Talk:Seumas Milne

message: In researching this article, I did not find useable material in the traditional media which would reflect Milne's position as a somewhat controversial figure. The criticism is restricted to the blogosphere, which cannot be drawn upon here, not necessarily from 'neo-cons' as one of his most infamous defenders would allege. Philip Cross 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Milne

message: Would someone please explain why Milne's Wykehamist past and his association with the 'traditionalist' wing of the former CPGB keep being airbrushed out of this article? Both facts are fairly well known, and the latter piece of information is easily deduced from his journalism. Philip Cross (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it a college typo of s.e.u.m.a.s? it has the same letters & Seumas seems to be all over the net Manytexts (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Seumas is more typically Scottish, and Seamus more Irish. His father Alasdair Milne was a Scot who had also been educated at Winchester.78.19.208.195 (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Winchester and ''Straight Left''

message: The section "Political Views" would better fit into the one about criticism as it largely consists of points the editors apparently don't like. Especially what is written about his views on communism and gulag deaths to me seems like innuendo and original research and doesn't meet encyclopedia standards. Knopffabrik (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't like?" Milne is quoted directly. The material on deaths in the Gulag is not so much innuendo as empirically based, but it is POV pushing and needs a third party source. Philip Cross (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Cawdley made extensive edits on this article. I thought that some of his edits was quite reasonable and some were POV (obviously Cawdley thought the same about some of my edits). Cawdley has no userpage which makes communication difficult. Please open a userpage so people can leave you messages. One of Cawdley's most reasonable edits was deleting the following section (which I wrote):
Milne's cited numbers are based on soviet official records for number of prisoners in gulags,"ГУЛАГ" and for number or arrested and convicted in the years 1921-1953."Количество арестованных и осужденных в 1921-1953 годы" According to a 1993 study of incomplete archival Soviet data, a total of 1,053,829 people died in the Gulag from 1934 to 1953. More complete data puts the death toll for this same time period at 1,258,537, with an estimated 1.6 million casualties from 1929 to 1953 (twice the amount stated by Milne for the period from 1921 to 1953). These estimates exclude those who died shortly after their release but whose death resulted from the harsh treatment in the camps, which was a common practice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#Brief_History</ryef> The population in the Gulags varied along the years but all in all more than 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, with a further 6 to 7 million being deported and exiled to remote areas of the USSR.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#Brief_History (I've added a reference section to the discussion page so the notes on this section can be visible)
I don't think it's POV, rather more of a commentary on Milne's own quote, alas I think that it falls at least in part under Original Research. Nevertheless, it is an interesting segment, so I ask for editors counsel. Is there any way to keep it in the article as a footnote or by rephrasing or in any other way? Nik Sage (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gulag section

message: Cawdley keeps removing the Daniel Hannan quote from the prause section. I think merely saying Hannan thinks Milne is a "Marxist" is unsatisfactory. This misrepresents Hannan's comments which are more subtle than a mere chant of the 'M' word allows for. Philip Cross (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Philip, I can't understand Cawdley's editions. Some of them are really in good taste, but some are totally unreasonable. This user has no userpage and he doesn't discuss his views in this page. Furhtermore he edits only pages related to Seumas Milne, which is of course allowed, but it also lent me to think this account is a sockpuppet. If I'm mistaken, Cawdley should open a userpage or at least take part in this discussion so we can avoid edit wars and make this already excellent article even better. As for the Hannan quote, I think it is a very interesting view from a political adversary and so, should be in the praise section and also in the political orientation section of the article. In general, I don't think Marxist is a smear, and definitely not as Hannan say it. Using a large part of the quote in the praise section will iluminate Hannan's meaning. I think this version is both NPOV and the fullest (Political Orientation, Praise). What do you think about it? (I'll also would like your opinion on the previous post). Nik Sage (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarification, I think the current usage fo Hannan's quote in the article is the best so far. Nik Sage (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The duplication of biographical details should be avoided, it is not as though we are developing an extended argument which needs to summarise an earlier point. Milne's basic orientation is clear before the first use of Hannan's comments. Philip Cross (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Hannan quote 

message: Something wierd happenend to the article. I've changed the title of a section  and somehow it changed back . Could someone explain me how it happened? Nik Sage (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ??????

