Talk:Spiked (magazine)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2006 comments

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)

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 Thright-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)

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)

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...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterthepedant (talk • contribs) .

You seem to have some sort of personal grevience against George Monbiot, or believe that any statement he makes can be dismissed simply because of his authorship. Spiked's refutation is also linked twice, and it's not just Monbiot who makes such claims. No new links have been added since you last edited the page other than to Spiked's website and bearing in mind the links you added last time, you don't exactly have the high ground on conspiracy theories or credible sources. If you don't like claims, you counter them (as I have done by quoting Spiked as dismissing Monbiot's claims as, uh, 'a conspiracy theory'), not seek to suppress them. In a similar vein, if you believe there is not enough on the actual magazine or that criticisms are given too much relative weight (and here I agree with you), the answer is to expand the article generally. I will however replace the second Monbiot link with another writer making similar claims: would a former member of the RCP, who still clearly harbours a soft spot for the organisation, writing in the journal of the CPGB be more to your liking?

Incidently, you refer to the article consisting of a 'weird collection of junk-journalism links' (the 'junk' prefix being Spiked's favoured way of dismissing any evidence or claims they would rather not engage with) when six of ten links direct to Spiked's own website, and one to a neo-Nazi conspiracy-theory site added by you! Of the three remaining examples, two link to George Monbiot's page, mirroring articles published in a mass-circulation broadsheet newspaper and one to variant.org, a cultural journal distributed through major arts and academic institutions throughout the UK. All fully cite their sources. I we ought to let readers make up their own minds regarding their credibility.

FrFintonStack 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or credulity. I couldn't gove a monkey's grunt about 'what's to anyone's liking'I'd just like some more objectivity in Wikipedia rather than it becoming another Monbiot soapbox and a Lobby Watch dolly-wash-stand for their middle class gripes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.70.48.54 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 September 2006.

Look, get a grip. You clearly have some sort of monomaniacal obsession with George Monbiot, and your idea of an objective article on Spiked seems to be one that systematically suppresses anything that presents the magazine in anything less than a glowing light, to the degree of objecting when others do no more than point out that criticisms exist. You keep saying that the page focuses too heavily on criticism and not enough on the magazine itself. When I agreed with you and invited you to add more on the magazine, what did you do? Add more criticism! If you don't like the article, add to it.

"Both Spiked and LM have been heavily criticised by a wide range of individuals and groups; including anarchists, Nazis, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Greens, Multi-National Corporations and the British and American State"

And on the subject of conspiracy theories...Nice use of capitalisation. Where are the references for these, incidently? Criticism of Spiked goes well beyond political fringe groups.

Please sign your contributions to this page, and DO NOT tack yours onto the bottom of mine above my sig. FrFintonStack 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simmer down Finton, it's obvious that this Wiki page has nothing to do with an objective view of Spiked suitable for Wikipedia, but is yet another lurid attack on them. Shouldn't this be in another page called perhaps 'Conspiracy Theories about Spiked?" Wikipedia is not about your vendetta against them dressed up as criticism, it should be about plain objective fact. So how about simply stating what they're about rather than the slagging off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.70.48.54 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 September 2006.

I've said everything I feel I need to on this matter. One last time, I will point out that all claims the article (as opposed to the individuals that the article references: that's a whole other debate) makes are fully verifiable and referenced articles of plain 'objective fact'. It is not the role of an encyclopaedia to suppress all criticism of its subjects, or to present them in the light that they would wish. I will also invite you, yet again, to add relevant material to the article if you feel it does not deal sufficiently with 'what they're about'.

I trust any reader to critically assess the information presented in the article and and make up his or her own mind, and to follow the debate on this page and our contributions and establish which of us is attempting to present an objective portrait of the magazine, free of bias.FrFintonStack 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

2007 comments

I just removed three blatantly propagandist anti-Spiked links. Discussing criticism in a balanced way is entirely valid. Blatantly using an article to divert readers towards hysterical neocommunist conspiracy websites like Sourcewatch is entirely beyond any rational evaluation of neutrality.82.71.30.178 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Links restored. The inclusion of links critical of the subject matter is perfectly valid, as long as their claims are not presented as fact in the main article. Literature dealing with the magazine, regardless of how one regards the publication, is an important resource for those examining the subject and ought to be included thus. As long as their claims are not presented as fact, and are presented for critical examination, their neutrality is irrelevant. If any user wishes to include links supportive of Spiked, feel free. Incidently, the above remark about "hysterical neocommunists" is somewhat ironic considering the political trajectory of Spiked and the history of its predecessors.FrFintonStack 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is just a front for anti Spiked agendas so I have tried to redress the balance. I hope my revisions are not censored. Enyonyam Ababuo

Ms Fox not Spiked so her comments questionable relevant. AJ—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Jakubowski (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2007

Enyonyam Ababuo: I am franky sick of having to revert blatantly nNOPV edits to this article, made under the guise of "redressing the balance". I wish that those making those edits would point out where the bias actually lies, beyond advocating a "No Platform" policy for the magazine's critics (ironic, eh?). You have added deeply dubious and questionable material (particularly regarding the court case, which at any rate belongs on the Living Marxism page), much of it unreferenced or referenced from dubious and partisan sources, and have added material from the magazine's articles in a uncritical manner that belies its source: compare, for example, your contribution:

"the magazine's critics rarely critique the ideas presented and prefer to malign their associations rather than their ideas."

with

"Those who oppose what some of our writers have said about Western intervention, environmentalism and free speech have not taken up the arguments head-on but rather have said, ‘Well look who’s funding them....look who they have meetings with....what do you expect?"

and

"The commentators who have laid into spiked have one thing in common: they have not engaged with our arguments but rather have tried to dig for dirt behind the scenes", drawn from this Spiked artice [1]

You have also added what can only be described as fan-boy praise for the magazine. Your contribution has not been censored but it has been edited in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I will work on this page over the next few days to explain more of what the magazine deals with and to include more of their rebuttals, but in a way that reports them and makes clear their origin, rather than one that endorses them, presents them as universal fact and disguises their provenance.

