Talk:Morning Star (British newspaper)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is it neutral to say "concise and wide ranging"?

Its concise and wide-ranging reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media, but it is entirely free of the celebrity gossip and other trivia that infest all the other national dailies to varying degrees.

was changed to

Its reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media.

with the message "removed POV".

The fact is that the articles are concise (the whole paper is rarely longer than twelve "tabloid" sides) and they are wide ranging (e.g. today's paper carried reports about a riot by poultry farmers in China, a court case involving Greenpeace in the USA, and news from Uganda and Venezuala as well as the usual headline stuff about Iraq and Palestine). It is also a fact that the paper is entirely free of celebrity gossip and trivia. It is a further fact that all the other national dalies do go in for celebrity gossip and trivia, to varying degrees. These things are all true. If somebody can come up with a way of saying those things without appearing to be praising the paper, please do so. Meanwhile I am restoring the original wording, except for the word "infest", which I concede was POV. GrahamN 03:55, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the paper is small -- only twelve pages -- does NOT necessarily mean that it's concise! It could be one page long and still be verbose, waffling, rambling, irrelevant... Manormadman (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

The article doesn't say 'concise' any more, though the paper's actually written in the traditional style of the UK broadsheets (ie consise with detail). It needs citations to back statements like that up though. There's not all much on the net unfortunately, but I'll have a look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

bankrolled by the KGB

Is there a source for this statement? I wouldn't be surprised if (in fact I'd expect that) the Soviet Union made donations to the Star, but saying it's the KGB isn't fair, IMO. Dafyddyoung 19:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Odd fact?

The only daily socialist newspaper in the world? Surely those countries with socialist governments have dailies? --Oldak Quill 01:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, just saw the phrase "English-language". --Oldak Quill 01:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, what about News Line? Probably most Morning Star readers disapprove of it, but it is undeniably a newspaper, it seems to be published daily, it is certainly in English, and it's hard to see how you could say it wasn't socialist. I'm adding a qualifier to the article. GrahamN 03:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone actually seen a print copy of News Line recently? I haven't seen one since the 80s. Grmdy 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial line

"Formerly Communist". Formerly? The article says that "in elections the party endorses the Communist Party of Britain". Consequently, the paper can only be considered formerly Communist if the political party is also so considered. (By the way, does the M Star still refer to North Korea as "People's Korea"?) I know its strapline says it's "for socialism", but Communist parties and papers have always described themselves as socialist - there's nothing new about this. In fact the countries that we call Communist countries always denied being Communist states, because according to Leninist ideology they were socialist states (merely on the transition to Communism), not Communist ones. -86.134.53.173 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the strapline is "For Peace and Socialism". This is a slogan that was also widely used by the Communist Party of Great Britain and has been the strapline of the Daily Worker/Morning Star throughout it's history.

Ecadre 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As regards your first point, you may well be right. I've seen it argued that the CPB aren't really communists at all, but reformist social democrats who have usurped the imagery and jargon of communism. But in any case the paper is by no means a mouthpiece for the CPB. There are as many articles by Labour politicians, Greens, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, Friends of the Earth types and even (annoyingly) various species of clergy, as there are by people who label themselves "communists", whatever they (or you) may choose understand by that emotive word. If you are determined to judge people, its far better to judge them according to what they actually say and write than according to what they choose to call themselves. Don't you agree? GrahamN 02:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the "Editorial" section to more accurately represent the relationship between the Morning Star and the Communist Party. It's a rather complicated area and the previous description was not correct in saying that there is no connection. For instance, by tradition, the Editor of the Morning Star sits on the Political Committee of the Communist Party.

Ecadre 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The reporting of the news never refers to North Korea as "People's Korea", nor does it do the same thing for China, Cuba or Vietnam. The comments sometimes come from a Communist who is sympathetic to these countries, but such pages are supposed to be opinionated; that's their whole raison d'etre.

JamesE edit

It has been said that the reasons for why 11th September was on page 2 are incorrect. However, I get the Morning Star delivered everyday, and it is true that foreign news is always on page 2 and 3 and on 4 for Saturdays. What's wrong with this?

The reason for my edit is that I actually work at the paper and have done for several years, so was able to get a denial of this straight from the editor, deputy editor _and_ foreign editor. It's true that foreign news is always on pp2-3, but this doesn't mean it's never on the front page - Saddam Hussein's capture went on the front, for instance. September 11 didn't go on the front for various trivial technical and production-related reasons - nothing to do with some imagined disrespect towards America, which was why I have taken the claim out again. JamesE 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Behind-the-scenes" donations from the TGWU

An extravagantly anonymous editor (IP 90.197.240.22 has apparently only ever been used once, for this edit) added a reference to "sizeable behind the scenes donations from trades unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union". What is this referring to? In the absence of any kind of explanation or corroboration I've removed it again. GrahamN 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it refers to the fighting fund and "fundraising" training advertised on the paper's web site.

This may be linked to exotic donations from a union which can only afford conditional fee lawyers for its members when they're in trouble at work: a puzzling priority which cannot be explained in any plausable way. TGWU is unusual among unions in allowing volunteer branch committees considerable budget and influence - even the right to increase the subscription according to a Certification Office investigation into the taxi drivers' branch[1]. Branches are large and need not be linked to any one employer. Branch committees are elected face-to-face at meetings where they are often the only people present - a flawed electoral system open to entryism.

When I went to a meeting of branch 1/1148 to complain at lack of legal representation - let alone any other service - from my union I found a certain Dr Martin Graham, treasurer, well up on the agenda. He was proposing a thousand-pound purchase of non-dividend shares in the Star. This was approved unanimously (I abstained). On a roll, he suggested a £200 add wishing the Star a happy christmas from the T&G. Again unanimous. Not so union services to members. "The purpose of a union is not legal insurance but solidarity", I was told my the treasurer and secretary, while I read in the minutes that an ex colleague from the same employer had made an almost identical complaint about lack of legal support the month before.

I had never heard of this Dr Graham before, mor Mr McBride the secretary. They were nothing to do with my ex employer but I google one of their names here [2].

As for "behind the scenese", the Star's accounts cost £15 to get from the Docklands registry of friendly societies, while Transport and General branch accounts should legally be circulated to all members who get other mail. Mine are not: you have to go to the annual general meeting and hope for an un-audited handout. This does indeed list large donations to the Star and other political causes. I'll post a copy if anyone wants.

My branch bank account was frozen by the regional union office a year or two ago. What that says about unaudited accounts, and whether money claimed for the morning star actually reaches it is anyone's guess.

Such is life. I am glad that other people have noticed the Star / TGWU link before me.

