Talk:Spiked (magazine)

George Monbiot's opinions are definitive?

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)

Political Orientation – change to the lead 10/03/21

@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)

Version painstakingly arrived at via talk above is better than this amendment. I don't see what has changed since the Autumn. If there are new sources to consider we can reconsider. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC) PS of course good to have more views: not many participants in the discussion above! BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with everything Bob said. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your preferred version of the article states "the majority of specialist academic sources" say one thing, while "some non-specialist sources" say another. There are six sources listed. The Daily Beast, The Times, The New Statesman, Policy & Internet (academic journal), and The New Criterion (Literary magazine). So, which ones, precisely, qualify as "the majority of specialist academic sources"? And who identifies them as such ("the majority")? And what do they say, exactly? - TomReagan90 (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to re-write what the sources say, and then insert your interpretations in the lede. Quote the sources or don't. Don't misquote them. This is not a matter of "consensus", but plain Wiki policy (not to mention basic ethics). If you want to say something about the article topic, you're free to publish it on your own Blog or Facebook page. You are not free to synthesize multiple sources together, categorize them, and the assign statements to them which are not found in ANY of said sources. TomReagan90 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: You should not change the wording of the lead without agreement.

(1) The wording of the lead regarding political orientation is a summary of the position on the sources.

(2) re the addition on Claire Fox: I don’t have access to the source. Please provide a quote which supports your amendment.

(3) I have no objection to the removal of the inf about the Koch brothers from the lead, since this is now quite old news. I haven’t found anything saying that the Koch brothers have been providing funding since the article in the Guardian, and I was considering removing this from the lead myself. What do other editors think about this? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) No, not if it goes against Wiki policy

(2) It's already in the article - simply taken from the body of the article. I'm not obliged to give you access to the source. And I actually don't think, upon reflection, that it does belong in the lede.

(3) The very same source referred to above, quotes Fox as saying she has not received any funding from the Koch brothers. Anyway, regardless, it's s trivial matter and does not belong in the lede. TomReagan90 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would be fine with simply stating "academic sources" state one thing and "non-specialist sources" state something else. That reflects the sourcing in the article at 100%, while ostentatiously avoiding SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) (a)Re Newimpartial’s suggestion that the wording could be that “academic sources”” say one thing and “non-specialist” sources say something else: this would read as if all academic sources say ‘right-wing’ and all nonacademic sources say ‘left wing’, and this is not the case. It would be better to say ‘some’ academic sources and ‘some’ non-specialist sources.

(b) I don’t understand why TomReagan90’s version includes the word ‘now’. Please explain. Also, it doesn’t make sense to me to say that there is agreement that Spiked is left-libertarian or right libertarian – this is disagreement.

(2) Is TomReagan90 now saying that he no longer wants the comment about Claire Fox in the lead? I would be happy with that.

(3) As I said above, I would prefer that the inf about the funding from the Koch brothers was not in the lead, as it does not seem to me to be relevant to the present operation of Spiked. Also, I would prefer that the wording in the body was changed to ‘A joint investigation between DeSmog UK and The Guardian revealed that Spiked US Inc. received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation between 2016 and 2018 to develop live campus events connected with the Toleration and Free Speech Programme sponsored by the Charles Koch Foundation.’ i.e. a combination of the current wording in the lead with the current wording in the body. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:59, 14 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)

There are only two academic sources given: the authors of the article in Policy & Internet, and Prof. Jean Burgess. One puts them on the right, the other the left. So where on earth did you get the notion that "that all specialist academic sources agree with right-libertarian", having seen only one? TomReagan90 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the previous Talk page discussion. Other scholars in the field, such as White at al., and Winter and Mondon , also support the "right libertarian" characterization. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Then quote them. What's the big hold up? You are familiar with what Wikipedia is, right? It's pretty simple. Referring to and quoting reliable, authoritative sources for contested information (not to mention designations and political labels)? If such sources exist, you are aware of them, and they contain your wording, then why aren't you including them in the article? Weird. TomReagan90 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you do not have the patience required to read the previous Talk page discussion, you may not be suited by temperament to work in a collaborative environment. Just sayin'. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read it. No sources say what you claim they say. If you do not have the self-discipline to follow Wiki policy, you may not be suited to a project dedicated to creating a free, neutral, objective, non-biased encyclopedia. It requires maintaining a NPOV and not engaging in OR and SYNTH. Just sayin'. Now, I'm still waiting for your quotes... why are you filibustering? TomReagan90 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

All of the following characterizations by academics were pointed out in the previous discussion:

Evan Smith, author of the academic, book length treatment No Platform: Infamous for its right-libertarian and iconoclastic style, Spiked has gained notoriety...