Additionally, I find this contribution somewhat dubious:

"ITN's libel case against LM was criticised by a range of witers and intellectuals including Doris Lessing, Harold Evans, Paul Theroux and Fay Weldon [2] but the trial jury sided with ITN; with the ensuing award and costs bankrupting the magazine and its publishers. The issue continues to engender controversy and it is difficult to unravel pro Serbian Nationalist propaganda from the anti-Serbian sentiment that filled the British Press agenda at the time. [3] [4][5]

since it is identical to a contribution made on 20:09, 12 August 2006 by Peterthepedant and contains the same dubious links ,one of them to a conspiracy-theory blog (see [2]). I would therefore ask you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy on Sock Puppetry.

AJ: Claire Fox does sometimes write for Spiked (see [3] for instance), so I've reincluded the material for the meantime. It's not a big issue though, and I thought she made a pretty good defence, as it happens.FrFintonStack 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Finton: you are transparently on a political agenda and intent to use your POV to distort and Sock Puppet this page. Your use of Monbiot's and Lobby Watch's paranoid arguments illusrates this amply. May I suggest that you move from your soap box and store your Monbiot/Lobby suck puppets in their relevant boxes, address the facts and provide some objective information? So far you've used Wikipedia as a channel for mud-slinging and malignment. AJ—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Jakubowski (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2007

Finton: I have restored the page and will note your invevitable POV driven re-edits very carefully. If you feel that the comments on Living Marxism should be there, then I question the dubious inclusion here. And ditto the many POV edits. I am frankly bemused by your rabid bias. I therefore request you come clean and admit your political agenda and your political affilitations. AJ—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Jakubowski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2007

RV as per reasons given above. I'm not going to dignify the hysterical attack above with a response, other than to advise all other contributors to please acquaint themselves with Wikipedia's NPOV, Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry policies, and ask them to sign their posts using four tildes (~). I believe it is clear that user:Peterthepedant, user:Enyonyam Ababuo and user:Arthur Jakubowski are the same person, considering that their style of writing (now that the latter has developed the ability to write in sentences) and nNPOV additions are identical. This has been reported.FrFintonStack 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I note again that the above contributor(s), yet again, have failed to point out where the supposed bias actually lies, beyond shouting about George Monbiot and Lobbywatch. Nor has/have he/they even attempted to address the serious grievances I raised about their contributions above. That being the case, it appears that the contributor(s) is/are objecting to any mention of any criticism or controversy surrounding the magazine, regardless of it being relevant, sourced, notible and presented only as claims made by a third party. Such material appears on virtually every article on this encyclopaedia, and is perfectly within editing guidelines. If the contributor(s) believe(s) otherwise, I would venture that he/they ought to lobby for a policy change, or find another outlet for their contributions, rather than constantly shouting about it here. It also appears clear that the above user(s) is/are unable or unwilling to distinguish between "George Monbiot say x about Spiked(ref)" and "x is true". Similarly, the distinction between "What George Monbiot says is rubbish because y" (nNPOV) and "Spiked say what George Monbiot says is rubbish because y (ref)" (legitimate response) in their own contributions.

That borne in mind, I find the wild allegations being thrown about astounding, particularly since I did not add the George Monbiot, Lobbywatch or Claire Fox material in the first place: indeed, I included referenced rebuttals from Spiked, as well as Claire Fox's (rather good) defence of corporate sponsorship (I would have thought her statement about wanting medicine to be "state-funded to the hilt", added to the article by me, would have undermined the "right-wing" claims nicely: unfortunately, that seems too subtle for some people here). I have also removed anti-Spiked nNPOV and inaccuracies: the claim that they are global warming deniers, for instance.

I can only assume therefore that it has been my attempts to remove clear nNPOV additions from the article, which is what prompted my involvement with this page, that are prompting the objections. In the first instance, I had to revert repeated removals of Monbiot's claims, as well as remove unreferenced denounciations of George Monbiot as an "anti-science writer" (odd, since he's a zoologist by training), and claims that he was objecting to Spiked on the basis of "its robust defence of science and the ideals of the Enlightenment; its anti-imperialist politics and its pro-freedom agenda". This resulted in the discussion that can be seen at the top of the page.

If anyone wishes to examine the allegations against me, I would be very happy for them to check my history of contributions to the Spiked article (click on the "page history" tab at the top) and to this encyclopaedia in general, then compare those to the contributions and edit histories of those denouncing me. It is particularly ironic that one of the users in question used the article to criticise Spiked's critics for allegedly attacking the magazine's associations rather than their arguements, when that is precisely the angle from which 'AJ' has tried to attack me. It is also clear that, despite the link I provided, AJ has no idea what Sock Puppetry is, and is simply throwing around any accusation he has at hand.