This is obviously a personal grievance, but it's being replayed in the article. Unless the specific claims around T&G donations can be properly sourced, I think it should come out, along with judgemental POV comments such as "may or may not ... have joined for the purposes of donating funds", and the comment about TU staff "hired from Morning Star articles". It's almost certainly true that the Morning Star receives support from Trade Unions, and this likelihood should be stated, but it shouldn't be mixed up with one T&G members personal gripe with the union.

Also, the comment "some Socialist groups argue..." isn't sourced, and I believe may come under the heading of "weasel words". Can anyone source it (and given the use of the plural, I guess it needs multiple sources)?

Grmdy 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If a union can donate large amounts of members' money to a paper on a show of a few peoples' hands, I think that is a general point relevent to every member. The number one complaint to workplace bullying helplines is failure of unions to represent members and all union members should be able to read in Wikipedia where some of their money is going instead.

It's a complicated point as has been said above, because it involves a decentralised organisation with only the vaguest of public central accounts, and that's why vague words are necessary to avoid someone else instantly removing them as unfounded. The use of union members money is obvious, but without access to the local accounts of every union branch and hours of time to compile the findings, the evidence will have to come from anecdotal references of which there are many. For example Amicus subscribes in bulk to the Morning Star, quantities are available at T&G headquarters, union jobs are advertised any day of the week on the Morning Star online web site a handful of senior figures in some of the large trades unions are also members of the CPB. An interview with the Morning Star editor, formerly referenced here, quotes him as saying that many of the shareholders are union organisations and it's hard to see why they should buy non-divend hard-to-sell shares except to support the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganline (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's called democracy, bud. As I said, TUs give support to the Morning Star, as they do to (for example) Tribune. But POV rants about what allegedly went on in some TU branch meeting have no place in an encyclopedia article IMO. Grmdy (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do the italics go?

Is it The Morning Star or The Morning Star? Corvus cornix 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed from editorial section

In 1940, the paper, then the Daily Worker with an anti-war editorial policy during the Vyacheslav Molotov-Joachim von Ribbentrop Pact, accused Sir Walter Citrine, the General Secretary of Britain's Trade Union Congress, of "plotting with the French Citrines to bring millions of Anglo-French Trade Unionists behind the Anglo-French imperialist war machine." Citrine sued, and the case turned into a display of the Daily Worker's editorial position as being directed from the Soviet Union. [1] Because of its pro-Moscow position during the war, the Daily Worker was suppressed by police action on January 21, 1941 and ceased to publish. It was allowed to start publication less than a year later, and the staff became known as "tankies" by other left-leaning journalists for supporting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring even though the society was separate from the Communist Party of Great Britain.

I've removed the previous from the "Editorial" section since it is delving into the history of the Morning Star rather than it's current editorial positions. It is also rather misleading in how it describes this period and throws in unconnected "Point of view" stuff about events that happened over 25 years later.

If there's going to be more historical stuff in the article then it should be done properly rather than just stick it in willy nilly. Ecadre 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I created the new section, and added a new paragraph to separate the point on Prague Spring.

-- Randy2063 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone added the same text at the start, I've removed it since it's repeated further down.

Grmdy 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there a source for the line on the Prague Spring? The CPGB line at the time was to condemn the Soviet intervention, is there evidence that the Morning Star line was different? Grmdy 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've just rearranged the intro - I feel it conforms more to WP style with a description of the paper first, followed by the short history. It was very unusual with the way jumped straight in. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Better sections

I'm changing 'Editorial Policy' to 'Editorial Stance' (per The Guardian) and will create a 'Contributors' sub-heading, and possibly try out others. I think sub headings are the way to go. There's no reason why this article can't look like professional, and become a 'GA', or even higher. Why not? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I kept Editorial Policy, as it did make better sense - added new sections under it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'Finances' section

This is currently a lot of prose that could use some citations, and maybe some sub headings too. Is the title the best it can be? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above, the "Finances" section seems to have been used by one individual to replay his personal gripe with his trade Union, and is extremely POV. The citation given for one section refers to a website with an extremely POV take on the issues involved - e.g. it refers to the Star as a "Stalinist lying sheet" and "screwing the trade union movement". Most of the section needs to be removed, IMO. Grmdy (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own interests are in Cuba? Nothing wrong with that but I think there are more people being let down by their trades unions and wanting to read why than debating armchair politics or joining the communist party of britain. It only had thirty seven members at one count

I don't know how best to edit this page but if you have a look at employees.org.uk you'll see the problem. Maybe someone less close to the issue could find the best edit. Veganline (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Veganline, that website it the POV one I was talking about, and it contains no evidence, just unsubstantiated claims and interpretations. I have no idea what you're wittering on about Cuba and the CPB for, it is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a debating society - it should be NPOV Grmdy (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article must be unbiased (WP:NPOV). Facts and arguemnts can be got across - but they must be reliably sourced, and ought not be unjustly weighted. I've tidied up the section purely on "style" grounds. Nothing exciting, but hopefully a better 'base' to improve...--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better now, I think. I've also changed the sentence "Consequently the paper has always been heavily dependent on donations made by activists within organisations such as trades unions, who may or may not be representative of those unions, or have joined for the purpose of donating funds." to "Consequently the paper has always been heavily dependent on donations made by activists, and sympathetic organisations such as Trades Unions.", which is a phrasing that isn't making unverifiable assumptions about people's motivations. I've also removed an unverified statement about what "Some socialists" allegedly think... if anyone can actually source it, then it could potentially be reinstated (depending on the reliability of the source), but I raised it's unsourced nature several months ago and it still hasn't been sourced. Grmdy (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Finance Section

I don't understand how, if the cover price doesn't cover the cost of an issue, how bulk orders from the USSR could serve as indirect subsidy. I took it to mean that each copy sells at a loss: is this incorrect? Is it instead the case that each copy sells at a loss simply because not enough are sold, or prior to the USSR's dissolution they were profit-turning per issue? Nach0king (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. I don't think it's so much that it is/was loss making for each copy sold, but that the number of copies sold was higher when the USSR put in bulk orders, and a higher circulation offsets costs better. Grmdy (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This was possibly an indirect subsidy. The Soviet Union paid for some 28,000 issues a day in the 1970s (and other bulk orders went to Eastern Europe) but this number may not have been actually sent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.65 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The paper was founded by communists, is printed by communists and is edited by communists, all form the CPB. Yet it does not act as "a mouthpiece for any political party". Anyone who thinks that the Morning Star is not a CPB mouthpiece must be the only ones to accuse the mainstream media of a right-wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.223.213 (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Communist newspaper?

