Talk:Ash Sarkar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018

Ash Sarkar does mot want the british anthem sung in schools https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0H-BykoktI 2A00:23C5:2E29:D000:3144:E53A:3778:9AF5 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Expansion in Political Views section

Hey, I'm going to be avoiding all the fun of New Years by reviewing Ash Sarkar's writing in The Guardian, The Independent, and Novara and expand the political views section of this page, which I think is very thin for this public figure. S1d6arrett23 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Sources:

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/10/past-boris-johnson-colonial-brexit-colony
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/period-poverty-housing-austerity-gender-pay-gap-international-womens-day — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Views: Labour Party Membership

Sarkar states she has applied for Labour Party Membership and is awaiting her membership card (December 17th 2019)

This means an edit may be required to the political views section which currently states "although she is not a Labour Party Member, [...]"

In order to instead state words to the effect of "despite only recently becoming a Labour Party Member [...]"

Further citation may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliss Winters (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

change

Although she is not a Labour Party member,

to

Although she only became a Labour party member during the UK General Election campaign in late 2019, Jhspink (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 04:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Please note the edit restrictions applicable to content relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Resume

@TomReagan90: Can you clarify which elements of the article you think make it read like a resume? Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Which elements of the article do you not think are resume-like? Aside from the obligatory list of media mentions in the "Political views and reception" section, what establishes her notability? She is only mentioned in reliable, secondary sources with regards to calling Piers Morgan and "idiot" and herself a "communist" on a UK morning breakfast show. Lines like "Sarkar is a contributor to The Guardian[3] and The Independent.[4]" (mentioned twice, by the way), do not belong in an encyclopedia. And how on earth does "In 2017, she taught Global Politics at Anglia Ruskin University as an associate lecturer" belong in the second line of an encyclopedia article?! This is a perfect example of recentism. If it wasn't for YouTube, no one in the world would know who this person is. The Guardian and The Independent have literally thousands of contributors, every year. They don't all merit encyclopedia articles. This is a rubbish, tabloidy approach to "notability". Consider the fact that there is a roughly equal amount of content on this person as there is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blair_(journalist) TomReagan90 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: If you don't think the subject is notable then please feel free to take the article to Articles for deletion. As for the article content, noting the places that journalists publish is very standard practice for articles on journalists, I don't see how writing that she has published in The Guardian and The Independent is an issue. If you think the lecturer sentence should be elsewhere in the article, I suggest you move it to the location you think it should belong, I don't have strong feelings about that. It seems like you only have a couple of minor issues about the content of the article, and more that you don't think there should be an article at all. Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of reliance on her own writing, but looking through the references list, I see pieces about her (not mere mentions, mind) in The Times, Teen Vogue and, The Guardian. Those alone satisfy WP:GNG. You can't say "except for all the things that make her notable, what makes her notable?" and expect to be taken seriously. Notoriety can be a form of notability. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone is 'notable for their notoriety' then the article needs to include the reasons for this notoriety, such as well-sourced 'outrageous' statements. There seems to be reluctance to include some of these 'outrageous' statements as though that is in some way defamatory. Later finessing of an 'outrageous' statement should not invalidate its inclusion. However I think the balance looks about right in the current version (?) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

The Nationality section says she's British. But Ash Sarkar does not consider herself British. https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/928213283609378817 82.46.107.154 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

She says a lot of stuff to provoke. And anyway, people are not always reliable sources of information about themselves

Reverted Edit

Why was my edit reverted? Ash is and has stated that she is a communist so I think that should be mentioned in the intro rather than merely stating she is "left-wing". Mobslayerno1 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As a plain label I think it was misleading and a WP:BLP violation, I've added her comments on her communism to the lead. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

As it's been inserted verbatim three times now (by two users) can there be some kind of final word on whether her coronavirus diagnosis is notable? No user has provided anything more than a tweet, which is a primary source. Not to play down this health crisis, but in a 28-year-old it's unlikely to cause complications, and thankfully we have no sources saying she was sent to hospital or disabled for life. I would like anyone who really really wants this to be in the article to make their case, else it's just going to be a slow boiling edit war for all eternity Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Political views, controversies and reception"