On the one real point that the above contributor did raise, in relation to the inclusion of material of the libel trial: it is legitimate to briefly mention the matter as it is important to an understanding of Spiked's origins. Detailed discussion, however, does not belong on this article, but on that devoted to Spiked predecessor, Living Marxism, which, after all, was the publication that actually fought the suit. Additionally, Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources makes clear that blogs are not appropriate sources. Also, the assertion that it is difficult to determine the truth regarding the camp is original research and highly disputable in itself. Finally, please note again that the paragraph in question is identical to that added several months ago by a different user account, both of whose contributions to Wikipedia are limited to this article.

I am happy to admit that the article is not quite up to scratch, though as a result of insufficient detail rather than bias. I have been attempting to rectify this, but it is difficult when the little free time I am able to dedicate to it is being eaten up fixing other user(s) attempts to turn the article into a hagiography, and defending myself and the article against wild and baseless allegations on this page. As such, until anything new of actual substance is raised, I have said all I need to say on this page. Again, please feel free to examine my contributions if you doubt my intentions.FrFintonStack 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FrFintonStack is wholly right. Somebody is trying to turn this into a hagiography of Spiked; all FrFrrintonStack is doing is trying to make it consistent with basic wikipedia principles. He is not biased, nor are Monbiot's charges "paranoid". They are serious comments by a serious writer and deserve inclusion here David r from meth productions 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh Finton, I've added back a single sentence. You've demonstrated a zero intolerance to any textuality but your own view, dismissing any such deviation as hagiography, so I'd like to take this sentence by sentence. Please tell me in detail why this sentence isn't suitable and why your POVs are. As an aside, what relevance does the journalist Monbiot's views really have to this article about Spiked? Do they really deserve inclusion or are they just here to distort and pervert the principles of the site? I'm sure they wouldn't be included in a serious encyclopedia entry, but is in your POV, broadsheet journalism automatically fact for Wikipedia? Perhaps 'David' can tell us more... AJ—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Jakubowski (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2007

Yet more wild allegations, and yet again, no explanation of where my alleged bias lies, other than to yet again advocate a No Platform approach to the magazine's critics. The only thing I've demonstrated a zero-tolerance policy toward is agenda pushing via unreferenced, unqualified and blatantly nNPOV additions, usually drawn from, though never referenced to, the Spiked's own editorials, and the removal of other users' relevant and referenced contributions. Let any user examine mine and the above user's contributions if they doubt that.

I've explained the relevance of Monbiot's comments numerous times before, as well as issues relating to their factual accuracy and how they fit with this encyclopaedia's notibility criteria. Critical discussion features on virtually every article on the encyclopaedia: see, for instance, Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, Christian Voice (UK)... If the above user is unable or unwilling to understand what I have written and Wikipedia's own guidelines, that is entirely his concern. I trust anyone else with a basic command of English and the ability to follow elementary trains of logic to understand my reasoning.

I'm not entirely sure what he is suggesting with his final remark, but I will invite everyone to examine all of our contributions. Having checked his contributions, David r from meth productions and I are both contributors of long standing, having contributed to many articles with little or no crossover. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time our paths have ever crossed. This stands in stark contrast to user:Peterthepedant, user:Enyonyam Ababuo and user:Arthur Jakubowski, all of whose contributions are entirely restricted to this article and talk page, the latter two of whom having registered at virtually the same time, and whose writing styles and use of language motifs are essentially identical.

The above user's recent contribution is, surprising, actually ok, but it needs expanding: Spiked's focus goes well beyond civil liberties concerns. The term "robust" also constitutes unreferenced praise, and is thus nNPOV and has been removed as a result. I'd advise him to keep going: we might get there slowly, through a process of negotiation.

Finally, could the above user please demonstrate the most basic respect for Wikipedia's editing guidelines by signing his posts using four tildes (~)? (see WP:SYP) I don't know how many times I have asked this, to no avail.FrFintonStack 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

