Talk:Morning Star (British newspaper)

Alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union

In this edit an anonymous IP user has substituted "an temporary ceasefire truce", on the basis that the former is a "biased term". But the replacement is at best misleading because the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact led to Stalin being able to occupy the Baltic states and other parts of Northern and Eastern Europe before Germany invaded the USSR in 1941. I have reverted this change. Philip Cross (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well this may be a 7 year late reply but I would reject any edit that claimed the USSR and Nazi Germany had an "alliance". BulgeUwU (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Although not a formal alliance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fostered much closer relations between the two dictatorships than was admitted at the time, or for many years afterwards.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia

Gestapo–NKVD conferences - Wikipedia 2A0A:EF40:12F0:C01:60E7:D633:4B57:EA3C (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Description as "a tabloid newspaper"

Per this discussion, where I mentioned that tabloid (newspaper format) is not the same thing as tabloid journalism, an editor watching this article might want to change the lead. Looking at the edit history, I see two editors who look like they watch this article -- Philip Cross and Helper201. There being watchers is the only reason I queried the matter here on the talk page instead of changing the lead myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. Could you please clarify what you think the lead should be changed to? The link in the introduction currently redirects to this being a tabloid format newspaper, not tabloid journalism. Are you suggesting that you think it should be changed to tabloid journalism, or are you suggesting it should be clarified to read along the lines of "a tabloid format newspaper" for the sake of clarity? Helper201 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment by you until a few minutes ago. Because "tabloid newspaper" is often taken to mean "tabloid journalism" to people, as seen by WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard discussions, and given that this paper doesn't appear to engage in tabloid journalism, I think that either "tabloid" should be removed from the lead, like I did with this edit, or the lead should state "published in tabloid format" or "a tabloid format newspaper." But, really, it's best not to have "tabloid" in the lead at all. Even when "tabloid format" is stated, it's loss on a lot of editors and readers that we don't mean tabloid journalism (although, obviously, a number of papers that publish in tabloid format engage in tabloid journalism). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

@Llewee, why have you re-added a second "Further reading" section? The article surely only needs one! Also, Platt (2005) and Coughlan (2005) are both used as sources in the article, so they don't need to be in the "Further reading" section, per MOS:FURTHER. If you feel they need highlighting I would suggest changing all the references to them to shortened footnotes and having a bibliography section after the references. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001 I got mixed up sorry, their were two reference sections one smaller one laid out like a further reading section and I missed their was another one.--Llewee (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Llewee No worries: I see that @DuncanHill has straightened everything out. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV violations

The lead of the article currently portrays the subject of the article in a very positive light, examples include using loaded language, portraying the subject as an underdog and implying that biological weapons were used in the Korean War. The primarily problematic passages are self-published by the subject, and a single book that appears to be a compilation of the subjects works. JSory (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the wiki needs expert hands to help improve it, some paragraphs don't contain citations and a few sentences rely on primary sources. I don't however believe there is an NPOV violation, the Daily Worker was a small activist newspaper that routinely made enemies with very powerful people, which is probably why the article portrays the Daily Worker as an underdog, because it was. As for biological weapons during the Korean War, the lead says "evidence", not conclusive proof. There is both evidence for and against the United States using biological weapons in Korea.

Do you have any suggestions for research we can include to improve the article? I have been meaning to Clean up the Morning Star wiki for some time.

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally, citations are not needed in the lead since these appear in the body. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the body. So, when reviewing the lead, the main thing to keep in mind is whether it provides a concise summary of the important points of the article, including any controversies.

The first paragraph of the lead is a neutral summary of its history. The second paragraph lists some of the highlights of the paper's achievements, which is an appropriate thing to include in the lead. The list does not unduly flatter the paper, although it is embarrassing to the western regimes exposed by the stories. We could consider removing those items which are sourced only to the paper's own publications. The first sentence of the third paragraph is a fair summary of the paper's content so it appropriate for the lead. We could consider removing the list of famous contributors from the lead, but they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Burrobert (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I wrote most of that content, I was trying to find the most notable moment's from the newspapers history for the lead. I made a mistake by not also including them in hte body of the article. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Accurately cite what is in the sources. Performing original synthesis is not allowed, if you can't find a source that supports your viewpoint then do the original research yourself, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and then you can cite it, as long as you attribute it and include scholarly criticism.

Attribute claims only made by a single person to that person, no reason to give undue weight to fringe beliefs. Note self-published sources.

Frequently when I read the source, it doesn't actually say anything claimed. The wikitext is simply original synthesis heavily influenced by personal opinion. If you think a source is not credible, then you can omit it, there is no reason to be citing it as evidence for something it never claims. JSory (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading the lead now, and don't think there is a serious NPOV problem but some room for improvement.

• The biological weapons story is sourced only to the MS itself and not (as far as I can see) mentioned in the lead; if this was one of the most notable reports, we'd be able to point to multiple secondary sources. I'll move that to the body for now, and if it turns out there are indeed multiple secondary sources it can then be summarised in the lead later.
• I think the state censorship claim is veering into POV language, not secondarily sourced, and (I think) not covered in the body. So I'll move that down too, and it can go back if there are multiple secondary sources to cite.
• I think the list of famous contributors is nice and have no problem with it being in the lead. However, it's hard to tell at present if (some of) these are people who contributed once or if they were regular contributors. If, for instance, Virginia Woolf wrote one article for them ever, I'm not sure that should be in the lead. So it'd be good if the body covered these contributors via secondary sources.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the text has since been edited by myself et.al. The original lead was full of claims that were either not supported by the citations, or relied on partisan sources with embellished claims that were not supported by the primary source. Like Winnington's supposed threat of execution.

The lead should not contain a list of contributors, that is better for a separate section. The lead should summarise the topic of the article, unless the contributors are editors who had control over the paper (few are) they don't belong there. JSory (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)