Talk:Laura Smith (British politician)

Political controversy July 2019
A user has suggested that the article from order-order.com is not a reliable source for a living person's biography page. The user argues that order-order.com is an "anti-establishment" "rightwing" "blog" and therefore is unreliable.

The counter-argument is that: (1) Being "anti-establishment" or "rightwing" *does not* necessarily make a source "unreliable". (2) In the case of order-order.com, they hold a 9/9 rating from journalism industry monitor NewsGuard for meeting all 9 of the standards for transparency and credibility:. Clearly, That kind of validation must carry more weight than any individual's non-objective opinion? (3) The article in question simply links two established and verifiable facts and points out their obvious incompatibility.

On that basis, I propose that the citation remains. Gunnersaurus43 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I did not say that the blog was unreliable merely because it was anti-establishment and right-wing. All sources have slants. The difficulty comes when a source's bias creeps excessively into its content, evident here when you read the source's "about" page which outright declares it has no interest in objective impartiality. I can't read the NewsGuard item, it just redirects me to install the browser extension. I'll post at the reliable sources noticeboard later. – Teratix ₵ 00:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename
I have renamed this article to distinguish it from the new article titled (Laura Smith (Canadian politician)). Moondragon21 - Moondragon21 08:496, 3 June 2022(UTC)