POV removed. Thanks for the heads-up on the tildes. Arthur Jakubowski 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Next step will be to define the POV on what is contraversial. Why are the corporations listed contraversial and why is Mr Monbiot, who after all makes his living from controversy, not? Why was references to sponsorship from Orange and the Research Councils UK deleted? Arthur Jakubowski 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Dunno about the corporations: I didn't add that (in fact, I removed the reference to them being "right-wing) and I'd be happy for it to be removed. In fact, I think the section needs reworded generally: the "admit" bit makes it sound as if a guilty secret has been uncovered, whereas Spiked are quite happy to receive corporate sponsorship and to display it on their site. The Orange and UK Research Council stuff ought to be returned too (edit: I see you've already done all this: do far so good). I don't remember them, and if it was me that deleted them, if was part of a block reversion rather than an attempt to hide their less-controversial associations. Good work so far.FrFintonStack 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're moving toward a more objective article on them, but then you'll just say that's my POV. I added a bit about their defense of freedom of speech again but cut the word 'resolute' as I thought you'd skewer the whole paragraph for that one word. Arthur Jakubowski 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove an entire paragraph over one word, Arthur. At any rate, "resolute" is fine as it merely describes the intensity of the position, rather than presenting it as a positive or negative or commenting on its value. The free speech stuff is fine. I reworded the environmentalism bit slightly, as Spiked articles generally openly oppose the whole concept of environmentalism, rather than merely question some of its approaches, and I doubt any of them would see that as controversial. I think we could do with working on the Iraq/Afghanistan bit, since, although it did oppose the wars, the magazine wasn't particularly outspoken on the matter and was also highly criticial of the anti-war campaigns. Spiked is opposed to war in general, not just specific wars, something they heavily criticised anti-war campaigners for, and since they were no more opposed to Iraq/Afghanistan than any other overseas intervention, it seems a bit odd to give those special mention. I doubt it would be something the magazine would approve of, really. To be honest, I don't think the article is any more or less NPOV that before, but it's certainly better as it includes more detail, something I've been asking for all along.FrFintonStack 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Finton, it's getting better. I still think that overall, this is an entry that usurps the spirit of Wikipedia by essentially headlining a series of allegations and political opinions about Spiked rather than an objective description about what they say or what they're about. The bulk of the article is about what other people think about them, their POV. This makes it a poor Wikipedia article and doesn't really provide the reader with an objective or complete picture. In concentrating on criticising the magazine, key elements of their thought is missed. There's nothing about their Humanism for example, which underpins a lot of the critique against environmentalism. On the point about being against war per se, I'm not sure that fits. They criticised the anti-war movement for being a bit woolly and in their eyes, ultimately supporting a liberal imperial ethos. These ideas needs to be explained, not judged. Source Watch and GM Watch serve as the place for such polemical personal and unsubstantiated viewpoints (a 'Mirror of Projection' maybe). Wikipedia is a noble concept and contributers should seek to be as objective as they possibly can be, and not use the freedom it provides as an excuse for a personal soap box. Arthur Jakubowski 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd reached some sort of understanding here, but you're back to the "soapbox" accusations. We've been through this before. You're right in saying that there is insufficient detail about them and what they're about, and that it's not a good situation when such a large part of the article consists of criticism. However, reporting referenced criticism is entirely legitimate as long as the article does not endorse it. It is a matter of objective reporting and plain and simple fact that Monbiot and Sourcewatch (which, if you note, is also open-source and user-editible) makes particular claims against the magazine: that is all the article says; it does not say that those claims are true. Once again, the answer to the problems you've outlined is to expand the article generally, thus reducing the relative weight of the criticisms, rather than to remove or suppress dissenting opinions. But please try to do so without perjorative or sycophantic terms like "devestating", "penetrating", "predictably" etc.

I'm not judging their position of the Iraq and Afghan wars, nor on military intervention generally, but it does seem odd to mention those conflicts specifically when the magazine made little mention of them directly and openly opposed concentrating on them specifically outwith the context of foreign military intervention generally.FrFintonStack 18:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics

First of all, people should learn to use headings. Second, for all the arguments about how critics describe Spike and the responses, I don't see a single actual quote from a critic. All that's out there is a single article that's basically an ad hominem attack based on criticism of Claire Fox. Let's get some sources and then settle on language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Modification

I've made some minor modifications; removal of a little anti- nNPOV, adding qualifications ("allegedly"...etc) and citation markers. Hope they're to everyone's liking. I've also removed the statement regarding Spiked's analysis deiving from Marxist and Liberal positions, because it is unreferenced. The logic given for its inclusion ("However, if anyone with any awareness reads the articles on Spiked - most would fall into this category. We can reasonably eliminate any ideas that Spiked's ideas are (a) Stalinist; (b) fascist or neo-Nazi; (c) communitarian; or (d) "green"") is clearly Primary Research. Spiked's own statement regarding Marx and Mill is sufficient and eloquent.

It's interesting that for all the hot-air, chest-puffing and wild allegations on the talk page, this is actually turned into a fairly decent article in my absence. FrFintonStack 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have a lengthy section on Spiked's responces to criticism of their alleged position on global warming, it might be a good idea to include some of those criticisms, with sources.FrFintonStack 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bring on the critique Finton. We might even get some real clarity rather than mud-slinging. Apistogramma 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

More detailed point about the Spiked IPCC article, the critique is of environmentalist interpretations of the consensus, not of the consensus per se. Spiked analysis is derived from Marx and liberalism and there's plenty of articles where Marx is cited outright or heavily implicit in Spiked's critique - see esp Heartfield and Mullan, the latter drawing heavily on Grossman and Rosdolsky. Whether they're revisonists in this case should be evidenced in the Ideological section. Apistogramma 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 86.129.145.54 is intent on vandalising the page calling a balanced piece with critics and counterpoints a 'hijack'. This is unfounded and so I've restored the full text. If there is anything incorrect that 86.129.145.54 would like to amend then please point out the errors and justify yourself in the Discussion page rather than abusing the site. Apistogramma 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism from 86.129.145.54. No justification given by 86.129.145.54. Apistogramma 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)]

2007 comments

Can users please add their comments to the bottom of the talk page, where, according to wikipedia convention, they belong?FrFintonStack 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed comments on vandalism added to end of discussion. Apistogramma 05:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added section on Spiked and Global Warming debate. Apistogramma 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructured by moving Funding section to the end. Some small fixes to links. Apistogramma 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete attempts to hijack Wikipedia for political aims. Remove repeated accusations, but retain critics' core allegations. Remove ref to TechCentralStation, that funding for that group is not relevant, might aswell argue that Orange is owned by France Telecom so Spiked has pro French views. Apistogramma 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick point on introducing the critics early in the article (second sentence) - apart from being a peculiar way of structuing the article, it means that the critics of Spiked are now footnoted with a footnote/reference leading back to Spiked itself. (Obviously the oil industry is forcing me to say this, rather than concerns about neutrality, grammar, common sense etc.) Few other Wiki articles work in this way - "New York City is a major US city. Some visitors and residents hate it" - but apparently the Spiked one has to.