Every now and again, someone makes an edit calling this a "communist newspaper" - usually either in the first line, or in the info box. The reference is the Communist Party AGM of 2006. Surely that is not good enough - where does it say it in the paper itself? As far as I can tell, the paper is pitched at a socialist market, its contents are socialist, and the contributers are not generally communists (though I'm sure some are). There may be ties, but newspapers don't quite work like that in terms of ediorial. Look at Murdoch etc. The Morning Star is pretty successful being what it is, and is recommended by many a non-communist for the quality of its reporting. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I made that edit and I've just reverted to it. You don't seem very clued up on the history of the paper or its official editorial policy, even to the extent of reading the rest of this page. Other national newspapers obviously endorse the policies of political parties - at times different ones as with Murdoch - but the 'Morning Star' is the only one that has an official policy that its editorial (not contributors') line follows the programme of a political party, the Communist Party of Britain.Haldraper (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You will have to provide a quote. I'm not happy with only a "page 6" citation - you must detail the passage in quotes. If they explicitly follow the policies of a party then I will stop buying it tomorrow, and advise others to do so. It is a good paper, and I've nothing against the Communist Party as such. I just don't want to read that kind of newspaper. I'm sure many of the contributors would not be too happy with this too.

I'm reverting till you supply a full citation at least (it is standard practice to do so in these matters, when asked to, as the next level of verification). I don't think the paper or this article should be an advert for a political party, unless they explcitly intend to be. If you see ambiguity in the matter you can put it into the main text. People have been happy with the 'socialist' label in this article for years. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've supplied a quote from the Scottish website of the CPB that shows the editorial line of the 'Morning Star' has to conform to its programme. It is not a question of being 'an advert for a political party', 'ambiguity' or 'People have been happy with the 'socialist' label in this article for years' but of being accurate.Haldraper (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy on Wikpipedia has to fully pass WP:VERIFY.

This looks like classic Wikipedia x=z to me. The Morning Star (and others) have always describe the paper as "socialist", not 'communist' - and I don't think that is hiding their true colours or anything like that. Are you sure this isn't a pro-communist bias coming through? Being "based on the Road to Socialism" is not enough to use the term "is a communist paper".. not in real terms, or via the all-important Wikipedia WP:Verify policy; 'Socialist' is the WP:COMMONNAME term. The Road to Socialism is also, it appears, a road in any case (I've not read it, so comment on what is says/does exactly).

The paper prides itself on being for "all the left". It is surely WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis for you to use the word "communist" as the top-level adjective to describe the paper. The paper clearly attracts writers who are socialists but not communists, and who would refuse I am sure to tow any line. Calling the paper 'communist' based on the Road to Socialism makes the paper appear a mouthpeice of Communist Party, or a least an active promoter of communism. I'm actually going to phone the paper tomorrow to see what they say on this - I don't think they'll be happy, which should settle the matter. If they are happy, they have one less reader! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I am far from being a sympathiser of the 'Morning Star', I am an anti-Stalinist socialist, like Hal Draper on whom my username is based. So there is no pro-CPB bias here, quite the opposite.

The word 'communist' is a piped link to the Communist Party of Britain on whose programme, 'The British Road to Socialism', the paper's official editorial policy is based. That is not WP:Original Research, I have provided a fully referenced quote from the CPB's website showing this.

Please phone the paper. Why you 'don't think they'll be happy, which should settle the matter' is beyond me, they clearly are happy to be the CPB's paper as they allow that fact to be advertised on its public website for all to see!Haldraper (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Verify, we need major sources that say or clearly-infer that "the Morning star is a communist newspaper" - we cannot synthesise our own 'fact' from sources that can be read in different ways, and then place it above major sources that say 'socialist'. The Morning Star is simply not promoted as a communist newspaper. I phoned them and a few things came up:

1) They specifically target and promote their paper to "all on the left", and regularly feature non-communist contributors from the broader left, like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone.

2) What can be called the organised left is a flexible matter, and they don't see it residing in any one place, such as the Communist Party. Respect was mentioned at this point.

3) They understand that on Wikipedia some people will run with certain details, and understand how this detail can lead to the 'communist newspaper' edit, but see the original 'socialist newspaper' edit as preferable and more accurate.

4) The paper is not produced or owned by the Communist party, but by a co-op. It has shareholders of course, and is widely distributed and sold. There was a period in the papers history (early 20th c) where the 'communist newspaper' label fit (and was used), but it does not today.

In the light of the conversation, I'm going to revert back to the words 'socialist newspaper' (and continue to buy it when I see it!). The Road to Socialism and the AGM reference etc are detailed properly in the Editorial section, which is the natural place for this information. If you want to add more, perhaps you could do it there? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, you're just being willfully blind here. The paper's editorial policy must conform to the programme of the Communist Party but it's not a communist paper? The People's Press Printing Society is clearly a legal fiction through which the Communist Party of Britain retains complete editorial control. That they/you pretend it is now a 'broad left' paper does not make it so. Even the non-party contributors like Galloway and Livingstone share its politics on many issues.Haldraper (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say they "must" conform to anything? And is the Road to Socialism a restricting manifesto anyway? They suggested it wasn't. Unfortunately I haven't read it - but I will search it out. Anyway you have twice now shown that you have a clear biased view on this matter - the above comment effectively fails WP:AGF, though I'm not one to worry about that in particular. Saying 'wilful' is a little personal though, given that you have no evidence for it! On Wikipedia you need good sources. You have an opinion, but you have no support, and you do not have sources that are good enough to allow you to insert your view into the Intro as being fact. If you can find things 'on' the Morning Star, why not try and just get them into the main sections, such is Editorial, or a Criticism section? Well sourced criticism probably won't be even addressed by anyone: good sourcing is good sourcing. If you are as right as you think you are, surely you can find sources to support you. What you can't do is edit completely outside of Wikipedia's WP:policy. I'm concerned right now that you are removing perfectly fine text from the Intro that has been there a long time - it looks like you could be trying to discredit the paper, and to lessen what can be seen as positive information about it. You will only be wasting your time if this is the case, as people will simply put it all back. As someone who reads it fairly regularly, I really don't see where you are coming from: it really is no Communist Manifesto, though you'd want to read another decent paper too. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, you're changing the goalposts here. I suggest to you that the 'Morning Star' follows an editorial line set by the CPB. You say it doesn't and challenge me to provide a verifiable source and full quote for that claim and when I do so, with a link to the CPB's website no less, you delete it on the grounds that 'you do not have sources that are good enough'!

