 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Morning Star as a source
editI've removed the use of "far-right" attributed to the Morning Star. They are absolutely on the hard right of the Tory party, but they are not "far-right" in the usual sense of the term in British politics: see Far-right politics in the United Kingdom for what that means. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Morning_Star for the consensus of the Morning Star as a source on political matters. — The Anome (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the reference again, with its cite. The Morning Star is not a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense) on political matters. From the policy page, quote: "There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed." The well-known partisan nature of the Morning Star's political reporting rules it out from being considered a WP:RS in this context. If you want to characterise this group as far-right, you will need to find a WP:RS that actually says that. — The Anome (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Monito rapido: you have cited a one-man personal blog (which bills itself aa "a left-wing political comment site, entirely owned and run by Mike Sivier") as a source, which is insufficient to support this claim in this context. Please see the reliable sources policy for what is and is not a reliable source. See WP:BLOG for more on this. If you disagree with this, please discuss this on the talk page rather than re-instating the text without an adequate cite. — The Anome (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know you're right about that. But Morning Star medium is not prohibited to use. It only has a minor warning but it can be used. Monito rapido (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Likely it should only be used here (if at all) in a context where the claim is being in-line attributed to them, not repeated in 'wikivoice' as an editorial statement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is indeed OK to cite the Morning Star in some contexts, but this is not one of them. The consensus seems to be that the Morning Star is not a known reliable source in the field of politics; and even when you cite it, that it should be acknowledged inline as something like "According to the Morning Star, X is Y". — The Anome (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Far-right
editThe following discussion 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.
User:Czello you have me tired. It's exactly the same, I brought you sources that say so, what more do you want? The truth is I don't know why you say that they are not synonyms, it is something OBVIOUS. I gave you sources, you can't ignore it. Monito rapido (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is at all obvious and has been discussed previously on the project. Ultimately if a source says they're hard-right we should say "they've been described as hard-right". Extrapolating and putting them in the same extreme as fascism isn't neutral. — Czello (music) 15:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)