Worth pondering, all the 'Entryist' allegations come from Monbiot. A few of his chums have agreed with him in Lobbywatch. That's it! Apistogramma 20:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

must confess I quite like Heidegger, at least he amuses me....but be that as it may, I've tried to quantify the critics. There's a lot on the left of course but then all the 57 Varieties squabble like billy-yo, but otherwise it's a smattering of Grauniad journos. I'm surprised they don't get more flak given their fondness for taking on issues that are taken as given by the dominant ideology. Monbiot's point on qualifications...not sure that's relevant - unless this is to become an online HR site. One to ponder, but if he were right, maybe they would have lost their jobs as he so hoped for. Apistogramma 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about the "Green Stalinist" bit. Perhaps it is more correct to speak of "green-fascists". Hmm.. Heidegger springs to mind here.

I have slightly amended the Critics section. I have changed the wording a little and added some links for the sake of a little more balance.

No doubt - by the time the weekend is over - we will see more stuff about "right-wing corporations" and accusations by the likes Monbiot with no counter arguments on the Spiked side. Johnny.d2007 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Critics

Restored information about McCarthyite conspiracy. Must confess I thought O'Neill was being a bit OTT with his comment but now I wonder. The deletion of his reposte and comments about 'vandalism and hagiography' evidentally shows he touched a raw nerve amongst the Lobbywatch Network with that quote. I now wonder if one should restore points about Stalinists, as there's airbrushing that the old Tankie would have applauded taking place here. Green Stalinists, now there's a concept to conjour with! Apistogramma 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stance

1. End of first para: I have reinstated the reference which substantiates the claim, in this article about their view on humanitarian interventionism. I fail to see why this was removed.

Accusations about not really being left wing

2. Subtitle: "Accusations about not really being left wing" Yuk!! This is a slightly inelegant subheading. I am tempted to reinstate "reactionaries or revolutionaries" - but would this make sense to those not au fait with leftist politics? Perhaps "The question of ideological tradition". Others will have views.

3. First para first line: I have dealt with the issue of "right wing corporate interests" (scroll down). What is a right wing corporation? Arguably - to some (perhaps vulgar) Marxists, all corps are right wing by virtue of their being a central part of the exploitative system of capitalism - irrespective of whether they are "ethical" or not. I would prefer that companies be treated in a purely economic way - rather than as if they vote in elections or proclaim themselves anarcho-communists...

4. Also - I do not think that it is entirely accurate to say that Spiked "claim" that they are left wing. Certain Spiked contributors have claimed that they are Marxists. I have therefore reverted to the original text.

Critics

5. Some of this has already been dealt with in the bit about ideological tradition. I have therefore deleted the bits that repeat this:

(a) First line - deleted

(b) Second paragraph - deleted (and this was a bit of a fragment, anyway).

6. I have focussed this part on the LM "conspiracy". Johnny.d2007 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried to create a thread of the argument between Monbiot and Furedi, plus O'Neill's replies about a conspiracy theory and alleged witch-hunt. More work needed on the structure and balance. Apistogramma 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on whether Spiked are radicals or stooges Revolutionaries or Reactionaries could do with a further tidy-up. The critics' claims are repeated and could be precised better. Might also be worth drawing out some of points made by Monbiot and Furedi's in their recent interviews. We could even have a section on the ongoing frission between the 2 intellectuals. (Maybe they'll even debate each other on TV one day as a result.) The danger is of course that the article becomes one about the critics of Spiked, rather than a balanced article about the magazine and its writers. Apistogramma 09:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed some recently added weasel words and attempted to made more neutral. Talk of Stalinists was PoV previously and a bit Trotskyist, plus not many Tankies about nowadays. Lack of balance on use of the word 'Contraversial' companies - contraversial to whom? Surely this is completely subjective PoV, unless the reference was to Cadburys for selling dodgy chocolate bars in the UK! Apistogramma 08:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again the Vandals have been back adding smears and weasel words and deleting content they don't wish to see present. Evidently, they're determined to use Wikipedia as a platform for propaganda. Arthur Jakubowski 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Returned page to what I believe is a far more objective and neutral article. Request for Wikipedia to investigate the use of the page as a political lobby for those that oppose Spiked. Arthur Jakubowski 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First Para

(a) "states": I have replaced with "is". A statement of fact and it reads better.

(b) The word "shill": Can we please use both neutral and descriptive language - rather than pejorative terms? I am sure that Spiked are called many things - should we list them all? I therefore propose to delete "shill". Besides, this is a rather colloquial term and is not appropriate for an formal encyclopaedia entry.

(c) What is a "right wing corporation"? This makes little sense to me. Is Virgin or the Body Shop left wing or liberal because they are green or sell "cool" products - whereas McDonalds is a right wing corp because its products are considered uncool and inferior? I have amended this as it seems a little absurd. I think it is fairly accurate to say that critics believe that spiked is rather a free-market supporting libertarian group - which is to many a right wing position (unless you are a Menshevik...). And on this point, it might also be a good idea to reflect the nuanced arguments of the critics - in which case let's delete "right wing" as the term covers many things: Thatcherites (free-marketeers but social authoritarians); traditional post-war conservatives (socially authoritarian, pro-property but with social element) and many others - including New Labour...

(d) The magazine's self description is a little inelegant and implies negativity (i.e. is related to the "shill" accusation). I have amended this to point out that how the magazine sees itself is some evidence of the marxist/ liberal slant in most of its articles.

