Talk:The Skwawkbox

Conflict of interest

Information to be added or removed: Undo deletion of information by user MPS1992. Explanation of issue: Information is factual and verifiable, links were provided. Report author J Schlosberg confirmed in Medium article referenced below that Skwawkbox and other titles were examined but not part of published study. Declaring COI as Skwawkbox editor but information added is objective and verifiable. References supporting change: https://skwawkbox.org/2018/10/02/academic-study-skwawkbox-other-left-media-streets-ahead-of-msm-on-journalistic-standards/ https://medium.com/@jrschlosberg/labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-a-response-to-critics-daa878bf0558 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reklawks (talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 08-OCT-2018

  Unable to review edit request  

• As your account name is Skwalker in reverse, it could be argued that a change of name may be necessary to differentiate it from the name of the company, Skwawkbox. That should be checked by you to see if a change of name would be required. Also, it would be best to make sure that you disclose the nature of your COI, here and on your own talk page, before edit requests may be attended to. When these two items are taken care of / crossed off our to-do list, then we can begin looking at adding/subtracting content from the article. Thank you!  Spintendo  18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've taken the statement above by User:Reklawks as being a self-identification of conflict of interest -- which is helpful and appreciated -- and I've therefore boldly created a userpage with an indication of that. I think that takes care of the disclosure, and I personally don't think a user rename is necessary (because the current username seems to be the name of a person, not the name of a publication or organization). MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: Undo deletion of information by user MPS1992. Explanation of issue: I'm remaking the same request as above, as the first response doesn't make sense - the nature of the COI was declared, don't see how it could have been much clearer. The username is not the same as the blog I edit, read either forwards or in reverse, so agree with MPS1992 that no change is needed. Information is factual and verifiable, links were provided. Report author J Schlosberg confirmed in Medium article referenced below that Skwawkbox and other titles were examined but not part of published study. Declaring COI as Skwawkbox editor but information added is objective and verifiable. References supporting change: https://skwawkbox.org/2018/10/02/academic-study-skwawkbox-other-left-media-streets-ahead-of-msm-on-journalistic-standards/ https://medium.com/@jrschlosberg/labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-a-response-to-critics-daa878bf0558

Newsguard reference removal

The reference to Newsguard approval keeps being removed by Icewhiz on the grounds it is not reported elsewhere. The reference links to Newsguard's own page confirming the approval and giving detailed ratings. Why should it need to be reported anywhere else when the rating body's own page confirms it?

The same user Icewhiz has also removed information from Margaret Hodge's page about an antisemitism complaint on the grounds that it was reported in Skwawkbox, then again even though it was reported in recognised UK newspaper Morning Star. This is starting to smell like a campaign rather than genuine grounds for edit. Posted by 46.233.77.225

PRIMARY source - from a browser extension. We try to use published secondary sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

With regards to verification, while it would be better to use secondary sources, using Newsguard itself as a source is permissible for the content in question. Otherwise, the question of whether to include or not revolves around opinions on its relevance and significance. I hadn't come across Newsguard before, but it certainly, when judged by a writeup such as this, looks non-trivial. Jimmy Wales's involvement adds to the interest. I certainly can't see any harm in including the content, though the need to keep it as concise as possible should be borne in mind.     ←   ZScarpia   10:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we should try to use secondary sources, in this case I couldn't find any. I have added a confirmation from the Skwawkbox website. With two sources, I think it must be true. Jontel (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering we have academic sources - e.g. Corbynism: A Critical Approach, page 243 - referring to Skwawkbox as a dubious site - using a browser extension as a source seems rather UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I dco not place great weight on academics, who can be wrong and often disagree. "Dubious" is vague, too. Regarding Newsguard, a browser extension is how they publish their ratings, so I think that is evidence that they have rated Skwawkbox. Jontel (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

We have ONE academic source, "Corbynism: A Critical Approach", by Matt Bolton and Frederick Harry Pitts, which calls Skwawkbox and The Canary "dubious sites". In addition, an iNews article reviewing the book has Bolton saying, "Then you’ve got the (Derby MP) Chris Williamson, Squawkbox, Canary thread, who I’m increasingly interested in. They’re really coming from a much more conspiratorial point of view." Clearly, Bolton, at least, isn't a fan.

Bolton and Pitts have contributed articles about Corbynism which have been published online: a Huffpost one here; and a New Statesman one here.

Various reviews of the book have been published online, my two favourites being one in The Dublin Review of Books and one, written by Mike Phipps, on the Labour Hub site.

There's a curiously short Web circularity (degrees-of-separation arc) linking the book with Newsguard and a couple of the contributors here. In a book footnote, Bolton and Pitt comment about Wikipedia editor and blogger Bobfrombrockley (among the things all three seem to have in common is that they appear to be self-declared Marxists): “We have learnt a lot in particular from lynchpins of the principled left blogosphere Bob from Brockley and Tendance Coatesy (see http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/ and https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/).”[1][2] First degree of separation. Bobfrombrockley was one of a group of editors involved in blacklisting MintPress on Wikipedia. According to this, rather peeved, MintPress article, in order to promote the blacklising, Bob "cited the fact-checking organization Newsguard and its rating of MintPress", Newsguard, of course being the subject of this talkpage section. The same MintPress article also mentions Icewhiz's involvement. Second degree of separation. With regard to Icewhiz, it mentions an Arbitration Enforcement case complaining about his editing. I was involved as a commenter in that case. Third degree of separation.

Despite Bolton and Pitts referring to Sqwawkbox as a dubious source, that doesn't alter the fact of Newsguard having given it a positive score. Since both authors have developed an antipathetic stance to Corbyn, it's not particularly surprising that they would view sites such as Skwawkbox and The Canary which take an opposing viewpoint in a negative light.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lee Harpin, Jewish Chronicle journalist.

The article mentions journalism by Lee Harpin. A series of Jewish Chronicle articles on Louise Ellman by him was recently heavily criticised by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).[3] In 2015, Harpin was one of the Mirror Group journalists arrested over the phone hacking scandal.[4][5][6]     ←   ZScarpia   13:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if one can sanction an individual journalist: it is up to the publication's editor to maintain standards. Yes, the JC has been at the losing end of a number of regulatory and legal judgements, according to its Wikipedia article. It is a leading participant in the well resourced campaign to drive Palestinian sympathisers in the UK out of public life, so it is essentially propagandist, as well as performing a community role. You could try raising the issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jontel (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried removing mentions of this journalist, but both times it has been reinstated. Not sure why, it doesn't seem to contribute to the article at all. 86.6.59.8 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased framing of libel case

Looking at this and saw this section

"On 19 December 2019, following a six-day trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, Turley won the libel claim against Unite and Walker and was awarded damages of £75,000, **despite Turley changing her explanation more than once of how she came to join Unite and with whom she had discussed it, and the judge criticising Turley and her legal team for failing to disclose important information**"

It seems to me that any reasonable person reading this would know that it was being written by someone pro-skwakbox and anti-Turley. The facts may be accurate but there's a question about what to highlight and the 'despite' seems an awful lot like they're trying to relitigate on wiki what was lost in the courts.

The piece could equally pick out other points that were critical of skwakbox - indeed as the topic is skwakbox rather than Turley it would be more relevant to identify things about skwakbox than Turley. The selection of what to focus on makes clear the author's stance. 78.148.3.11 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)