Two other things. Why do you assume the relationship between the 'Morning Star' and the CPB should go in the 'Criticism' section? It is not criticism at all, merely the stating of fact. And what is this about me "removing perfectly fine text from the Intro that has been there a long time"? I haven't deleted any of the opening paras as a look at the revision history will prove.Haldraper (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can see you moved the text down rather than delete it, but it does not scan right now as it was written for the first line. It is long-standing text, and I'm replacing it. My suggestion of a 'Criticism' section was clearly just a friendly 'possibility' (you have expressed you misgivings pretty clearly - I am saying that you need sources to back them up) - it had a question mark and came directly after me suggesting you could use the Editorial section. I don't like the way your are 'assessing' my own actions now, let alone the Morning Star's. I've been patient and fully straight with you all the way, and am editing professionally. In your reverting edit note, you said my move back to consensus was "for POV reasons". I am going to place a Warning for that on your Talk page. You have no evidence for saying that my policy and consensus-based edits are [[WP:POV] formed out of bias. I haven't given you any reason at all to say that! When someone is making this kind of effort to edit properly, it actually quite a slur. Your personal negative feelings towards communism and the Morning Star (which you have expressed above) cartainly have no place on Wikipedia article space. Wikipedia is NOT about anyone's "truth", but about sourcing properly per the whole of WP:VERIFY, and giving a fair and objective view of the subject - via the way it seen by the sourceable world. The only source you currently have is an indirect one, and you have synthesised with your own feelings: ie your created 'fact' is your personal conclusion on a source, and your conclusion has no on-Wiki or off-Wiki support.

The correct place to make edits that accord to your concerns would be somewhere in the main text, with supporting sources of course. I've been saying this because you have expressed critical feelings, and an idea that the Morning Star is hiding its true colours - if you find quality sources that agree with you, then you can get them into the main text. Your current information is actually mentioned within the articles already, but you could add more to that too, if you have it. Please don't let this become an edit battle between us. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I am genuinely puzzled as to why you refuse to accept the CPB's own website as a source for its control of the 'Morning Star's' editorial line. I also think you misunderstand WP:CONSENSUS as meaning that no-one can change longstanding text without the approval of those who have put it there, which also smacks of WP:OWN.

To describe the paper as 'socialist' is not only WP:VAGUE given the broadness of the term compared to the specifity of the Star's history/politics but also WP:POV and I will add those tags if the current text is allowed to stand.

That 'The Morning Star is hiding its true colours ' is my main problem. I repeat, if the CPB website isn't a 'quality source', what is? Surely the fact that it sets the paper's editorial line is important enough to appear in the intro?Haldraper (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the source has to be supported - you haven't done that. You have also 'presented' the source in a way that reflects your own conclusions on it - you have developed your own 'fact' (contravening WP:Original Research). You simply have no evidence to say the Communist Party of Britain "sets the editorial line". The newspaper itself denies this, and you have providfed no support for your opinion. If I rang the CPB would you say they were hiding the reality too? According to the Morning Star, the 'Road to Socialism' is a basic 'principal' guide, but not an overtly defining one, and the paper is NOT run by the Communist Party. The organised left is a changeable thing (which includes the Labour Party!), and the paper is for "all on the left". No one horse is backed. You can "asume bad faith" with the Morning Star all you want - but do not do it to me again. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, what you say bears no relation to reality. I have not 'presented' the source to develop a 'fact' in an WP:OR way, I've quoted directly from the CPB website to show that, contrary to what you say and also what - you claim - the paper says, there is plenty of evidence of that it "sets the editorial line", NOT that they own/directly run it which I have never claimed.

I doubt too that the CPB would deny that they control the editorial line as they publicly advertise the fact on their website!

Incidentally your claim that the paper is for "all on the left" is not only WP:POV but - ironically - WP:OR as well.

This is the quote from the CPB website:

It is run by a Cooperative Society, the Peoples Press Printing Society...The current policy of the Society is that the columns of the paper be open to all on the Left and that the paper’s editorial line be based on Britain's Road to Socialism.

Maybe my comprehension of English isn't up to your level but I suggest a plain reading of those words backs up what I am saying and not you.

The Wikipedia page on 'Britain's Road's to Socialism' is equally clear:

Britain's Road to Socialism (BRS) is the programme of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) and is adhered to by the Young Communist League (YCL) and the editorship of the British daily newspaper The Morning Star.

Presumably you'll be quibbling about that next.Haldraper (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, both of you, ameliorate your tone. There's no need for this discussion to be acrimonious. As to the content issue: is it possible that the disagreement lies with the interpretation of the sentence above? The sentence states that it is the editorial policy of the Society to take an editorial line from a particular source. Clearly this means it is the Society's decision to do so, and that can change at any time - it is not (from this evidence) within the control of the authors of the source in question, being the CPB. Given the history it is quite possible that there are other links between the Society and the CPB (eg overlapping membership of individuals) which would be relevant, but based on this source alone, it cannot be said that the CPB controls the Star's editorial line. (Also, for a document that has only been revised 7 times since 1951, according to the Wikipedia entry, it's questionable what exactly it means on a day to day basis to be "taking a line" from it, especially given what the CPB source and others say about the Star being open to a broad Left in terms of contributions.) Rd232 ^talk 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What the CPB do, and what the Peoples Press Printing Society state, are not automatically the same thing, for sure. Regarding differing interpretations, the key words for me are, "..the paper’s editorial line be based on Britain's Road to Socialism." Firstly, "based on" is an ambiguous phrase - it is very different to "follows". It demands the question, how far do you interpret the text? And how far do you adhere to it too? Secondly, the term "editorial line" is ambiguous too; does it mean full control of the paper? Or is just the Editor's Comment perhaps? Perhaps it is just a basic guide on pitfalls, or what to avoid? Apparently, the Road to Socialism is not actually strictly party-specific - it accepts that other parties can lead the left.

It is wrong for Wikipedia to state "The Morning Star is a communist newspaper", or to state (or even imply) that it is run by the Communist Party of Britain. When considering the ambiguity intrinsic to both "based on the Road to Socialism" and "editorial line", the fact that 'socialist' is the self-describing term used by the newspaper alongside "for all the left" (backed up by other sources too), and that we have nothing that interprets the source for us (apart from the Morning Star themselves), it is impossible to make any definitive judgments, and we shouldn't be doing that anyway. We can only detail the particular source in the Editorial section, we cannot interpret them for for ourselves. I genuinely believe the recent edits are incorrect interpretations too, but that is neither here not there. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, it's a little galling to be seen as coming across as having an acrimonious tone, as I've particularly attempted to be moderate in this discussion! It's been only the two of us of course, which in a manner of speaking leaves us nowhere to hide. I do often find it hard to control tone sometimes, but it's just the open way I comment. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I just wanted to suggest you both try to keep calm and civil - before things get out of hand, rather than after. Rd232 ^talk 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll have problems finding an independent source for the claim that the 'Morning Star' is 'open to a broad Left in terms of contributions' because it's just not true: as I've said before they do have non-Party contributors but only ones who broadly agree with their politics on a particular issue like Galloway or Livingstone.