From Winter and Mondon, writing for the Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Racisms: Brendan O'Neill, the editor of the far-right libertarian Spiked!

From White, et al., writing for The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society: ‘Spiked’ have emerged as central conduits channeling the thinking of US libertarian right think tanks into the UK media.

From Freya Higgins-Desbiolles (peer-reviewed article), Spiked is an online journal that has an association with a particular voice in politics (whether libertarian or “right-wing” as attested to by Koch funding).

Qualified academic specialists in the field - essentially all of them - accurately reflect the right libertarian orientation of Spiked. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you. First of all, you've only found one peer-reviewed article, written by Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, a Senior Lectuer on South Australian business, tourism, and Adjunct Associate Professor at Department of Recreation and Leisure. "specialist source" indeed! LOL! But most importantly, it's still OR and Synth. There is nothing in any of these rather paltry sources you've provided, that say anything close to wordg "the majority of specialist academic sources identifying it as right-libertarian." The SAGE Handbook of Environment and Society is also clearly not a "specialist academic in the field" (what field?). So, where back where we started. You have one "specialist academic source" saying they are right-wing libertarians, and one that says they're are left-wing libertarians. You need to be more discerning in selection your sources. You have nothing on which to base the assertion of "Qualified academic specialists in the field - essentially all of them - accurately reflect the right libertarian orientation of Spiked. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Continuing the debate

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)

The views on the political orientation of Spiked are not a ‘fringe theory’. They are not a theory, and they are not fringe. You seem to have misunderstood WP:FRINGE, which includes: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.

Also, you have given no justification as to why views which you disagree with are to be considered ‘fringe’. You refer to ‘all serious analyses’ without saying why analysis which conforms to your views is more serious than analysis which you disagree with.

Your edit is against the consensus on this wording, and you have not provided any reason why the consensus should be overruled. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:FRINGE. A "theory" in the terms of this policy means any statement of opinion on a subject. "The nazis were left-wing" is a theory. There are only two brief mentions which associate spiked with the idea of left-libertarianism, they are in non-academic or non-specialist publications. A wide range of sources linked already to the article state spiked is "right-libertarian" or simply "libertarian" (meaning "right-libertarian"). See the comments by NewImpartial and BobfromBrockley above Boynamedsue (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:No, a ‘theory’ is not a statement of opinion. You are mistaken about the meaning of the guideline. You are also mistaken about the meaning of ‘libertarian’ – it does not mean ‘right-libertarian’. (For instance, Brendan O'Neill, who was until recently the editor of Spiked, and is now its chief political writer, describes himself as a Libertarian Marxist.) And if you read the comments above, you will find that they support the current wording. That is why the wording is as it is, and not how TomReagan90 wished it to be. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

When used in English, libertarian now almost universally signals a right-libertarian. However this is of no importance here because the exact wording we are debating "left-libertarian" which appears in exactly two sources, therefore to put it in the lead is to give undue weight to these fringe opinions held by non-specialists. That declaring himself a "Libertarian Marxist" would make O'Neill a "left-libertarian" is your subjective opinion of O'Neill's subjective opinion. To expand that self-definition to cover the magazine he edits is a further massive leap. You need better sources, the current ones are poor. The reference to other users was to draw your attention to the disparity of sources which is clearly displayed by their comments. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

1) No, ‘libertarian’ means ‘libertarian’, not ‘right-libertarian’. It is just your opinion that someone who is libertarian must be right-wing (as if all left-wingers are authoritarian?!).

2) Re Brendan O’Neill: I was just giving you an example of someone who says that he is a Libertarian Marxist. Marxism is generally regarded as a left-wing ideology. Someone who regards himself as a Libertarian Marxist must consider himself to be left wing as well as libertarian. I have not used that as a reason for saying that sources describe the magazine as left libertarian. (Though, of course, your edit summary saying there is nothing left-libertarian about spiked, neither they, their supporters nor their critics ever argue this was presumably made in ignorance of Mr O’Neill’s political stance.)

3) The current wording is the wording which was agreed after extensive discussion. I don’t know why you say that I need better sources. I am, in fact, not particularly impressed with any of the sources on Spiked’s political orientation, left or right. I would be happy to have no statement on its political orientation in the lead (though the current wording in the body should remain).

4) @Bobfrombrockley: ;@Newimpartial: Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

1) In modern English, libertarian without an adjective almost always means "right-libertarian", left-libertarians are usually referred to as "anarchists" or "anarcho-syndicalists" or "libertarian-socialists/communists". If you read the article on this very website, that the term has been coopted by right-libertarians is stated in the lede. I have made no comments on what my own political beliefs are, I'd kindly ask you not to assume them, I am merely commenting on current English usage.