message: My comments in the edit summary do not make sense, so need an explanation. The "tendentious reputation" applies to Melanie Phillips only (though it might be assumed it applies to Milne or Collins and Pollard as well). Phillips comments at the moment are the only response to Milne's writing about Israel-Palestine, similarly Collins and Pollard are the best-known writers cited who have responded to Milne's writings about liberal democracy and communism. Any potential substitutes are also likely to be strong, while the notability  and inclusion of the subjects comments are sustained in Wikipedia by the use of citations from third-parties. An opinion is not necessarily libellous.Eric Heinze "British MP exploits vague defamation law to sue Guardian journalist", The Conversation, 12 February 2015 The case for Milne's reputation as a "Stalinist" has to be included, simply because the amount of comment in last few days, and in the past, gives it significance. Milne does not appear to have made a direct defence of the Russian leader, unlike Andrew Murray, but his critics, in my view, are right to see him as an apologist for the Soviet Union's darkest period. Milne's most referenced comments on this issue are cited. Unfortunately, the better of two recent articles explicitly defending Milne (by John Wight) merely refutes the claim, but without much substance. (The other article on the Putin-backed Sputnik website is not a reliable source.) Both Wight, and Neil Clark, the writer of the Sputnik article, mock the assertion without offering any evidence to counter the Stalinist tag.
Neutral point of view is an important concept for Wikipedia editors to observe, but balance is not a requirement for articles. Philip Cross (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After nearly six months, it appears no one else thinks the Neil Clark and John Wight pieces defending Milne should be cited either. Philip Cross (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Another two months on, and Owen Jones defends Seumas Milne. While I remain unconvinced that Jones has made an uncontentious assertion about Milne, that is not the point. Jones is a significant left-wing writer and his comment carries much more weight than the other potential defenders. Philip Cross (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias, balance and strong comments

message: Seems far too long for a pretty minor and possibly transient figure, much of it pretty ephemeral eg what X said about what Y said about M's appointment.
And although it's true few people have a good word to say about M, this whole piece does read as knocking copy by his (no doubt many) enemies.
In short this reads more like a blog than an encyclopaedia and there is or ought to be a difference between the two.
On detail its not an 'Opposition' post he holds but a Labour Party one. There are lots of parties making up the Opposition. Unraed (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query length, balance 

message: The theory that the two children were sent to a grammar school at Montanari's insistence was probably put in the article by Seumas or a supporter of his.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.144.246.118 (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. And no, I am not a "supporter" of Seumas Milne. Philip Cross (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I recommend you do some elementary research on your claim. Philip Cross (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This appears to be well-sourced, so I think it should stay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insistence 

message: I would argue these should be included in the article, as they're fairly important to gain an insight into Milne's mind.
2A02:C7F:A446:2200:240D:D6F0:C75C:CDC2 (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently added details about George Galloway's 2009 interview with Milne on this subject. Although the only substantial written source is far from ideal, it does not misrepresent what Milne says in the intrview. Philip Cross (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Berlin Wall was technically part of a front line, it would be naive to think that the western powers in Berlin ever had enough military strength to attack East Germany from it. It was seen by East Germans as keeping them in, and not keeping anyone else out.78.19.208.195 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of his views on the Berlin wall? 

message: I think it is important to include within the article, the ideological affiliation of Milne's critics who are cited in the text. At the moment, their criticisms of Milne are given in passing as if they are just some kind of neutral observer. Especially on controversial issues.
*Russia: Nick Cohen and Michael Mosbacher are both associated with Standpoint (magazine) which is very much of a pro-American, neoconservative tilt (same with the Euston Manifesto that Cohen has signed). Indeed BDE (Before the Donald Era) it could be described as rabidly pro-American in orientation. Now, obviously this contrasts 180 degrees with Milne's views and  so should be qualified in the article.
*Lexit/Brexit: John McTernan was a servant of Tony Blair during the New Labour era. His attempts to suggest that Milne was controlling Corbyn on Brexit should be qualified by mentioning the objective fact that McTernan is a Blairite (the main thrust of the argument may be correct, since the actual ideological left, not the bourgeois liberals and students who Labour have to rely on for support, are generally anti-EU, but it still should be qualified). Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really the practice here and, in any case, does not mean Milne's critics are automatically wrong in their comments about him. Still, if like Milne, you personally think Tony Blair is appalling, and Vladimir Putin is not, you are still perfectly safe from Blairites. Philip Cross (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