I'm not sure if a joke comment about wanting a grime song to be the national anthem is notable or even applicable under the title of the section. It's not an actual view, and as it's a joke it's not even controversial, even if it made an infotainment presenter "apoplectic with rage". Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am responsible for the Piers Morgan sentence. Originally the sentence said: “In January 2018, Sarkar suggested to Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell that the British national anthem be changed to a "grime banger" such as "Wearing My Rolex". This version doesn’t point out it is a joke or the reason it was mentioned in the source. I expanded it to give context. It is fairly trivial but it may amuse our readers which is what we are here for. I don’t think the encyclopaedia would suffer if it was removed. Burrobert (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Muslim?

Any evidence that Sarkar is a practicing Muslim? We currently place here in the category Category:British Muslims. She appears to be a middle-class liberal, who [redacted] (both inherently un-Islamic things). Having Bangladeshi parents and being a practicing Muslim is not the same thing. Ishbiliyya (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ishbiliyya, "bougie" for "bourgeois" is new to me--thanks for that, but what you just said is against the WP:BLP. I strongly suggest you stop smearing living people here or your career on Wikipedia might run into a block or a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as nothere. If she says she's a Muslim, we accept that. If reliable sources discuss it, we might use them. But editors can't make such decisions. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

She’s said numerous times she’s not a practising Muslim.....

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:1D64:5EE0:2608:7FE2 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

Ash Sarkar is a far-left activist and writer. 'Far-left- should be added to her descriptor.

https://twitter.com/peoplesmomentum/status/989528584170758144?lang=en https://www.indy100.com/article/ash-sarkar-question-time-bbc-austerity-ed-davey-fiona-bruce-watch-video-9113101

There should also be an acknowledgement that she is considered anti-Semitic by many, including people on the left. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/03/bbc-accused-insulting-jews-employing-corbyn-cheerleader-rise/ https://antisemitism.uk/bbc-features-defender-of-warsaw-ghetto-vandal-as-expert-in-programme-on-rise-of-the-nazis/ https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/simon-schama-rachel-riley-protest-bbc-decision-to-include-ash-sarkar-in-rise-of-nazis-series-1.488168 2A00:23C4:4B8C:3E00:7042:4511:F0E3:E233 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No, she opposes Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. That is not antisemitic. Jontel (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Such descriptions need much more attribution than they currently have. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

“ No, she opposes Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. That is not antisemitic”.......That’s POV. I think it’s fair to say the majority of people consider her antisemitic. I mean, she supported the vandalism of historic Jewish ghettos 2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:1D64:5EE0:2608:7FE2 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because:

• she has received coverage in notable news sources such as The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The New Statesman and Vice - see references.
• she holds a senior position at Novara Media.

--Burrobert (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Her boss at Novaro media doesn’t even have an article. And Novaro media is basically just a blog

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:1D64:5EE0:2608:7FE2 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

only notable for her notoriety

As far as I can tell, Ash isn’t a public figure (working for a fringe/small media company, seems to be the highlight of her career), and she’s only ever in the news for controversy. So, you have two options, in my opinion:

1: delete the article, because she’s not famous enough 2: or start including the notoriety/controversies in the article.

Because at the minute, it just reads like a CV/resume, for someone who really hasn’t achieved anything of note. Novaro Media is a tiny/fringe company, and Guardian/Independent have literally thousands of contributors.

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:1D64:5EE0:2608:7FE2 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (ash sarkar is not a fringe figure, she is a well known journalist who has appeared on tv many times. she is perhaps not known outside of the UK, but she is well known in British politics) --80.5.20.98 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've removed the CSD tag as there is a clearly credible claim of significance e.g. She is a contributor to The Guardian. CSD is a very low bar so you could nominate the article for deletion instead at WP:AFD if you feel notability is not met, though I am almost certain that it would end as "keep". You say she's only ever in the news for controversy. Well that's rather the point, isn't it? If she's in the news then that counts towards notability. Whether this is for "good" things or "bad" things or "controversial" things is immaterial—notability is not a moral judgement. If you think the article can be improved, please do so. You can use the sources in the article at present as a start, and introduce more reliable sources that you find.