Stance

First para first line: "What is [sic] describes as issues of freedom and state control, science and technology" Do I really have to change this again? Is it not a fact that they do focus on such issues? I am no member of Spiked - and neither do I like what they say on certain issues, but I recognise that the subject matter is how they describe:

- Support of vivisection = science;
- Campaign for subversive parenting = issues of state control;
- Defending free speech against religious hatred laws = freedom of speech;
- Support for nuclear power = technology;
- Opposition to censorship = freedom of expression;

…and so on.

Second para, third line: I think it is more accurate to say "the causes of global warming". I think they have been critical about the way that scientists/ people who question whether global warming is caused mainly by man's activities are branded "deniers", etc. and their views not given much air. I have also deleted the brackets - as my amendment make this seem out of place.

Critics

Third para last sentence: This should be deleted because: (a) it is not referenced; (b) it is pov - "their ideas do support rightwing corporations" (to paraphrase) (c) and I refer to my comments on "right-wing" corporations. See (c) re the first para.

Fourth para, second line: deleted ("Claire Fox...has relatives who are lobbyists for the tobacco industry") - this is blatantly biased and designed to present Spiked as "shills" for certain industry interests. If my uncle is a bank robber would that make me one - or make me sympathetic to bank robbing?.Johnny.d2007 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, a user is using Wikipedia for their political aims introducing smears and unbalanced POV. I'm not sure this is not what Wijipedia is all about. All very tiresome, but hey ho, let's not deny someone their freedom. But I think we owe the average reader of Wikipedia a warning that Veasel Words are being used and that smears by association are being added. Arthur Jakubowski 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again this aticle is being used as a politcal football. I have tried to add more balance and to correct some misleading and inaccurate inputs. Arthur Jakubowski 13:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is now a reasoned article Johnny and I'm pleased to see that as a result Wikipedia is now presenting the objective facts, rather than being abused as a political lobby site for those who oppose the magazine. Arthur Jakubowski 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Last line of first para: the last editor was right to delete this. The text referred to classical political theory positions - e.g is "global warming" a similar term to Marxism, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, etc?

I have removed "and the" - as "libertarian right" suffices as you can be on the libertarian right or left. I think that spiked are the latter.

2) First para delete "Writers for Spiked argue their analysis"… Spiked do not argue their analysis is either Marxist or Liberal/ libertarian. So this is simply wrong. However, if anyone with any awareness reads the articles on Spiked - most would fall into this category. We can reasonably eliminate any ideas that Spiked's ideas are (a) Stalinist; (b) fascist or neo-Nazi; (c) communitarian; or (d) "green".

3) First line in para 2: revert to original drafting (deletion of "argue their focus" ). This is a statement of fact - take a browse through the website. Whether you agree with what they say about it or not is another matter (and a POV one at that).

4) Agree that this para (2) should have been cut down. However, for accuracy - I propose a minor tweak: They seek to counter positions such as multiculturalism, environmentalism and what they see as a increasing trend in Western foreign policy - that of humanitarian interventionism.

5) Para 3 - I have broken this up a little - it was too long and in danger of becoming a list. I have also changed the point about global warming - as their beef is not with the "science of global warming" as such. It is a little more nuanced than that - focussing on the way the science is presented (and sometimes mis-represented) in social and political terms.

6) Para 5 - Spiked, on balance, appears to have little in common with what is considered traditionally right. If the argument is used that they are right wing because of their "support" of corporations - I think the crucial point is that they support certain activities of certain corporations - those that develop technologies with the potential to further progress mankind. Is this right or left? I'd say it is quite a universal approach - more characteristic of the egalitarian left than the right. I have thus reinstated "other".

7) Para 6 - deleted last sentence. This does not really make sense. I think that Spiked's position is that the scientific debate is not over - that is - as to whether the causes are mainly anthropogenic or otherwise, and that the subject is a complex one - not to be over-simplified and presented in alarmist terms by politicians. Johnny.d2007 08:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen flunkies trying to turn an entry into a hagiography more outrageously than this.

It really has to stop.86.129.138.127 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you should go and look at St George of the Monbiot's page then to see a prize hagiography! Does he walk on water? There's not a single word against him and everytime this latter day saint is criticised his flunkies remove it. And I note that has included our Finton too. Apistogramma 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly the Johann Hari page, eh dave?FelixFelix ^talk 08:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideological claims

The fight over ideological claims seems to focus on the fact that the magazine does not specifically define it's ideological slant but some may mistake their "about spiked" section of the online publication as alluding to a specific ideology by mentioning Karl Marx. The mention of Karl Marx doesn't explicitly state that Marx is used as a foundation, it seems to be more of a sarcastic reference that falls in line with the overall style of editorials within the publication. The positions advanced by spiked magazine can definitely be described as inspired by Liberalism (proper) in so much as Libertarian ideologies and Individualist anarchism are inspired by Liberalism while also developing in opposition to other Liberalist derived ideologies.

"About spiked"

"spiked is an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms. spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, and hated by the narrow-minded such as Torquemada and Stalin. Or it would be, if they were lucky enough to be around to read it. "

-from http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/about/article/336/

Any claims that the positions expressed are Marxist derived seems to run contrary to the Wikipedia definition's list of characteristics of most forms of Marxism. The more generalized and ambiguous usage meaning any form of ideology influenced by an interpretation of Marx and Engles may apply, But if anyone would like to make that claim it certainly would require some explaination as to what concerning the magazine constitues a Marxist perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

The section about ideological slant may be apropriate for all media outlets now that such information has become relevant in effecting how media publications are read, however this wikipedia article should utilize more critical analysis from published statements and factual accounts rather than using questions concerning ideological ambiguity to conjecture on conspiracies (unless the conspiracy theory itself is considered notable enough for its own entry).