2) In terms of O'Neill, if you have heard him recently describe himself as a left-libertarian, then that is a valid point. If he describes himself only as a "libertarian-marxist", then given the bizarre ideological contortions of the LM sect, the self-description as a "libertarian-marxist" is not even enough to state that O'Neill considers himself to be on the left.

3) I see there has been long discussion, but I am proposing a change. That many RS consider Spiked to be "right-libertarian" or "libertarian" is well-sourced, "left-libertarian" is badly sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

1a) Meaning of word ‘libertarian’: my dictionary (Oxford Concise) gives the primary meaning as ‘an advocate of liberty’. The Wikipedia article starts ‘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.

1b) I have made no comment about what I might think your political views are. I was commenting on the logical extension of your apparent expressed view that if you are a libertarian, you must be right-wing.

2) I gave Mr O’Neill as an example of a left-libertarian. I don’t think there is any fruitful discussion to be had on this, since this is not relevant to the question of the sources used for this article.

3) I can see no reason for a change from the current wording to your preferred wording, since you have not provided any arguments as to why some sources are to be preferred to others.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not sure this is going anywhere. If there is no input from other users over the next week or so, I am minded to put this up on second opinion, if you are amenable.

In terms of your points, I have never said that libertarian can not be applied to left-wingers, nor have I argued that left-libertarians do not exist. You have simply ascribed these views to me. What I am arguing is that in modern (post-1980) English the unmodified word "libertarian" is almost always (the exception being some anarchist authors) applied to pro-free market, pro-private property, anti-statist ideologies, and that all the citations on this page calling Spiked "libertarian" are using the word in that sense. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

A)Your interpretation of WP:THIRD is incorrect, there is no requirement that the matter be "simple". In this case, however, the matter is rather simple, how much weight should be given to the two valid, but non-specialist, sources which use the term "left-libertarian" to describe LM. Anyway, like I said, I will give it a week or so to see if anyone else comments, then ask you again.

B) I am British and in British English the term "libertarian" is generally used to describe ideologies relating to no or small states where a hyper-capitalistic mode of production is in place. It is not the same in other languages, however this is the case in modern British and American English, as shown by its primary definition Oxford lexico: 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.

C) This is why WP:THIRD exists.

As a compromise solution, would you be happy to remove the word "right-libertarian" from the lede and simply leave wording which indicates commentators describe it as having a "libertarian" ideology?

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Re your proposed compromise solution: presumably you are also intending that ‘left-libertarian’ should be removed from the lede, so that the sentence would read: There is general agreement that Spiked is libertarian. On this basis, and on the basis that the wording in the body would remain unaltered, I would accept this change.

Thank you for suggesting this compromise. However, I think we need to wait a while to see if there are any comments from other editors.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am but one editor, but it is my belief that readers gain more information from the current lede than the proposed change. Speaking from a Canadian context, "libertarian" does not (yet?) imply right-libertarian, and editing the article so that it is limited in how many readers, globally, will understand it as intended strikes me as a loss of value. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the proposal to remove both right-libertarian and left-libertarian from the lede or the proposal to remove just "left-libertarian"? I think in the second case all we lose is two inaccurate throwaway comments by non-experts which are explained in the article (probably WP:UNDUE, for them to even be there tbh) Boynamedsue (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

By 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)

I would also support the removal of "left-" from the lede if "right-libertarian" is retained as the current lede gives undue weight to two rather poor quality sources (in terms of the topic of this article) whose use of "left-libertarian" seems to be little more than an honest mistake on their part. I feel including it even in context is more or less WP:FRINGE, given the pretty clear right-libertarian viewpoints prevalent in Spiked. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no right-libertarian views in Spiked. But my view on this is as irrelevant as Boynamedsue’s -Wikipedia is not intended to mirror the views of its editors. There are sources which refer to Spiked as left-libertarian, and, as I have explained, these do not come under FRINGE. To ignore them would be to falsify the information in the article.

As I see it, the current ‘score’ is:

(i) Current wording: Supported by Newimpartial and by me (it is my preferred version). Opposed by Boynamedsue.

(ii) ‘Libertarian’ without any mention of left or right: Accepted by Boynamedsue and by me. Opposed by Newimpartial.

(iii) ‘Libertarian’ and only referring to ‘right-libertarian’: Supported by Boynamedsue and by Newimpartial. Opposed by me.