You also say Probably created page herself,for publicity, which is a strange claim as you can quite easily navigate the page history to discover that the page was created by Jwslubbock, a long-term onymous contributor who has created many biographies and is most certainly not Ash Sarkar. — Bilorv (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv - I notice you are taking a particular personal interest in protecting this page, because you also just deleted/vandalised the sentence I added about antisemtism. This was an article by David Baddiel (a significant public figure, and person of national cultural importance) accusing Ash of antisemitism - I don’t know how you can’t consider it an appropriate source......

But, regarding this topic, being one of 2000 contributors that the Guardian use (half of which are amateur journalists) does not make you a public figure. I mean, Aron Bastani, the chief of Navaro media doesn’t even have an article. Ash is several levels below him

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:1D64:5EE0:2608:7FE2 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You made some edits during the time I tried to revert, so the source you had cited at the time was Ash Sarkar in The Guardian, hence my edit summary: negative material about a living person not included in the source material (WP:PRIMARY: interpretation of a primary source needs a secondary source. The new source you added still lists Sarkar as the author (rather than Baddiel) so I'm sure you can understand the confusion. You say that the article is accusing Ash of antisemitism — can you quote to me the specific passage that verifies the statements you make: however, she has also been accused of being a promoter of anti-Semitic tropes. In particular, she has been criticised for her claims that anti-semitism isn’t racism, and that Jewish people are too historically privileged to be considered to be victims? I can't find any of this in the source. What I see instead is: Freeman’s response to Sarkar was that the “any other minority” referred to the failure of the anti-racist left to treat Jews like any other minority. [...] when Jews like Baddiel talk about the antisemitism they both see and have experienced, it complicates any simple understanding of what privilege is. He takes Sarkar to task for a tweet in which she claims most Jews no longer experience “material dispossession.” etc. Perhaps instead you'd like to include some of this content? Notice also that it's never right to say "she has been criticised for" rather than "she has been criticised for ... by [persons X, Y and Z]", so that readers understand where the criticism comes from and what weight to give it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability

A notability tag has been placed on this page. Sarkar's notability has been briefly mentioned in another talk page topic. I count sixteen non-primary articles (i.e. not written by Sarkar) that have been cited in her bio. The articles appear in the Murdoch Times, The Guardian, Jewish Chronicle, The Independent, The Irish News, The Financial Times, The Spectator, the New Statesman, the Sunday Times, Vice, Times of Israel, Teen Vogue and Dazed. It seems like a fair coverage. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this page has a history of having notability tags added by IPs. There's coverage of Sarkar from a pretty extensive list of independent reliable sources, as you've shown. She pretty firmly passes notability guidelines, I'm curious to hear if anybody makes an argument against her notability. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

She passes notability completely and easily. I wonder if this is a sustained attack by one person or some off-wiki canvassing somehow. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You realize if we included everyone with such a bog standard list of by-lines, we'd have literally tens of thousands of journalists/activists/talking heads like this. Encyclopedic? TomReagan90 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

-The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

-The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

-The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

-The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

TomReagan90 (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

we'd have literally tens of thousands of journalists/activists/talking heads like this – Don't we? We've got 6.3 million articles, and I've created over 100. Having 1 in 600 articles about journalists, activists or public figures doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Either way, the only way to dispute a notability tag is to take this to AFD. If you do so, I can guarantee the article will be kept, but if you want to waste your time then do so. — Bilorv (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There are millions of journalists in the world (an estimated 80,000+ in the UK alone). and millions more activists. With a little effort, you could get as many by-lines as Ash :::Sarkar, in a matter of months.

Regardless, WikiPolicy is all that matters:

1. Is she widely cited by peers or successors? No. She's not cited once in any academic literature, or as an authority on any significant topic in any mainstream news :::outlet.

2. Has she originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique? No.

3. Has she created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work? No.

4. Has her work/s: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented :::within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No.