It might be a more relevant criticism that the claims of being non-ideological are themselves problematic. That the denial of influence and a situated perspective or bias is a way of deflecting criticism by attempting to remain ambiguous and therefore to shift justifications for arguments without giving more substantial underlying influences. The lofty claims of completely new perpectives can be a hat trick to conceal that many of the claims and arguments are not new but are lifted from other prominent intelectuals and repackaged for a broader audience. Unfortunately the originals may never get credited but it would help if they were.

John H 71.96.233.158 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Trolls return so unneeded edits made restored. Apistogramma 06:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funding etc.

Why does Spiked's wikipedia entry extensively document their advertisers? The entries on Harper's or the Atlantic Monthly or whoever else don't list their advertisers. Perhaps somebody is trying to imply that spiked's writers are paid-up shills for the nefarious telecom-clothing-fossil fuel industries. Is it so hard to believe that spiked's writers are genuine in their opposition to the mainstream consensus on global warming and other issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.247.118 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Open Borders

I came here for more information on their immigration stance. Perhaps someone who's familiar with the site might add information on Spiked's advocacy of what's been called an "Open Borders" policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.121.153 (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to make more neutral

More data added. Train2046 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) This entry is more about Spiked critics than the magazine itself, which is a complete travesty of Wikipedia's aims. It's time this imbalance was redressed.Train2046 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Added more data, compiled critics' arguments and removed defamatory comments - this is Wikipedia, not a Lobbywatch site! Train2046 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I think Spiked/RCP/LM etc's main noteworthiness derives from the attention from its detractors and the controversy. In terms of its day to day operation it is pretty obscure.Andehandehandeh (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An interesting PoV but one not backed up by the facts. Keep to the facts please - and this is an article about Spiked, not the Royal Canadian Police or any other organisation, unless that is you subscribe to the Monbiot conspiracy theory? Train2046 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is talk about LM relevant, but not the Revolutionary Communist Party?Andehandehandeh (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not also hark on about the International Socialists, the Workers Revolutionary Party or various anarchist groups? - there's loads of connections for an agile imagination. But the point is, these groups are covered elsewhere, this article should focus on Spiked in the here and now to be any use to people. Train2046 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Miserablism?

This page is still rubbish. What about an article on what the Spiked lot say rather than what other people reckon? It's like having an article on John Cage and filling it up with people who think he's rubbish, rather than anything on his works. We need more on their stuff on the miserablism, risk, panic and loss of politics as well as a bloody good bit on the stuff on the greens, plus one section on the critics, in line with most pages here. Make it fair and make it useful. None of this soapbox greenprop please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.37.2 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is under attack from Green propagandists

It should not be used as a propaganda vehicle for green propgandists. Train2046 (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Green propaganda removed. Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and exclude blatant PoV. Train2046 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Restore citations. Removing these created an out of context section as the text referred to the citations to follow. Train2046 (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But please note that the article is a bit of a quotefarm. The whole thing can be written without direct quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

The 'accusations of entryism' subheading is seriously weird. 'Entryism' was a word used to describe members of Trotskyists groups entering the Labour Party while seeking to subvert its political direction. But since "media, communications and science networks" are not political parties, nor membership organisations at all, it isn't actually possible to operate a policy of 'entryism' - and further, since the website Spiked is not a membership organisation, it is not obvious how one would instruct its non-members to join networks that are not themselves membership organisations. The putative 'LM network' that Mr Monbiot sees is not really the subject of the article, which, according to its headline is the Spiked website. I suggest this whole section should be removed, and invite comment from FrFintonStack, Apistogramma and others Murray McDonald (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Line break

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Why is there a line break at the top of this page for - after checking the page - no apparent reason? Perhaps someone better at templates than me could take a look. Thanks, WilliamH (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like {{italic title}} has to be the first template on the page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an unacceptably biased entry clearly written by Spiked supporters

It needs to be much much more balanced David r from meth productions (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hard as Spiked people constantly vandalise it. Andehandehandeh (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Historical note added Jan 2013 The "David r" account who made this complaint is really Johann Hari, who used that account and others to add dishonest praise of himself and malicious lies about his rivals to dozens of Wikipedia articles. CWC 06:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hewson & the NSPCC

I've only just noticed - there's no mention of Barbara Hewson's article on Operation Yewtree in spite of it being mentioned in most national newspapers. Any reason for that?Truthteller88 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Factually incorrect reporting" section

This section has been and gone a couple of times. It's all WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS, isn't it? Wikipedia shouldn't be fact-checking a publication directly like this. If Spiked has run significant factual inaccuracies, Wikipedia should quote published sources that have reported on that. Editors shouldn't be picking and choosing their own favourite examples, and pointing to what they believe to be adequate primary-source counterevidence. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It needs to go. Unless a secondary source can verify the claims, it's all OR and SYNTH. --RaviC (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What OR is present? Be specific. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Check the tags on the page. --RaviC (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I know what OR is, thanks. The tags on the page assert OR. I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing someone deciding that fair comment about demonstrable inaccuracy is "original research". It isn't. For example, "In relation to plans for greater EU military cooperation, James Woudhuysen noted that Brexit would mean that the UK "wouldn’t have to keep up with all of the EU's sparkly new initiatives." Every EU Member State has the right to opt out of any defence initiative set up by the EU and cannot be forced to participate therein." is cited to Article 31(1). That's not original research, yet is tagged as same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

OR is defined as including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", and the whole section meets this. We can't plug together a factually incorrect Spiked quote and a primary source EU document to produce a fresh paragraph of fact-check, as neither of those sources includes this conclusion. Spiked don't write that they're wrong, the EU document has nothing to say about Spiked.

