Talk:UnHerd

This is advertisement, not a Wikipedia page.

This Wikipedia page looks suspiciously like advertisement for UnHerd and offers little or no other perspective what so ever. For instance, the UnHerd Youtube channel is I reality full of bias statements and misinformation, but that is not reflected on this Wikipedia page at all. 90.225.4.62 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What bias and misinformation has been expressed by UnHerd? X-Editor (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of UnHerds reporters are known fringe disinformation spreaders and got kicked out of proper media, it's literally the reason they came together on that platform. 62.131.169.143 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Compelling argument: "known", "fringe", "misinformation", "disinformation". Are you sure you don't have an account here? Eric ^talk 00:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the original statement. The entire "Reception" section reads like an advert written by people closely associated with the site.94.174.66.37 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have trimmed some of the more gratuitous padding. If examples of stories reflect the website's reception, we should contextualize that according to WP:IS. To imply significance without that context is editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Anna Winslow

Is unherd based on a true story???? 2A00:23C6:95A1:4D01:9984:27B7:10DD:3887 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Known source of russian propaganda

Some of the articles on UnHerd.com are clearly biased in favor of Russia. This needs further investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.92.157 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Not even one example? How lazy. Equinox ◑ 11:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

the lead should summarize the body

Please see wp:llead, and please help me summarize the body in the lead. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed assertions you added to the lede that appeared to be conclusions drawn from body text that are not supported by that text or the sources cited. Also, you may want to make use of the "Show preview" option before you save your edits. Eric ^talk 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issue in lede

Hello all- Just now I reverted for the second time a sentence added by Grayfell that I found to be lacking in neutrality: UnHerd has published controversial articles about the COVID lab-leak theory, trans activism, and Russian misinformation. The rationale in Grayfell's edit summary prior to this was that these assertions were sourced in the body. I do not see anything in the body that supports what appear to be dismissive judgements made in Grayfell's summing-up of UnHerd. Hence my second revert. Eric ^talk 22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is your third revert.

See UnHerd#Notable_stories. If this is notable enough for a section of the article it should be summarized in the body. The specific wording can, obviously, be adjusted for neutrality, but to leave this out completely isn't going to work. Further, UnHerd#Reception provides context indicating that the current lead is insufficient. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I see that the addition I found questionable two days ago was a restoration of one added in November, with edit summary "the lede should summarize the body", which I reverted at the time and had since forgotten. The mere assertion by that user does not mean that his lede did in fact properly summarize the body. I re-read the whole article yesterday before my second revert. The lede as you restored it reads to me as a negative opinion, one apparently drawn in error from the "Notable stories" section. Perhaps worth noting: That lede as originally added in November included a further, gratuitous editorialization: Among the authors it publishes are some who are considered unseemly. Still, I do agree that the lede as it stands is a bit brief despite it being a short article. Eric ^talk 12:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Update on reception section

Regarding the 'update needed' tag on the 'reception' section, this one seems useful:

• Earle, Samuel (28 October 2023). "Loud and uncowed: how UnHerd owner Paul Marshall became Britain's newest media mogul". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 February 2024.

(Note that the story's author, Samuel Earle, is not the same person as Samuel Earle) This source does discuss the website's pivot away from open partisanship:

The site has amassed a diverse stable of writers, editors and readers, drifting away from explicit concern for the Conservative party and the future of capitalism, and towards a focus on culture war topics: lockdowns, wokeness, cancel culture and the trans rights movement, as well as more general journalistic fare.

It also goes in to further detail about Unherd's connections right-wing and conservative ideologies, such as the funding from Paul Marshall (investor), and these two paragraphs:

UnHerd and GB News are far from the only self-styled free-speech champions to find their rebellious ambitions endowed by the rich and powerful. The battle against what author Lionel Shriver called, at UnHerd’s inaugural event in New York, “the woke mind virus … a genuinely dangerous disease, unlike Covid”, attracts a level of investment much of the left could only dream of. Spiked, the Critic, Quillette, Compact magazine and the Free Press are among the cluster of rightwing and libertarian publications to have arisen or expanded in recent years, united by their dissident affectations and the wealth and political connections of their financial backers.

UnHerd’s stomach for diverse viewpoints on certain issues may be unique, but this set of media outlets – don’t call them a herd – move within the same pastures, grazing on culture war fodder and pushing political discourse in the same direction. They claim ordinary people and free speech are under threat from the shady influence of elites, but focus their ire almost entirely on progressives – with comparatively little to say about either the burgeoning profits of the ultra-wealthy or how their financial interests shape and subvert democracy. These outlets offer a glimpse into Conservatism’s future: a ruling-class creed desperately trying to reinvent itself as an insurrectionary crusade, relinquishing any responsibility for the world they have played no small part in shaping.[1]

I would hope that any fair summary of the website's reception would provide at least some of this as context. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree the page so far has minimal information which leads positive overall as it doesn't provide much detail on the lack of evidence provided by unherd to support it's articles essentially making it a glorified right-wing blog posting site rather than news org. Galdrack (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Presentation of Paul Marshall

Hello all- Following my copyedit of his/her recent additions to the History section (regarding UnHerd founder Paul Marshall), Helper201 has expressed objection in what could be viewed as contentious and unhelpful edit summaries of his/her two subsequent reverts: "Served absolutely zero benefit to remove this." and "What is "necessary" is entirely subjective. You don't get to omit cited content just because you don't like it." Note: His/her first edit in this series, which consisted of adding two hyperlinks and a category, was accompanied by the inaccurate edit summary "Grammar and formatting."