There is no debate to be had.

Wikipedia is not a summary of everything that's ever been published in English print and online media. It's an encyclopedia.

TomReagan90 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not Sarkar meets WP:AUTHOR is irrelevant because she passes our basic criteria for biographies and the general notability guideline. By a mile. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Just saying something doesn't make it true. I've quoted the policy above. TomReagan90 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:BASIC: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [including WP:JOURNALIST]. – Joe (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you quote the whole policy?

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each ::::::::other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a ::::::::subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall ::::::::under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. TomReagan90 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would I? It's there for anyone to read. But yes, those are the criteria that Sarkar meets. You seem to be labouring under the bizarre (or feigned?) assumption that the text of well-known policies will be a surprise to editors with years of experience. They're not; we've read them, and it'd be a good idea if you read them too – before you cite them. – Joe (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The tag is not actionable, TomReagan90. Your edits are in violation of Template:Notability#Removing this tag: The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Your first edit was edit warring because the tag had already been added and removed twice. Your second edit was edit warring because the tag had already been added and removed three times. See my comment above. You can waste your time further by nominating for deletion, or you can drop this matter. Edit warring further will lead to sanctions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So essentially any edits that you disagree with, are edit warring, and all those previous edits are attributed to me. I made one edit before you accused me of edit warring. Make sense? TomReagan90 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconding Bilorv, please quit edit warring over the tag. If you don't think Ash is notable then nominate the article for deletion so it can get speedy kept and we can move on. Sam Walton (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I fear this is an example of a WP:BEANS situation. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, taking it to AFD when someone edit wars over {{Notability}} is right because they will never take your word for it and when the obvious conclusion obviously happens the matter will get dropped. You tell someone what will happen, they do it anyway, that outcome happens, and then they stop edit warring (even though they still think that every single participant was wrong and they were right). This isn't my first rodeo. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And I gather not the first time you've been wrong. TomReagan90 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOB

Is the tweet from 2020 currently being used to source her birth date enough to avoid violating WP:DOB? This date is not widely known or published, nor is it available on a library authority control service or similar. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it's not, though I'm more conservative than most on this topic. Tweeting about your birthday can't reasonably be taken as consent that you want your exact date of birth listed for eternity on your first search engine result. Additionally, people joke on Twitter, they post the day before/after their birthday or a few days after it when they celebrate with friends etc. You'd be surprised (or, well, the people who add such shoddily sourced DOBs would be surprised) how many times I've encountered a public figure saying or writing their birthdate and it turning out to contradict other primary source information. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed accordingly, along with some other dubious claims. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Tweeting about your birthday can't reasonably be taken as consent that you want your exact date of birth listed for eternity on your first search engine result." Publishing stuff on Twitter makes the information public. It may be a stupid thing to do, and people may regret it later, but the role of Wikipedia is to spread information, and not to protect people from their mistakes.GeraintfromNSW (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the role of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia. That explicitly excludes the indiscriminate dissemination of information. We're not here to dox people and we have a policy on biographies of living people which says that dates of births should only be included if they are "widely published by reliable sources", which isn't a single tweet. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if we accept that "New outfit, birthday brat in full effect." must mean that her birthday was on the date of the post, there's no year anyway, unless I missed it. So what good is it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking at a different (but related) tweet—there's one with a photo that says "28 today". — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking below that. Then I say, per the power of the blue checkmark and WP:ABOUTSELF, that we can use that to include DOB in the article, but nothing says we have to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist?

Young Ash herself describes her relative as a 'terrorist' in The Guardian article sourced at 4 here, so this should surely be in the main article, not watered down to the euphemistic 'participated in armed struggle'. So the following needs to change: "Her great-great-aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, was a Bengali nationalist who participated in armed struggle against the British Empire in 1930s Bengal.[4] ".