I am not claiming that the CPB legally owns the paper (although I'd guess most if not all the staff who work on it day to day are members). The editorial line is also determined by the CPB via the PPPS as I've shown.

The question is how we describe the politics of the paper and its relationship with the CPB in a NPOV but also honest way. I think piped links to 'socialism' and 'communism', which are very broad terms/movements, are vague and blur over the specifics its actual political tradition.

To get round this with as little change to the current text as possible, I propose the following:

1. keeping the words 'socialist newspaper' but removing the link to 'socialism' which is as I've said too broad to describe the paper's specific politics.

2. on the same grounds, and to reflect the relationship with the CPB, replacing the links to 'communism' and 'socialism' in the political alignment section with one to the CPB.

The only alternative I can see is to leave the page unamended and add POV and vague tags as I suggested above.Haldraper (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The first line originally read "left wing", or at least did when I edited the intro last year. I'm happy for 'left wing' in place of 'socialism'. I will need to be wiki-linked though, per MOS. Someone will link it in two minutes if we don't. I am also happy with "socialist, communist" in the Info box - a compromise I made when someone changed it to just communist. I don't agree with a direct link to the CPB in the Info box though. As I have said, in the Editorial section (etc) you can write what you want, providing the sources are there of course, but Introductions and Info Boxes have specific style rules that guide the way they are written (no history before immediate detail etc). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"The editorial line is also determined by the CPB via the PPPS as I've shown." I'm sorry, did you miss my comment above? You've not shown this; and some of your other assertions are also currently unsupported (which is not to say they're not true; cf WP:V). Anyway, in general, it's highly unproductive to argue about infoboxes on issues such as these, where the brevity of an infobox can't do justice to a particular issue. Just leave it vague in the infobox, and clarify it in detail in the text. Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, the problem with that is that the 'Morning Star' was - like the CPGB - closely identified politically with the Stalinist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe and - like the CPB - still is with the remaining ones such as China and Cuba. Links to pages like 'left wing' or 'socialism', which are necessarily very broad to cover the wide range of positions associated with those terms, therefore do nothing to help distinguish the paper's politics. That's why if you want to have 'left-wing/socialist' as a label for the paper it will be unhelpful to a have piped link. What is your problem with CPB in the political alignment section of the infobox given the relationship between it and the 'Morning Star'?Haldraper (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not following me - 'left wing' linked to left wing - it did not pipe to 'socialism'. I'm sure you feel that 'socialist' is closer to 'communist' anyway, and is perhaps the better label. I see what you mean - you are suggesting a pipe here. I'm rarely in favour of them - if I agree with where the link goes, I wouldn't try and hide it. I don't quite see China or Cuba (esp) as 'Stalinist regimes' - but I don't want a Talk page argument over that: if you have evidence you want to put in the main article, please do so. You simply cannot avoid doing that, and then make these bold assertions in the intro spaces. As I said, I'm happy with the info box stating 'socialist, communist' (and linking to them). My arguments over the CPB are clear. The paper has stated that the left is broad, and they don't specifically align - no matter what links the paper/staff has with different 'factions' fo the left etc. It's too broad to select (and promote) just one - it just needs to be mentioned properly within the text. As RD232 says, these boxes have 'brevity' issues, and have to be unambiguous. The paper is genuinely open to the left (and the left is an open matter) in my view - we clearly have a different view on that. You need considerably more support to prove your view is the 'truth', but you still have the one ambiguous ref. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The paper used to be owned by the CPGB before they transferred it to a co-op that continues to - broadly - follow the Party line, as is made clear on the CPB website. The question is how we reflect that relationship between the paper and the CPB in the intro. How about this?

"The Morning Star is a left-wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format published by the People's Press Printing Society. Its editorial policy is based on Britain's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain, although features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives."

This summarises the section on editorial policy in a NPOV way, which is notable per WP:LEAD Haldraper (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is more accurate than your previous suggestions, but I still don't think it offers evenly-balanced weight - it is simply too suggestive, and thus not NPOV. 'Programme' is rather a 'weasel word' - it seems to be really saying "look, the paper is communist". In the following sentence, the word "although" counter-balances "based on", and leads to 'features', which leads to 'writers', which leads to 'perspectives'. The last sentence doesn't distract from the heavily "this paper is communist" weight, but adds to it because it suggests that "based on" must equal "communist", because "socialist/social democratic/green" etc is an "although"-departure. What you call "editorial policy" is still something we disagree on. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I struggle to see what's POV about what I've written. 'Programme' isn't a 'weasel word', it's how the CPB describes Britain's Road to Socialism, its programme. Changing it to another word would be POV. When you say its 'suggestive', what do you mean? That it suggests 'facts' that aren't true, such as a relationship between the paper's editorial policy and the CPB's programme? But that's detailed by both the PPPS that publishes the 'Morning Star' and the CPB on its website. We can discuss the best word to describe that relationship - I actually just summarised the section on editorial policy as per WP:LEAD but to suppress a notable fact in the intro is contrary to that policy. It doesn't matter what you think the paper's editorial policy is: both the PPPS and CPB are clear that it is based on Britain's Road to Socialism. It would be helpful if you could suggest an amended version of my text that covered these points.Haldraper (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

'Programme' is a weasel word as it avoids saying what you really want, but suggests it instead. If it can't be said, it can't be suggested. As for me helping you with what you want to achieve, it doesn't work like that! It's not a question of meeting half way at all - you need to convince people that your changes/additions are warranted. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What I really want? 'Programme' is fine with me - and the CPB! - it's you who has some strange problem with it. I genuinely don't know what you think I am trying to 'suggest', what 'secret meaning' I am trying to convey by using the word the CPB use for their PROGRAMME. It would help if you spelt out what you think instead of writing in code: 'it avoids saying what you really want, but suggests it instead. If it can't be said, it can't be suggested.' ???? I wish you would just come out and say what you mean to be honest.