So, as I see it, all 3 versions have equal support and opposition. I think that, in these circumstances, the long-standing existing version should be retained.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting electoral system you've devised! There is no need to decide as yet, but I would suggest that the single option which has most support should be chosen. If most users' first choice is option (i), then that would be the consensus. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Procedurally, if there is no consensus for change we stick with the long-standing current one. I don't like the current version, because it gives too much prominence to two fairly non-due sources and because the specialist/non-specialist academic/non-academic distinctions don't really match the sources. Our lead should build on the relevant part of the body, which I think is pretty good (of course with room for improvement), and includes "libertarian", "populist", "anti-establishment", "right side of the political spectrum", "right-wing", "right-libertarian", "iconoclastic" and "left libertarian". I've started collecting other sources here and see terms such as "contrarian", "libertarian", "beyond left and right", "anti-environmentalist",[3] "extreme libertarian, anti-environmentalist",[4] "libertarian provocateurs"[5] "libertarian".[6] So I'd be reasonably happy with options (ii) or (iii) but might prefer something like (iv) "is variously described as libertarian, right-wing or contrarian" ("contrarian" seems to me an umbrella term including "iconoclastic", "anti-establishment", "provocateurs" too, I think). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bob, nice to see you. Something like (iv) would be fine by me too. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Re the possibility of (iv): I think that if we are to say in the lede ‘is variously described as…’ then I think we need to include all of the things they have been described as. This might make the sentence unwieldy, and make the lede too messy.

There is currently nothing in the body which describes Spiked as ‘contrarian’. I see the argument for saying that ‘contrarian’ has something in common with ‘iconoclastic’ ‘anti-establishment’ and ‘provocateurs’ but to me, ‘contrarian’ has its own meaning, something like ‘whatever the conventional view is, I disagree with it’, and I don’t think that this actually covers the other terms.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:23, 5 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)

If the Guardian source is referred to in the body, then I have no objection, as such, to ‘contrarian’ being used in the lede. I like the idea of including in the lede all the words which have been used to describe Spiked, but I am concerned that this would make the lede messy. But if we make a particular selection for the lede, then we are almost inevitably going to bias the lede one way or the other. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

1) I don't think we need to include all of the ways it's been described, just the main ones which crop up in RSs, following the principle of DUE WEIGHT. 2) You're right Sweet6979, the lead should follow the body so perhaps we should change the body first. At the moment, I don't think the lead is the best summary of the body yet anyway. 3) I'm not wedded to "contrarian" exactly, but the range of words that are used are "iconoclastic", "anti-establishment", "provocateurs", "contrarian" - we shouldn't include all of them but whichever one best acts as an umbrella for this cluster of term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re option (iv) – how about ‘is variously described as libertarian, right-libertarian, left-libertarian, right-wing, anti-establishment, contrarian’ ? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not support any wording proposal that simply lists "right-libertatian, left-libertarian" as though one of these is not preferred by most of the sources over the other.

Also, while we're spitballing, are there some sources for "populist", as well?Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also suggest that assigning more weight to the spurious mentions "left-libertarian" is exactly the opposite of what is required here. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing ‘spurious’ about the mention of ‘left-libertarian’, which is used by some sources. As regards weight: my proposal includes ‘right-libertarian’ and ‘right-wing’ i.e. it gives twice as much weight to ‘right’ as to ‘left’. This was my intention – to reflect the prevalence of ‘right’ and ‘left’ in the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Munira Mirza’s contributions to Spiked

@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)

Would just "contributor" work Sweet6970? I've taken this from Beckett in the Guardian, a secondary source, rather than done original research in the primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think just 'constributor' would work. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

done. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Libertarian?

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)

Brendan O’Neill describes himself as a Marxist Libertarian: being libertarian does not automatically mean you are right-wing. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, when describing the political stance of a person or organisation, we do not use the assessment of Wikipedia editors, we use what has been said in reliable sources. The present description of the stance of this magazine is based on the sources referenced in the article. If you think this should be changed, then please provide suitable sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition, why is there nothing about its largely anti-trans stance? Just go its web page and you'll find tons of pieces attacking transgender people, drag, and most other things LGBT. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be found (third-party ones; i.e. not from Spiked itself) calling Spiked anti-trans, transphobic, anti-LGBT, etc or similar then we could add it into the article using this sources as citations. Please see (WP:BEBOLD). If you feel like you might struggle to place this into the article with the necessary sources (or for whatever other reason can't or don't want to, or feel comfortable to do so etc) you could add the links to any reliable sources calling Spiked as such here and I or another editor may be able to integrate them into the article. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The truth is, it will mostly be all primary source content. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)