Let's be 100% impartial and fair here.86.140.62.50 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the full text by Sarkar [1], which goes on to further explain the term, and the Pritilata Waddedar article, and I think the neutral point of view policy supports the current language. The WP:WIKIVOICE section of the policy cautions against 'stating an opinion as fact' in Wikipedia's voice, and it would also likely create undue weight in this article to explain the necessary context of Sarkar's opinion. The current language, with the link to the opinion piece and Wikipedia article about her relative therefore seems appropriate per policy. Beccaynr (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, seems reasonable. Looks like she was being ironic or something like that in using the term 'terrorist' as quoted in the article. This could be to do with the eternal argument over the use of the term 'terrorist' vs 'freedom fighter' etc etc. 86.140.62.50 (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Umm, isn't 'libertarian communist' an oxymoron?

No sources for it either.--Phil of rel (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not an oxymoron. Perhaps you're only familiar with "libertarianism" as right-libertarianism, but libertarianism as an ideology valuing autonomy and opposing hierarchical power is consistent with the stateless, classless society described by communism. (As communism is about the abolition of many power relations, the term "libertarian communist" is closer to redundancy than to oxymoron.) As always, sources aren't needed (except for quotes) in the lead but can be found under the information's repetition in the body, where you'll find The Guardian referenced. — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No comment on whether it's an oxymoron but the sources are not good. The Guardian article above is an interview and does not expressly call her a libertarian communist.[2] and [3] sort of do, but only in scare quotes. I support removing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would it being in quotes make it any less reliable? It's just saying that's what she self-describes as, which is what most of the sources for simply "communist" base it off it too. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not less reliable, but IMO doesn't go to the level of WP:ABOUTSELF. I read the scare quotes as expressing doubt that the term is even valid, not an attribution to Sarkar. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But if all you're worried about is that the term is valid then take a look at libertarian communism. ... the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines. I can assure you that it's a widely used technical term, accepted within political philosophy since before any of us were born. — Bilorv (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In The Guardian on 2018, she says, "Lots of us have been plugging away, building a platform to talk about libertarian communism and post-scarcity economics. I never expected it to have a cultural moment like this", and "my communism isn’t about authoritarian bureaucracy, suppressing freedom or everyone wearing burlap sacks. It’s about the desire to see the coercive structures of state dismantled, while also having fun." Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Fairly interpreted as "libertarian communist", I suppose, but calling her that based off those quotes alone would be WP:OR. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - 'We're building a platform to talk about X' doesn't necessarily mean anything. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the article, the Political views section begins, "In her writings and commentary, Sarkar has expressed anti-imperialist,[4] feminist,[18] anti-fascist,[6] and libertarian communist[7] views." I've conducted some additional research but not found further support per MOS:LEAD, which from my view, requires more substantial, current, and clear sourcing than is currently available to include "libertarian communist" in the lead, so I agree about removing it from the lead until better sourcing is found. Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

We can at least say "communist"—who here is disputing that "I'm literally a communist" (The Guardian) is a self-identification that she is a communist? Here's Teen Vogue calling her a communist in the publication's own words if you're worried about using self-description (though I can't say people generally call themselves "communist" when they're not to curry favour). — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So are we going with "communist" only? Personally I'd prefer … British journalist and political activist, as "communist" may tend to obfuscate the subtleties involved in the Fully Automated Luxury Communism–type "communism" that Sarkar & co at Novara are for. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If we say "activist", we should say what she's an activist for. I don't think "(libertarian) communist" is a misrepresentation of what Sarkar advocates, and any confusion is a confusion we cannot really help of most people not understanding what communism is and isn't (cf Why Marx Was Right, which I recently wrote, wherein the author argues everything you think you know about Marxism is wrong). Communism predates Marx and is as diverse a breadth of thought as capitalism. I think "libertarian communist" is completely appropriate, but I would accept "communist" as a compromise. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