Far from me needing your help to achieve a NPOV intro that adequately summarises the body of the article as per WP:LEAD, I was merely asking what parts you consider inaccurate or POV. In the absence of that, I'll insert the above when the page protection expires.Haldraper (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gone as far as we can go now, so I'll open an Request For Comment as soon as I have time. Hopefully it will be free of Commie haters who might give it little thought (I'm serious - every RFC, AFD etc is something of a risk on Wikipedia). One thing I will reiterate here though - the status quo was a settled consensus, so there is no front-standing reason that anyone should be expected to meet someone coming from your position 'half way': policy alone must dictate what edits are encyclopedic or not. If an edit passed through policy, I would automatically be happy with it, no matter the politics were (I might only copy edit on that occasion). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, it's no good slinging around personal abuse like 'Commie hater'. I've asked you to identify POV in what I've written and you've failed to do so. Your comments about status quo/settled consensus smack of WP:OWN.Haldraper (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Commie haters" wasn't actually a dig at you, it was aimed at the pending RFC (and my fear of proceedings at them) - I've seen ingrained 'anti-socialist' bias crop up in these things, esp often from people who don't properly look at the subject. You keep saying my edits smack of WP:OWN, which completely unfair, as I've been per WP:policy all the way. You must understand that it is you who wants to insert changes - I'm just arguing that the current status quo is fine! You cannot accuse me of WP:OWN just because I'm standing in your way - if I don't you will simply change the article! This is why I'm stressing so much that this isn't a 'compromise needed' matter, and that people mustn't be allowed to grumble such radical changes in: they must fully pass policy first. If you think that is an WP:OWN comment, then what can I say? This is Wikipedia - it works by consensus (often based on accepted edits), not by taking it in turns. I'm not being selfish, I'm giving my spare time for the sake of a balanced encyclopedia, mostly (but not exclusively) on articles that I'm interested in.

It might also be worth knowing that I've seen this article get 'remotely' reverted back to the accepted consensus by editors who don't necessarily visit here at all. It may not happen the same day, but it happens. So this article does actually have watchers, and given how long the consensus edit has existed, I can't imagine I will be alone in this matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to add to this already absurdly long-winded discussion, but I just feel I should support Haldraper's proposed formulation for the opening of the article, viz:

"The Morning Star is a left-wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format published by the People's Press Printing Society. Its editorial policy is based on Britain's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain, although features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives."

I think this is fair (although some of the things he's written here are not). In particular I'm in favour of the term "left wing" as a descriptor in preference to "communist" or even "socialist". The quote that Haldraper dug up about "the columns of the paper being open to all on the left" is right. There are articles by people from across the whole of the left, not all of whom would even consider themselves socialist - they are certainly not mainly communists. For example there are regularly items written by Greens (e.g. Caroline Lucas, Derek Wall), Labour members of parliament (e.g. Jeremy Corbyn, Alan Simpson), Union leaders, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and others. Haldraper may be surprised to learn that the paper frequently carries contributions by people from sections of the left that he might actually approve of (e.g. Lindsey German, Keith Flett). I remember not long ago the Star even carried an interview with a notable Tory (David Davis). It is true that the editor is from the CPB and that the PPPS annual report contains a reference to Britain's Road to Socialism, but it is misleading to describe the Morning Star as a communist newspaper. It is also wrong to say that the PPPS is a "legal fiction" under the control of the CPB. I'm not a supporter of any political party but I'm a member of the PPPS, and I can vouch that any PPPS member can put forward resolutions to the AGM and that voting is simply one member one vote. The paper really is owned by its readers, and the genuine independence that gives it is its main attraction to many like me. GrahamN (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the above a little rude I have to say, so take a minor 'civility' from me here, as you don't accept Talk page discussion (seriously). This is a typical Wikipedia disagreement, it is not civil or clever to step calling it "absurdly long-winded" - these things are sorted when they are sorted. I'm not here because I've got nothing else to do! The paper being for all of the left has actually been my own argument all along. It seems like you are generally agreeing with my side of the argument, but you support haldrapers compromise re-write (which is your prerogative);

"The Morning Star is a left-wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format published by the People's Press Printing Society. Its editorial policy is based on Britain's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain, although features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives."

I'm also happy with 'left-wing' (this used to be the term used, and I've always been fine with), but I find the rest is implicitly suggesting that the paper is communist. I've taken the time to give intelligent word-specific reasons for this. I'm not happy with “although”, “programme” or “based on”.

So - do you think that most of the PPPS would be happy with the change above? If you are a member I'd like to know what you think. Maybe they would, I don't know. I personally think this re-write (and the British Road to Socialism in itself) have 'WP:undue weight' for the intro, and that the Editorial section is fine for this information (fairly written of course). That's been the 'status quo' up to now, and I strongly feel it should continue. Otherwise, why on earth would I argue so much against changing it? You can't expect people to just pack up their bags whenever a disagreement has gone on a bit – that is 'absurd' in itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

At the present stage, this newspaper has nothing to do with communism. Being from Norway, we have a newspaper entitled, Klassekampen created by the Workers' Communist Party. The newspaper has distance itself from the party and the communist ideology and its widely agreed to be a socialist one at the present. If you ask me, the Morning Star seems to share much of the same history.

To call the newspaper communist is to me arrogant, being that the newspaper has many socialist and social democrats writers, which is noted in the above discussion. Keep socialism, or call it a left-wing newspaper. But don't call them communist. --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt et al, not mentioning the basis of the paper's editorial policy in the intro is a breach of WP:LEAD which requires us to adequately summarise the body of the article. One sentence is hardly undue weight.Haldraper (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you were affronted by my remarks, Matt, but you must admit this is dragging on in a tiresome way. You complain about three words in Haldraper's proposal, "although", "programme" and "based on". As regards "based on", I checked the wording from the 2006 PPPS annual report that is referenced in the article, and the expression they use there is "founded on" (The full sentence is "In line with the principles of Britain's Road to Socialism, the political programme on which our paper's editorial line is founded, we will continue to expose the anti-working-people nature of new Labour's pro-business agenda and will work to encourage greater labour movement unity to win support for a Left-Wing Programme so that a Labour Party leadership election can be fought on the basis of policies rather than personalities." [the emphasis is in the original]). I propose we change "editorial policy is based on" to "editorial line is founded on" (to accord with the PPPS wording), and drop the word "although" by splitting the second sentence in two. The word "programme" seems to be unavoidable, I'm afraid. So this is my proposal:

"The Morning Star is a left-wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format published by the People's Press Printing Society. Its editorial line is founded on Britain's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain. Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives."