The Smith/Jones example in WP:SYNTH is very close to the fact-checking that this section is trying to do. Policy requires some external third-party coverage that joins two conflicting statements together, not just an editor's personal opinion that X disproves Y. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bastun: I have to say I agree with Ravi and Belbury and I think the section should be removed until the website generates secondary coverage which discusses its reliability. But that said, you could still put your work to use at the reliable sources noticeboard to show (if it was in any doubt) that Spiked is not a reliable source. There are currently 250 articles which cite it for various things and going through them you run into some pretty fishy stuff very quickly. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, ReconditeRodent. I wasn't aware of the ability to search for sources used on WP before - that's useful to know. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, all of these sentences need to go unless there is a secondary source to back this up, otherwise it is synthesis. But it would be good to use to show that Spiked is not an RS itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – non-membership

The lead includes a statement that Spiked is not a member of IPSO. Neither is the Guardian. I cannot find any reference to non-membership of IPSO in the Wikipedia article on the Guardian. Is it appropriate to mention this in the lead on the Spiked article? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is probably something that can go in the body, but yes, it doesn't seem like it is necessary to mention this in the lead. --RaviC (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus regarding whether a spike (as a primary redirect), the magazine, a spiked drink or the term in journalism is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Spiked (magazine) → Spiked – No other articles of this name. Disambiguation page is unnecessary, but Spike (disambiguation) can be added as a hatnote. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ivar the Boneful: Is the magazine a dominant meaning? Else, page Spiked may as well stay as a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: The magazine averages 288 views per day over the last 90 days and the disambiguation page averages six views per day. [4] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support the move, as the magazine seems to be the primary topic. Not sure I agree with the claim that Spiked (disambiguation) shouldn't exist though. Do you think the other three entries on that page are not appropriate dab entries? Colin M (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The only entry at the dab page actually titled "Spiked" is an obscure Hardy Boys novel that can be dealt with via a hat note. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose far more likely to suggest spiking of drinks. Readers don't know not to look for adjectives. If moved relocate rather than blank dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: see the page view stats above, readers are 50x more likely to be looking for the magazine than any other use. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

pages views for "date rape drug" are well above the magazine In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, I agree with In ictu oculi, "Spiked" means a drink with added intoxicant (wiktionary). JimRenge (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't believe the online magazine (isn't an "online magazine" just a website?) is the primary meaning - per In ictu oculi, "Spiked" means a drink with added intoxicant. If we were to move it, it should be to "Spiked (website)". (NB: I do not require a rebuttal from Ivar, thanks.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose Redirect Spiked to Spike as an R from Adjective, there is no primary topic here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The principal meanings of "spiked" refer to an adulterated drink or to Spike (journalism). No [WP:PTOPIC]]. Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Focus, what is it?

Shouldn't the focus in the lead be the same as the focus in the section titled "Stance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead and NPOV

Does anyone think the lead complies with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV? And Sweet6970 In reverting "It often supports right and far-right figures." are you arguing that that is false? That it doesn't support Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Alex Jones, the Democratic Football Lads’ Alliance, [[Tommy Robinson, Toby Young, Arron Banks, Viktor Orbán? Or that that list doesn't include right and far-right figures? What do you think should be included in the lead to fix the WP:LEAD and NPOV issue? Doug Weller talk 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I will reply to your questions tomorrow. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:In answer to your questions: I see no problem with the neutrality of the lead, after George Monbiot’s view has been deleted. The statement that Spiked often supports far right figures comes from George Monbiot. I don’t know what ‘supports’ means. I don’t see that Mr Monbiot is an expert or an impartial judge on the political stance of Spiked. He is a highly partisan journalist. His view is given, attributed to him, in the body of the article. It is not appropriate that it should be stated in Wikipedia’s voice in the lead. You seem to be asking for my personal views on the political position of various political figures. I don’t think it is appropriate for any Wikipedia article to include my personal views on political figures – or, indeed, my personal views on any matter. So I don’t see the point of your question. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: it's a bit concerning that you are talking about neutrality rather than our policy of WP:NPOV which says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And of course you've completely ignored my point about the WP:LEAD which says "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Your reply shows that you either don't know what a lead should contain or - I'm not sure what. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No welcome message, and evidently although I gave you the links you didn't read them before you replied. That's extremely disappointing. And our articles on those figures would be the way most editors here would determine whether they are right wing. An experienced editor would never suggest your personal views should be included in the article, which is why I wasn't doing that. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Contrary to your assertion, I read WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV (again) after your post of 17:24 25 March 2020. At [[5]] I found this:

'Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."'

and

'Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.'

This seems to me to be relevant to whether the lead of this article should state George Monbiot’s opinion in Wikipedia’s voice, i.e. it should not.

As regards redrafting the lead of the article: I have never written the lead of an article, and I would leave this to more experienced editors. I don’t know why you seem to be saying that it is up to me to redraft the lead of this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I started to rewrite the lead so it used the word "describe" but got diverted and have no more time now. I have no idea why you think you can't write a lead. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)