Talk:Spiked (magazine)

Do we really need three different links to the magazine's website: I propose we delete the two that link to specific articles. They're there to be found by anyone who follow's the first. FrFintonStack 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users 64.103.37.70 and 82.70.48.54 have been removing the statement "who regard it as a right-wing, pro-corporate publication.", claiming it to be POV. It is not: the statement does not claim that the publication is right-wing or pro-corporate, simply that George Monbiot and his ilk claim it to be. That is verifiable fact, and can easily be referenced (from Spiked's own website if necessary). If any user wishes to point out that the magazine denies being right-wing or pro-corporate (if of course they do), they are free to add that, but I would ask that users acquaint themselves with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines and refrain from deleting NPOV statments of verifiable fact. I would like to thank 82.70.48.54 for removing the secondary links to the Sourcewatcch website: I would have done it myself if I had noticed.

User 64.103.37.70 has also, on occasion, replaced the sentence with "who regard its robust defence of science and the ideals of the Enlightenment; its anti-imperialist politics and its pro-freedom agenda; as making it a right-wing pro-corporate agenda publication." That is blatant POV. FrFintonStack 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this discussion and been somewhat puzzled by the political slant. I've therefore attempted to clarify and add balance to this article, which is after all an encyclopedia entry and not a channel to wage one-sided attacks on the magazine. Mr Monbiot is of course entitled to his POV, and he repeats it as often as the British Press pay him. I'm not so sure that this is the right channel to hear it yet again as Wikipedia is not Mr Monbiot's personal soapbox, but obviously Mr Finton feels it appropriate to voice it once more, so why not amuse his lack of credidible judgement and let it stand?

Ho hum, yet another unsigned edit (20:33, 12 August 2006 Peterthepedant), though at least by a registered user this time. I see no political slant, and certainly no one-sided attack on the magazine. I have no intention of making this article a soapbox for George Monbiot, but nor do I have any intentioin of letting it become a soapbox for the magazine. As I have explained in detail, the article merely states that George Monbiot has made particular claims about the magazine, which is an issue of verifiable fact. It does not endorse that position. You are right in saying that this is an encyclopaedia: encyclopaedia deal with verifiable facts of note. That George Monbiot alleged that Spiked is right-wing and pro-corporate is a fact. That he is famous and a writer of note is a fact (that does not necessarily mean that he is a good writer, or that what he says is true), and that the article in question was published in a mass-circulation newspaper that is generally regarded as credible is a fact. That he made the allegation (not necessarily that the allegation is true) is therefore a fact of note, and therefore warrants inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. As I have pointed out, anyone is free to add a referenced rebuttal or denial: I didn't because I could not find a direct example on the magazine's website.

I also find it interesting that you note that "Mr Monbiot is of course entitled to his POV, and he repeats it as often as the British Press pay him", when you will find no more a consistant critic of those who criticise writers or institutions on the basis of their source of funding, rather than the content of their arguments, than Spiked (as they make clear in the link you added to the main article).

Finally, I find your claim that you have merely "attempted to clarify and add balance to this article" somewhat hard to swallow when much of what you added was deeply contentious and unreferenced, or was referenced to partisan and dubious sources (and here I will anticipate criticism of the references of criticism for Spiked; there, the links were added only to illustrate that such criticism had been made (the credibility of those making the criticism thus being irrelevant) while in your edit, they were used to 'confirm' particular accounts of disputed events, making their credibility paramount), including truefacts.com, the sort of crazed conspiracy-theory publication Spiked openly derides, and a personal blog (not far behind on the conspiracy theories) that simply repeats Novo's claims verbatum. Only virtual-security.net is in anyway credible. Feel free to add them to the 'links' section though. And at any rate, detailed discussion of the libel case belong on the Living Marxism page.FrFintonStack 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article looks now like one of Monbiot's lurid conspiracy theories - 1 of his articles is even linked twice! There's very little here about Spiked itself, just a weird collection of junk-journo links...