I hope this is acceptable to all. GrahamN (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Communist newspaper? (section break)

But what actually is an 'editorial line'? Unless it has a specific context, it is just not an encyclopedic term. It has to be about something specific, ie "the Morning Star's editorial line is anti-war" (when the context is Iraq, for example). "Its editorial line is founded on Britain's Road to Socialism" can only make one sense: a general promotion of communism. And there is compounding ambiguity surrounding how far 'Britain's Road the Socialism' actually goes when specifically regarding the Communist Party of Britain (which is NOT the PPPS too). An encyclopedia should not be claiming an ambiguous sense. Thats why I am talking about 'weasel words'. "Editorial line" is a no-no.

All we have to do is quote the Morning Star's own words, and let people draw their own conclusions (as we have no sources of other people's!) - but not in the fist line of the Introduction. We don't need to formulate our own "based on" when they say "founded on" - which has different sense to 'based on' anyway. (this has been addressed)

The guy at the Morning Star suggested putting the editorial question to the Letters page. I've decided to do this - we may actually have a decent source then at least. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the editorial line is the line the editor takes when writing editorials. I've not read more than a few pages of BRS and I could be wrong, but I have the impression that it sets great store on bringing the whole of the left together - hence the apparent contradiction between the editorial line being founded on the programme of a single party but the paper itself being of the broad left. (Incidentally, as a Star reader, why haven't you joined the PPPS yourself? Then you can go along to the AGM and have your say. The more readers get involved the better the paper will be.) I'll keep an eye on the letters page, but in the meantime can you please bring yourself provisionally to accept the above proposed form of words, or similar, so the article can be unprotected? GrahamN (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Graham, I'm fine with your version. As you say, it has the advantage of directly quoting the words used by the PPPS to describe the relationship between the editorial line of the paper and the programme of the CPB.Haldraper (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Morning Star is a left wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format. It is dedicated to foreign and domestic news, with a bias leaning towards social issues and trade unions, and away from the perceived pro-business stance of other publications.[1] It also has an arts page, a TV page, and sports pages. It eschews the gossip columns and sensational news of heavier tabloid papers and has also far fewer pages than other national dailies (16 pages on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays). Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives.

The newspaper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the The Morning Star in 1966. Since September 1945 the paper has been owned and published by a readers' co-operative, the People's Press Printing Society, which operates on a one-vote-per-shareholder basis.

According to the People's Press Printing Society 2006 Annual Report;[3]"In line with the principles of Britain's Road to Socialism, the political programme on which our paper's editorial line is founded, we will continue to expose the anti-working-people nature of new Labour's pro-business agenda and will work to encourage greater labour movement unity to win support for a Left-Wing Programme so that a Labour Party leadership election can be fought on the basis of policies rather than personalities."

Intro's can have up to 4 parags, according to MOS guidelines, anyway. Looking at GrahamN's quote of the report, it is hard to re-write lines like "in line with principles of.." - so I suggest quoting it fully - rather than selectively, which seems to me simply to compromise with a WP:fringe view that has no 'back-up' sources. I just cannot stress enough how wrong that is. If the need to remove article protection = compromising with fringe views, then they will always get at least part of their way! Saying or suggesting the Morning Star is a 'communist paper' is certainly fringe - the paper has clear connections, yes, but it simply isn't a communist paper. People read quotes a little differently to the 'plain statements of fact' that are so typical of Wikipedia - quotes (esp if they are the only source we have!) are the best in situations like this. Protection simply cannot be an issue here, but I'll accept my suggestion above as a temporary measure, pending more sources (and some attention to the Road to Socialism article, which we are linking to). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Please so not remove my break again. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a great long quote like that belongs in the intro. And I think it's unnecessary to be quite so precious about the precise wording and emphasis of the reference to BRS. The PPPS aren't. For your information, the single reference to BRS in the PPPS annual report for 2007 reads "... Britains's Road to Socialism, the programme of the Communist Party of Britain which informs the editorial stance of the Morning Star ...". In 2008 it was "... in line with Britain's Road to Socialism, the Communist Party of Britain programme on which the editorial approach of our paper is based, ..." In 2009 it said "... in line with Britains's Road to Socialism, the Communist Party of Britain programme that underlies our paper's editorial stance, ..." Compared with 2006's "... in line with the principles of Britain's Road to Socialism, the political programme on which our paper's editorial line is founded, ..." And I think you are incorrect to say it is "fringe" to refer to the Star as a communist paper. Like it or not, there is that real connection to the CPB. But its columns are open to all on the left these days, so it presents a misleading picture if you describe it as a "communist paper". That is a very widely held misconception, though, not a fringe view. If you won't accept this I can't see a way forward from here. I knew I shouldn't have got embroiled in this! GrahamN (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points to start off: Of course you think its "a great long quote"! You don't have to say "like it or not" to me - I always mention the real link the paper has with the CPB. Your vision of the way forward seems to only consider yourself, haldraper and me, although others have commented above, and of course others still can comment (esp with an RFC). Also, you walked in bold and brash enough, so you can hardly complain about getting 'embroiled'!!

I think it is frankly pedantic to quibble over the word 'fringe' here. Like you say, seeing the Morning Star as a communist paper is basically a misconception a number of people probably have. But in actual terms, what would be the difference in how we deal with the information? There are millions of people who believe in all kinds of things - they are still called 'fringe' in many cases. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it doesn't cater for misconceptions, unless those misconceptions are notable in themselves. Maybe they are regarding the Morning Star? But we need sources of course. I'm getting tired myself of the attitude in here, but finally someone (yourself in fact) has finally provided some new stuff to work on...

The Morning Star is a left wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format. It is dedicated to foreign and domestic news, with a bias leaning towards social issues and trade unions, and away from the perceived pro-business stance of other publications.[1] It also has an arts page, a TV page, and sports pages. It eschews the gossip columns and sensational news of heavier tabloid papers and has also far fewer pages than other national dailies (16 pages on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays).

Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives. According to the People's Press Printing Society 2009 Annual Report, the paper (x) "in line with Britain's Road to Socialism, the Communist Party of Britain programme that underlies our paper's editorial stance"[3]

The newspaper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the The Morning Star in 1966. Since September 1945 the paper has been owned and published by a readers' co-operative, the People's Press Printing Society, which operates on a one-vote-per-shareholder basis.

Updated to 2009: "editorial stance" is different again. As you have the source, can you supply the 'x'? The currently-poor Britain's Road to Socialism article can then properly cover what it does/doesn't say. I don't see what there is to mock about sources! Don't you realise that Wikipedia is entirely based on them? If you don't, start here - WP:VERIFY. The Star may be ambiguous on the matter perhaps, but Wikipedia can't be - so it has to be a quote. Surely you can see that.