text: And naturally, it does not mean Milne's admirers and "friends" are not immune, to reverse the intended meaning of tweets from a contributor to the Putinite RT network and website, from "Biased, agenda-driven" writing. Philip Cross (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Crossgate has become a thing. This issue needs to be looked at again. Big Phil's presentation of anti-Milne partisans such as Neocon Nick Cohen and Blairite John McTernan as somehow objective and matter of fact sources who should be give the floor, to the exclusion of other reference material presenting contrary views needs to be heavily scrutinised. Claíomh Solais (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ideological orientation of Milne's critics 

message: Further to the above, I see Philip Cross has been back on this page again this month, reinserting lots of polemical negative media commentary, and then immediately removing positive commentary. You can't really be more blatant than this. As discussed previously, this is a pathetic and totally uninformative way to go about creating a BLP, twice over: an encyclopedia entry about a person is not meant to be a "review" of the subject based on an aggregation of general media commentary on them (whether positive or negative) and certainly not one selectively sourced solely to reflect negative viewpoints. If PC can't edit a page with any sense of either a) how to write a factual bio that actually offers information about the subject rather than about other people's random views of them or b) how to write disinterestedly and neutrally, they shouldn't be editing that page. As people are beginning to notice, this is a problem with his behaviour across WP. N-HH talk/edits 21:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All very well, but by reverting his edits you have nevertheless reinstated at least one dead link that PC had painstakingly flagged up. JezGrove (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the one useful change in that series of edits, but it wasn't by him, but by a bot. Slight laziness on my part, but I just let it go as collateral damage rather than allowing it all to get too complicated (and assumed the bot would come round again eventually). That's another problem with prolific editors like PC: unpicking their changes can be harder than it's worth for the more casual editor. Anyway, sorted now. N-HH talk/edits 08:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary and bias again 

message: There is some dispute over content which was added. Tory MP Bob Seeley found that Milne's articles mirrored some of Russia's talking points. I think this is reasonably relevant, especially if we can find further sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the passage about Bob Seely's claims a couple of weeks ago in anticipation that it might be the start of a significant development. Apart from the inevitable spoiler or rehash from another website, and a couple of blogs, the issue has not taken off. So the removal of the passage looks legitimate for now. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeley did not "find" anything, he and a Ukrainian activist concocted a pretty wild and speculative allegation. As even the person who added it admits, no one else ran with this. A WP BLP should not be stuffed with every one-off random claim made by someone politically hostile to the subject. If there was widespread factual reporting of, say, leaked emails between Milne and Dmitry Peskov actually showing Milne taking orders from Moscow, that would be different, but absent that, this is silly stuff that people can put in their blogs if they're that excited by it. I'm reverting its latest reinsertion, and perhaps that person could make the case here if they disagree. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milne's articles following Kremlin's line 

message: The page currently has a  tag.  This was placed in April 2019 by an IP editor.  No corresponding discussion was started on the talk page by that editor and other suggestions of bias above seem too vague to be actionable.  To support this tag, we need a list of specific points which are actionable so that we can address them.  If the points are narrow and relate to a particular section, then that section should be tagged rather than the whole article.  As the lead of the article currently seems reasonable and there's no specific case to answer, I'm removing the tag as stale and unsupported. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: The article lacks a photo so I looked for free images.  The best possibility seems to be one of the CC photos taken at the Valdai International Discussion Club but I'm not certain that it's him and the captions don't make it clear.  The narrative there gives the impression that Milne questioned Putin in Russian so I also looked for confirmation of that.  I found an entertaining comparison of Milne with Cummings at the Evening Standard but that only says that Cummings speaks Russian.  There's more personal details at The Tatler but again no confirmation of the languages. Andrew D. (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo and languages

message: Here is also some criticism by Timothy Snyder regarding his views towards Russia.
--Jo1971 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism by Timothy Snyder