Talk:Martin Smith (activist)

SWP Internal Party Crisis

Having made my initial edit witzh an unreliable source, I am now including the same content with different sources.

• [1] This is a news article rather than an opinion piece, and has been published by a major British newspaper and is safe to assume it is thus non-libellous. It names an individual called 'Comrade Delta'.
• [2] This article is an opinion piece from a non-neutral organisation. As such it is not a reliable source for the crisis itself, however I believe that it is sufficiently reliable within the context of associating the name 'Comrade Delta' with Martin Smith. This is a prominent organisation within the British left, with identifiable people involved and a sound legal basis, and therefore it is safe to assume that this also is non-libellous.

Together these two sources constitute a reliable source for the material added.

N3hima (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms you are advancing a synthesis using in part, as you admit, a non-reliable source. As no reliable source, like The Independent, has identified the real life person behind the 'Comrade Delta' pseudonym it is impossible to do so in any Wikipedia article. As I said in my edit summary, identifying anyone with the 'Comrade Delta' moniker is potentially libellous.

Note the warning about biographies of living persons at the top of this page. Philip Cross (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So perhaps it would be acceptable to include the text "Martin Smith has been known as Comrade Delta in internal party discourse.", under the same justifications as above?

N3hima (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The terms 'Martin Smith' and 'Comrade Delta' do not belong together under any circumstances in Wikipedia. Please re-read my previous comments. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to your remark "As no reliable source, like The Independent, has identified the real life person behind the 'Comrade Delta' pseudonym it is impossible to do so in any Wikipedia article.". If you care to re-read my previous comment, you will note my assertion that the CPGB website is a reliable source for this information in this context. As a whole, the article would be unreliable if used as a source for information regarding the SWP's internal conflict, however this is not the purpose to which I intend to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3hima (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Weekly Worker is published by the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) - which has a couple of dozen members at most. A fringe publication from a fringe group. In no way can it be considered a reliable source, except with extreme caution. As it is, you are not suggesting the source be used cautiously or that the article be written conservatively. The latter is a requirement, as you know from reading the WP:BLP article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This may be a useful reference or source. Although this is a blog, it is clearly identified as the work of a former SWP member, an academic and prolific author who, as a practising barrister, can be assumed to have a good knowledge of the law of libel and the dangers of infringing this. RolandR (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This, however, although it asserts the identity, is probably not an acceptable or reliable source (except for its author's own bizarre views). RolandR (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there not a conservative, non-libellous way the main reason that Smith is now notable be referred to in the article? E.g. "has been at the centre of allegations relating to the party's handling of sexual abuse accusation"? I presume none of the following are count as WP:RS: Jim Jepps (a comprehensive list of resources), Dave Renton's Lives; Running, Weekly Worker, All That is Solid, The North Star, Socialist Unity? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob, the writings you cite are very useful, especially the pieces by Dave Renton, but almost all of them are still blogs, and as any sources about Smith's (alleged) behaviour obviously need to be RS. The Weekly Worker article(s) are probably insufficient for this test. The principal RS is the article by Edward Platt "Comrades at war" from May 2014 in which the concealed reference to Smith is obvious. But editors run the risk of creating a synthesis if we make use of it (Martin Smith=former SWP National Secretary=pseudonym). I have looked for articles referring to Smith leaving the SWP, but cannot find any which are unproblematic. Possibly the only source in the mainstream media is Hugh Muir's diary item, but the synthesis problem applies to this source.

If it isn't obvious, I share your frustration. Philip Cross (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)