I must say that I'm getting a bit figged off with being made out to be something of a 'bad boy' here. Standing your ground on Wikipedia is really hard work at times, no matter how solid your arguments are. One of the reasons Wikipedia is so often of very poor quality is because people can so-disconcertingly compromise at the drop of the hat. It's often seen as much more important than policy. I get very suspicious at times, as I wonder if people think that offering compromises ultimately gets you rewarded in some way. We end up with mediocrity at very best, and mis-leading articles at worse. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would make some minor stylistic points about the new intro.

1. alot of it strikes me as non-notable: it covers foreign and domestic news - what else is there? :-) - it has a TV page etc.

2. some of it is excessive detail: the voting system of the PPPS for e.g., given that has its own page.

3. the editorial line is more notable than the background of people who contribute features and should come first.

My proposed intro would read:

The Morning Star is a left wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format with a bias towards social and trade union issues.[1]

The newspaper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the The Morning Star in 1966. Since September 1945 the paper has been owned and published by a readers' co-operative, the People's Press Printing Society.

''Its editorial policy is "in line with Britain's Road to Socialism, the Communist Party of Britain programme that underlies our paper's editorial stance"[3] Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives. Haldraper (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You will make me repeat yet again all my arguments regarding Wikpedia stating "editorial policy" - even when the quote says it now as well!!!

I find your full 'smilie' and following suggestion pretty provocative. You clearly embarked on not just a war of attrition but a further land-grab too - honestly, I'd take the money and run now if I were you. You are showing real persistence in a certain type of behavior. If you remove the colour from all of Wikipedia it will be unreadable - and it is supposed to be informative, unambiguous, accurate and readable - not as short and bland as humanly possible. On my eyes you are clearly out to undermine the Morning Star, which for me you 'gave away' at start of this discussion. I suggest that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and that you now move on while you are ahead. Unless you have something positive to contribute perhaps? (queue the barrage of quick-flashing 'WP:'s, and cries of "for the sake of Wikipedia!"..) Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I didn't realise you were such a sensitive soul as to find a smile and the suggestion that the TV page isn't notable enough for the lead 'pretty provocative'. However, as I said, I regard these as minor stylistic points and I think we should concentrate on the main issue of the editorial line without getting distracted by them. Without my trimming of non-notable information, my proposed intro would read:

The Morning Star is a left wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format. It is dedicated to foreign and domestic news, with a bias leaning towards social issues and trade unions, and away from the perceived pro-business stance of other publications.[1] It also has an arts page, a TV page, and sports pages. It eschews the gossip columns and sensational news of heavier tabloid papers and has also far fewer pages than other national dailies (16 pages on weekdays, 20 on Saturdays).

The newspaper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the The Morning Star in 1966. Since September 1945 the paper has been owned and published by a readers' co-operative, the People's Press Printing Society.

''Its editorial policy is "in line with Britain's Road to Socialism, the Communist Party of Britain programme that underlies our paper's editorial stance"[3] Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives. Haldraper (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I forgot the criticism where the 'silly point' is humourously cherry-picked, while the main point is ignored as ever. Supplying what is ambiguous (ie 'editorial policy/base/line/stance' etc) in quote-form only is essential, as it is their ambiguity and we must not make it ours. "According to" is fine. Is this a case of not trusting the reader to draw their own conclusions? We need do wait for GrahamN to give us the full text of the 2009 Annual Report. Let's be patient now.

The content stuff was not part of my "new intro" by the way, it is old stuff, and it is fine. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've said my piece. I don't have the patience for any more of this nonsense. You will have to sort it out between yourselves. GrahamN (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Swell. You've given us part of a much needed reference - I ask you for a few more words from it, and you decide to walk out instead. I'll get on the telephone again and find the 2009 report myself, and I'll also find out if it is within the rules for you to deny Talk page comments, and expect people to address you on the discussion page only. This conversation could have been very different if I could have had a personal dialogue with you when I clicked on your Talk. You are certainly nobodies superior despite the condesending manner in which you walked in and out of this discussion. Acting like this and denying any Talk page discussion makes no sense to me at all. I can see you are not happy with me (and you think you are cheesed off with this?), but maybe you should think a little about the way you come across yourself? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

revised intro

The protection has gone, changes have been made, and I don't want to risk 3RR again. What is the hurry? My issues are: 1) we do not have the full 2009 text yet (so we can't fill in the blanks), the share holders info is fine so why keep removing it(?), the "current" element of the PPPS policy is something that everyone stresses (it is revised each year) - why remove that(?). I've rewritten accordlingly,

The Morning Star is a left wing British daily newspaper in tabloid format. It is dedicated to foreign and domestic news, with a bias towards social and trade union issues rather than the perceived pro-business stance of other publications. It has an arts page, TV page and sports pages but eschews the gossip columns and sensational news of other tabloid papers and has fewer pages than the average national daily. Features are contributed by writers from a variety of socialist, social democratic, green and religious perspectives.

The newspaper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain. It was relaunched as the The Morning Star in 1966. Since September 1945 the paper has been owned and published by a readers' co-operative, the People's Press Printing Society, which operates on a one vote-per-shareholder basis. Its current policy is that Britain's Road to Socialism (the programme of the Communist Party of Britain) underlies the paper's editorial stance.

Matt Lewis (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. 'current policy' implies that it hasn't always been: in fact, every AGM has reconfirmed it. It is not true as Matt says that the policy is revised every year, merely that different words - 'based on', 'founded on', 'underlies' - have been used to express it.

2. I cut the voting system at PPPS AGMs mainly to make the sentence readable but also because it's not notable for the lead on this page rather the PPPS one.Haldraper (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't go for the 'it's best for readability' line when you have admitted to being so "anti" the subject - the two just don't go together, and you have waived a good deal of WP:AGF on the matter. This one-vote-per-sharholder line has been there for a long time - in persistantly taking it out you are just being awkward in my opinion. Why edit battle over this? It is only your opinion that it isn't notable (it clearly is), and what harm is it doing to the article anyway?

Your logic is skewed re PPPS policy - the fact that the policy is updated year after year shows that it can change. They clearly re-phrase the policy line to show this. It is intended to be changebale - as the left adapts, so will it. It is ENTIRELY WP:Original Research to claim "yes but it never does!"

Britain's Road to Socialism (that article seriously need working on now) by all accounts is not the 'Communist (Party of Britain) Manifesto' you seem to think it is: it states that party of the left can be whatever properly socialist party people back, even a Labour party. It is not totally dedicated to the CBP, and the PPPS would back a party like Respect if it ever took off. I've spoken to Morning Star and I believe them, which in the absense of the right kind of sources I'm entitled to do. I certainly will not go for your prejudiced WP:OR above what I glean myself, and you don't have sources - only your OR. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)