References

​​​​​​I have a different concern related to using this term, especially so prominently and heavily. I don't think it’s an oxymoron and that it is a legitimate term and ideology. However, the link for libertarian communism redirects to anarcho-communism. Has she ever been referred to by any reliable sources or referred to herself as an anarcho-communist? Writers or a self-description using the term libertarian communist may not necessarily mean or think of themselves or this person as the same as being anarcho-communist. Perhaps we should include the term with no internal link to a Wikipedia page that redirects to a differently named term. I don't think these two terms are necessarily equated as the same universally or by a lot of people, potentially including political scientists. I.e., she or those describing her as this may not think of her - or she may not think of herself - as an anarchist or a type of anarchist. Basically I just want to be sure we are careful with the labels we use, per WP:BLP. All thoughts are welcome and would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There's her words "I'm an anarchist, dickhead" (2016), and her current Twitter bio including "Anarcho-fabulous". Usually I'm loathe to use such weak evidence, as "what someone Tweeted once" has shown time and time again in my experience on Wikipedia to be contradictory or lacking nuance, but given the Tweets and the reliable sources saying "libertarian communist", I'd want to see some evidence that she is not comfortable with the label "anarchist" if we were looking to exclude the link or the term. — Bilorv (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Political views

This section is very messy, there is a lot of kind of useless information here, for example one of her 'political views' is some offhand comment that Wileys Wearing My Rolex is better than the national anthem, along with other silly little trivia queston-esque 'factsicles' which it reads like a dumping ground for. it is also formatted in a way to be a list where I believe a short concise paragraph even a fifth of the size of the current section would be preferable to the mess we currently have here. Having said that I did not want to just go ahead and radically change this section and delete a lot without input and consultation, if anyone has any ideas or thoughts. Thanks. SP00KYtalk 14:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to this - I boldly changed the section title to "Writings and commentary", which seems to be a more neutral and complete description of the section contents. I think a more expansive section title can help avoid trying to make determinations about what can be considered "political views" and allows this article to maintain reliably-sourced content relevant to her career. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles

Hi Seaweed, per WP:NOTEWORTHY, The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. You have recently removed significant context and content from the article, including e.g. [4] with the edit summary "Removed non-notable information". This does not appear to be an adequate reason to remove content - however, if it is unsourced, that is a reason, although I would hope there would be some attempt to verify the content before removal.

As to this substantial removal of content [5], the edit summary is "Removed non-notable details". This both partially reverts my restoration of sourced content [6] you had previously removed [7] and further removes sourced content, from the Writings and commentary section. These are secondary sources reporting on Sarkar, so these seem pertinent to this section.

According to the guideline, I encourage you to restore the content about her writings and commentary that is sourced to secondary sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't quite work out now all the changes I made, but the spirit and aim of my edits were all to help readability and clarity. In particular, I think direct quotes can make an article too long for the general reader. The sentiment of the reference can be written in words and the reader can choose to read the external news references if they want for the full detail. I think also sometimes a single quote/event can be given undue prominence in a biographical article just because one news website chooses to mention it. Seaweed (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Text-source integrity

Hi Seaweed, I am also concerned about this edit [8], with the edit summary "Simplify 2019 election", because the edit appears to remove sourced context and break up the text-source integrity in a way that may create WP:SYNTH that is not supported by any source. There is also removal of what appears to be sourced, pertinent content and context that appear to convey information more clearly. I encourage you to undo this edit so the content and context is available directly from the sources. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit was again just for brevity and trying to keep things concise. Ash Sarkar wasn't a candidate in the election and activities were support/opinion of the Labour Party. Moreover, her activities don't appear to have been highly influential or notable to justify such detail in this article. Readers can choose to read the news articles if they want.Seaweed (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Beccaynr has created three sub-sections over this but for the record: when I saw the changes to the article in my watchlist I took a few minutes to review them. I was midway through a partial revert, re-adding the content Sarkar uses humour and London slang liberally in her writing and broadcasting. She says politics "should be joyful and exuberant", when I realised that only the quote was verified by the citation and this quote is insubstantial. (It would be different if we had enough sources to get a full paragraph on writing/speaking style, which would be encyclopedic.) The other changes appeared to be improvements to me. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I opened three sections to try to organize the discussion - I have seen talk page discussions elsewhere get muddled when multiple issues are addressed at once, so my thought was it could be efficient to clarify (and then close) various aspects individually. Beccaynr (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)