Per my reading of WP:OVERLINK, I deemed the wikilinking of the word conservative to be unnecessary. I also found the designation of Marshall as "the billionaire hedge fund manager" to be superfluous. Posting here to give editors an opportunity to weigh in. Eric ^talk 01:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it’s debatable as to whether the political ideology of conservatism is a "common term", as linking the ideology helps distinguish such a term, as the word "conservative" has more than one meaning. Moreover, you never previously mentioned MOS:OVERLINK in any of your edit summaries, nor identified any category issues. Secondly, what you regard as "superfluous" is entirely subjective and we don't edit based on editors' opinions. It was considered notable enough that reliable sources have explicitly stated him being a billionaire, one in the prominence of the title/heading of the source itself regarding the person. Helper201 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, Helper201: You are pronouncing it fact that the common vocabulary term conservative should be wikilinked, and you decisively conclude that my motivation for de-linking must necessarily be based merely on my personal feelings, yes? And because of the fact that Marshall has been identified as being a billionaire in a cited source, you similarly pronounce it fact that this word must be included in our description of him, and that any editor who sees that as unnecessary is operating merely from personal opinion? If so, might we take from this that when Helper201 writes something in a Wikipedia article, it is objectively correct as written, and that any copy-editing done for concision on that material must necessarily be subjective in nature — or as one might say, merely because the copy-editor "doesn't like it"? I'm asking for these clarifications so that we all may learn from you how to collaborate better on the encyclopedia. Eric ^talk 13:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Eric "You are pronouncing it fact that the common vocabulary term conservative should be wikilinked, and you decisively conclude that my motivation for de-linking must necessarily be based merely on my personal feelings, yes?". No. My reference to opinion was you omitting the term "billionaire" because you personally viewed it as "unnecessary" and "superfluous". Indeed, sources explicitly call him a billionaire, and we go with what reliable sources explicitly state. I never said it "must" be included, it’s just the reasoning for you removing it holds no good weight or grounds for removal and seems to purely be based on what your opinion is. By no means am I perfect and I don't want to pretend as if I'm anywhere close to being so. The new angle of "concision" also holds no weight, it’s not like this is lines of information, we are talking about a word or a few words at most. Helper201 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeating that whole sentence was not necessary (in my subjective personal opinion), as we still have access to it in my post directly above. So the assertions of "holding no weight" are not opinions, but facts, I take it? Eric ^talk 23:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The's no Wikipedia guideline that states its justifiable to remove cited content because of it being "unnecessary", "superfluous" or because of "concision". That's what I was referring to in so far as holding "no weight". Removing cited content serves no benefit to the reader. Eliminating this cited content does more harm than good by leaving the reader less informed, so I really don't see why you're pushing so much for its removal. Helper201 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll reiterate the point I tried to make above: The mere fact that a single given word appears in a cited source does not mean that it must necessarily be included in material based on that source in order for the material to be relevant. I did not "remove cited content"; I merely removed a word, an action which — speaking merely hypothetically, of course — might conceivably be viewed by some as a reasonable constituent of copy-editing. I'm not pushing for anything, and I doubt most people would think I have come across as doing so. I can only hope that history will forgive me for failing to see how a reader would be less informed regarding UnHerd's founder by being deprived of knowing how many zeroes there are in the estimation of his net worth. Eric ^talk 01:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

On no grounds does it improve the article to remove this word. It’s not just that sources state the word, one prominently states it within the title of the source. The sentence and paragraph are perfectly concise with the term included. It’s not necessarily the fact it "must" be included but more so there's no guideline saying it can't be there, nor is the paragraph improved by removing it. Removing words that are very clearly demonstrated to be prominent from the source/sources (i.e. in their heading) is removal of cited content. Helper201 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not merely your opinion, I take it? That is to say, you don't insist on keeping that one word in there just because you "like it", correct? Eric ^talk 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet again, it serves zero benefit to remove this. I'm not the one that created the source explicitly stating this. There's really no point in continuing this as we're just going in circles. Helper201 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a reliable source that tells us Marshall's favorite color and what kind of dog he has. Then we will have no choice but to add these bits to the article. Eric ^talk 18:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You just appear to be being purposefully flippant now. Please see WP:NOTEWORTHY. We are talking about a reliable and noteworthy national publication making a statement in their source title, of which other reliable, national and noteworthy sources collaborate within the text of their own articles. We aren't talking about pets, personal likes or dislikes or the person’s private life, however there would be nothing saying we couldn't state such things if reliable sources stated them. If you continue to state such unhelpful remarks again, I won't bother to respond to them. Helper201 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So the mere fact that a particular word appears in a cited source, and that one editor finds what the word conveys to be noteworthy, means that the word must be included with any other material based on that source, if I understand correctly? Eric ^talk 16:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So the mere fact that a particular word appears in a cited source, and that one editor doesn't like it, means that the word must not be included with any other material based on that source? As I have reiterated numerous times, removing this word provides zero benefit. Helper201 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly pronounced that the benefit of removing the superfluous word billionaire is "zero" by your imperiously delivered, unilateral calculation. Could you enlighten us as to your assessment of the benefit of having added the word? How does the reader benefit from knowing Marshall's estimated net worth? How do we define "billionaire"? In what currency is that evaluated? What do we do if his net worth plummets to only 950,000 million in whatever currency we are using to denote his current wealth? Eric ^talk 23:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)