with direct cash contributions, and from 1974 onwards was indirectly supported by bulk orders of copies every day from Moscow." Still flying the red flag, Independent 2005. Soviet control is aptly summarized in - the Soviets were able to threaten the future of the daily paper, the Morning Star, by reducing the huge order for copies that were flown out each day from Heathrow (what a uniquely capitalist means of threatening / editorial control between communists :->). [30]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry not seeing the title Pravda in any of those sources. But I was suggesting a different venue? Quite happy if someone wishes to hat this bit of the discussion as not relevant to the use of MS in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is relevant. It illustrates pretty transparent cases of the conflict of interest present in MS' reporting in the past. The question is not whether this holds true still -- the question is, knowing this and everything, can we use this paper while holding true to our policies and ideals. A paper that in the past acted not in the name of journalism but rather in promoting the interests of the Soviet Union, with no reform or repentance in between, is not kosher, imo. --Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Then we'll have to disagree. I think this is mostly historical. More recent examples would be needed. To me the question certainly is "does this still hold true"? And, as I have already suggested, it also depends very much on what the source is being used for. Exactly which of the current uses is seen as problematic? Where is it being used as the mouthpiece for Communist Russia? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Subjective opinions such as ownership (otherwise we'd discount all Rupert Murdoch owned publications too) aren't valid reasons for deeming a source as unreliable but its fact checking. RevertBob (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: If that's the case we shouldn't use any corporate-owned media source as an RS for any statement on the economy. Because their capitalist ownership introduces a conflict of interest. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Irony: in the specific case of reporting on the stock market, on aspects of corporate media culture, and on figures opposing the corporatization of the media, I actually agree with you. Likewise, I very much dislike use of Murdoch media like Fox (harder to make that fly as its more mainstream, for better or for worse, than MS). However, this line of logic smacks of Whataboutism. The fact is that MS has historically had a severe and unsalvageable conflict of interest as it was a Soviet bankrolled mouthpiece, as has been aptly demonstrated by refs given above. Today, they still have a stunningly Putinophile line of reporting, regarding opinions and facts, even though this is quite bizarre as modern day Putin's Russia is a corporate oligarchy that makes no pretensions of advancing the rights of marginalized classes. The old "dezinformatsiya network" is still quite active [[31]]. While I do understand concerns that editors can use arguments like this to eliminate sources they don't like, for me this has to be balanced with the other side and I'm sorry but being bankrolled by Moscow is far beyond the red line. How people can be comfortable with this, is really beyond me. --Calthinus (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Except I haven't seen anyone saying that Putin's Russia is bankrolling Morning Star - rather that it was bankrolled by the Soviet Union. These are different states even if one is a successor to the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The revelations about the Soviet relationship with Morning Star came out long after the fact. They never apologized, nor repented, nor reformed, nor admitted any sort of wrong. The question is not whether we are convicting the paper. The question is if they are reliable -- and in this case, the benefit of the doubt is dangerous to give. If you want to give the benefit of the doubt to a former and possibly current propaganda mouthpiece, that is your choice, and it is now publicly on the record. --Calthinus (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So there's no reason to believe Putin is influencing it. Gotcha. I support its use as an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that they (a) violated journalistic ethics in the past, (b) never repented, (c) are a confirmed source of past propaganda and (d) continue the same line today. As I said, benefit of the doubt does not apply to judging a source reliable. Lack of doubt does. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A socialist paper was bankrolled by a socialist economy. Capitalist papers are bankrolled by capitalist economies. The socialist paper has been limping on without that support for years, still turning out good content. The fact that it's a POV that you don't agree with doesn't make it any more or less propaganda than the Financial Times or the BBC. And frankly your bringing up Putin, who had nothing to do with anything seems like attempting to cast aspersions in the absence of any reason to exclude the source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not casted any aspersions against an editor. People make mistakes-- as do I, I am merely pointing out they are making a mistake. Deflection anyways. The point of whether we can rely on the source without reasonable doubt remains unaddressed.

Above unsigned comment made by Calthinus, 7 September 2018.

I meant you were casting aspersions against the source, not an editor. And I do believe you are mistaken here. Furthermore your reasonable doubt seems to be that you doubt socialists can run a newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Now you're casting... something unsubstantiated. I'm actually a "socialist" myself -- albeit much more in the Bernie sense than the Corbyn sense. Based on your user page we agree on all but a couple things you listed in the userboxes. I do have quite reasonable doubts that a newspaper that has never repented for its known past ethical shortcomings can be relied on.--Calthinus (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Finlayson Article consensus

I couldn't see a clear consensus on the previous discussion and I am still unclear why this opinion piece, written by a Professor senior lecturer but not academic work as such, is included. There are no secondary sources discussing it and Finlayson is not notable herself (in the Wikipedia sense). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I went back over the discussion. Here is a summary of viewpoints. I have not listed all reasons for inclusion or exclusion.

For inclusion: ZScarpia (I assume as this user first pointed out the reference), burrobert, Simon223, Andromedean, RevertBob

Against inclusion: Winchester2313 (various reasons), Icewhiz (Finlayson should be balanced against the work of other academics. Also a few other reasons), BobFromBrockley (notability of Finlayson)

Neutral: Bod, Calthinus.

One argument was that if Finlayson is included so should other academics such as Deborah Lipstadt. This is a reasonable argument. However, it is not an argument to exclude Finlayson’s article but rather to include the work of other academics who have written on this topic. No edits referring to the work of Lipstadt or other academics were made.Burrobert (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to include this without balance - e.g. Lipstadt ([32][33]). WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include - and this has not been met. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Pedantic point: she is not a professor, but a senior lecturer (this is an article about a UK subject; professor has a more specific meaning in the UK than the US). Due weight is the key consideration here, to me. We could either bloat this article with opinion pieces pro and contra in order to leave Finlayson in in a way that gives it due weight, OR we should trim opinion pieces to the bone, leaving only those that receive secondary coverage (as Icewhiz says, Lipstadt did get secondary coverage). The latter approach seems more Wikipedian to me. Note also the previous talk item, and the removal of a non-noteworthy critical opinion piece: I think we need to be consistent either way and the removal of the non-noteworthy negative opinion piece makes it harder to sustain the inclusion of non-notable positive opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As regards secondary coverage, exactly the same as the section above - the article should not be a dumping ground for random opinion pieces if they are not otherwise notable. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Finlayson article fails wp:npov and as a pure opinion piece, also fails wp:balance and wp:rs. Neither hers, nor Lipstadt, nor any similar pieces can be included unless the piece has been quoted or republished in reliable secondary sources.Ben133 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it "fails npov"; if it's worth reporting her opinion we can report it in a neutral voice, it's just that, as you say, in the absence of secondary references it's hard to see why it's worth reporting. Likewise I don't think RS is relevant if it is Finlayson's opinions, rather than facts about Corbyn, that we are using the LRB piece to source, and I think the LRB would be an RS if the article was scholarly analysis of the issues here by a recognised authority on the topic under discussion, but again it's not clear why we would want to report Finlayson's opinions and her expertise is not relevant to the article. Lipstadt's comments, however, have been reported in other RSs, so presumably we can now include her. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the position that has developed on Finlayson, it is probably best to get some consensus for adding opinion pieces now Bob. Perhaps put forward a suggested wording and establish an RfC to test the mood. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)