Talk:Novara Media

"Radical left wing"?

The source refers to Ash Sarkar, not Novara media as "radical left", therefore this should be removed or an alternative source should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.213.169 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, it carries a very negative connotation to call a paper "radical", and may fringe on being the author's bias rather than a proper adjective. puggo 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug2266 (talk • contribs)

I re-inserted "radical" based on what it says in the New Statesman article referenced:

Novara ... [was] founded in 2014, a year before Corbyn's unlikely rise to power. "The New Statesman or Guardian either didn't see it [the Corbyn surge during the election], or didn't think it would be particularly consequential – and, in fairness, nor did many of us," says Bastani, 33, over coffee by the river in London Bridge. "[But] we considered ourselves on the radical left, and that radical politics and intellectual curiosity has now been bolted onto the Jeremy Corbyn project."

I may have misread it, however, so I'm joining in the discussion here. --Woofboy (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You're 100% correct, thank you for catching that. puggo 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug2266 (talk • contribs)

Sources from request

This was a requested article, so I'm copying over references from the request in case they're of use to future editors here. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] › Mortee _talk 19:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Thomas Wellington interview"

The article currently (09-12-18) says 'During September 2017, Novara published a video interview with Thomas Wellington, founder of the pro-Conservative organisation Activate.[9] The interviewee was subsequently discovered to be Fraser Watt, Novara Media's own 'Optimisation Officer',[10] who was impersonating Wellington. Activate responded by describing the stunt as 'underhanded and potentially illegal'.[11] Novara attracted further controversy in November 2018 for its position on the poppy appeal...' (the references are: [9] Novara Media (September 4, 2017). Novara Media: EXCLUSIVE Interview with the Founder of Activate UK. Retrieved 26 November 2018. [10] "About". novaramedia.com. Novara Media. Retrieved 26 November 2018. [11] "REVEALED: Pro-Corbyn media stages fake young Tory interview". thebackbencher.co.uk. The Backbencher. Retrieved 26 November 2018.) This is inaccurate and misunderstands both what happened and the seriousness of the occurrence. Here are some problems that I hope to fix (1.) Reference [10] is original research, so should be removed (reference [11] say what [10] is aiming to say, so [10] is redundant anyway). (2.) "Thomas Wellington" doesn't exist, so it's inaccurate to call them the founder of Activate. (3.) The interview was intended to be a spoof (see the notes below the videos [on Facebook and YouTube], the comments about parody -- and laughter -- at the end of the video itself, and a statement made about the interview [recorded on The Backbencker]), whereas this article is presenting the situation as controversy. (4.) The only reference in the article about the so-called revelation of this incident is from an unnoteworthy/unreliable source. In fact, (5.) there is very little about it on the internet generally, so is hardly worth mentioning, it seems. // I'm not sure this incident is worth keeping in the article. ––Woofboy (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Hi @DannieHorowitz:. We've both made edits to this page recently and I was wondering if we could talk about them. In your edit summary you said you had "removed claims that interview was a 'parody'". However, that the interview was a parody is borne by the sources: the notes to the video, the statemet given by someone involved in the interview, and the coverage on Storyful. (You ask what parodying is; Wikipedia has an article on it.) You also said that you had "Removed irrelevant info, also not supported by the source provided" when you removed information about how a 'number of mainstream media outlets were caught off guard by the spoof', etc. However, the relevance of this information is borne and supported by sources again, w ere it says: 'As a result of the confusion, and because Jacob Rees-Mogg was in the news after making controversial statements on abortion and same-sex marriage, some media outlets ran with the story that a Tory youth movement was supporting a candidate with views which did not typically appeal to younger voters'. Thanks for your time. ––Woofboy (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woofboy:I stand by my view that it is not a parody, regardless of what those involved with the video say about it. A parody has to mimic something that actually exists, yet in this case the character of Thomas Wellington was entirely made up. A parody also needs to involve comically exaggerated mimicry, not just pretending to be someone else. In my edit comment I did not ask for the definition of a parody to be explained to me. I asked, rhetorically, how the fake video could be interpreted as a parody. On your second point, I don't think the Storyful link is an adequate source to support the claim that 'a number of mainstream media outlets' were duped. Unless by 'a number', you mean 'two'. ––DannieHorowitz (talk)

@DannieHorowitz: Thanks for communicating about the edits. Some good points -- thanks. Based on what you said, I've re-edited the sentences to better reflect the sources. Woofboy (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming

If anyone whom knows could they please contribute why it is named so, the only connection I can see is Novara in Italy, or as counter-insurgency against left wing thinking, what relevance this is to editorial decisions and organisational structure would be useful to be included in the article. 81.129.85.222 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Bastani's ethnicity

Given that Aaron Bastani redirects here, it may be worth mentioning some pertinent biographical information about Mr. Bastani, such as the fact that he is a Persian. Novara Media is highly critical of the Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies, in particularly Saudi Arabia and constantly shills for the line of Tehran and the Kremlin. Mr. Bastani is definetly stepping up to bat for Team Safavid in his work for this organsation, under a thinly veiled "left" pseudo-"wokian" cloak admittedly, so this information would appear to be relevant and directly pertinent to an overview of this article. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This is just racism... 90.211.37.183 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see what Bastani's ethnicity has to do with his politics. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of 'corporate structure' section.

I'd like to propose the removal of the 'corporate structure' section on this page. The information within it doesn't seem relevant (other media organisations do not have this section) and is no longer accurate. The Media Fund is basically a defunct organisation which Novara Media doesn't really have any involvement with any more and the corporate structure dissolving comment is based on some rather sensationalist reporting of a rather mundane process (Novara moved from being a limited company to a non-profit ownership model). Formerterritories (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsigned comment added 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm absolutely lost for words that anyone would question that self-described 'literal communists' are far-left. Absolute insanity. The bias on wikipedia is astounding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.168.48 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of their views

We should, as editors, try to reflect the views at Novara Media as objectively as possible.

We should include in their own words and how they express them.

Therefore, I would ask other editors or anon IP addresses not to remove sections in this entry without starting a discussion here.

It is poor etiquette.

However, if you disagree with anything I have written then please do argue a case here, that’s the proper way. NoPolymath (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion, NoPolymath. Just a quick note on the procedure first: when you add something controversial to an article, it's not unusual for other edits to revert it. The correct thing to do then is to start a discussion, like you have now, and then leave the article be until it reaches its conclusion. As the person adding something new to the article, the burden is on you to provide adequate sourcing and get a consensus for its inclusion.

On the substance, I explained why I removed this in my first edit, and you've yet to respond to it: we need secondary sources that have reported on this tweet and show that including it in the article is due weight. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but there is nothing controversial about the entry.  It is an objective reflection of that particular Navara Media editor’s views.

There is an original source directly from the person involved and I shall provide secondary sources. I believe that will answer your point.

NoPolymath (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And thank you @Joe Roe your suggestions have improved the entry :) NoPolymath (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)