Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM)
Please read my comments at Talk:Piers Robinson which have a bearing on the development of this article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I just left this comment on the BLP Noticeboard. Not sure if it belongs here or there: The material removed by Nomoskedasticity seems to me all reliably sourced - the Times, Snopes, OpenDemocracy. Maybe HuffPo is weaker but all the rest seems fine. All views are attributed. Wouldn't it have been better to remove it bit by bit giving an edit summary explaining the removal, rather than blanket revert? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is fundamentally unencyclopedic to have an article on a person that is not a biography at all but rather a mishmash of "they alleged" and "he rebutted". Having good sources is a minimum; it is by no means sufficient justification.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I tried to emend the article, and I happen to be reasonably fluent in English, but "cutting" stuff sometimes leave wrong strands of fabric.  I am sorry that you were upset, of course.  Is there a reason for making the fixed "red link" back into a red link? Collect (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the criticism of that group from the article. It serves no purpose in this BLP, other than as an attempt to make the subject look bad by association. Similarly, criticism of Edinburgh University, even if published in mainstream media, would be out of place in this article. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Times article in question mentions Hayward by name, not merely the SPM in general. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Text copied to page for Paul McKeigue
I have copied the text below to the page for Paul McKeigue (with changes of names):

Hayward is a cofounder of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (SPM). The SPM states that the group was established to "facilitate research into the areas of organised persuasive communication (including propaganda and information operations) and media coverage, with respect to the 2011-present conflict in Syria including related topics". The first publication of the SPM, titled Doubts about "Novichoks", questioned whether Russia's secret nerve agent programme ever existed.

Other members of the SPM include blogger Vanessa Beeley, former academic Piers Robinson, geneticist Paul McKeigue, lecturer in International Relations Tara McCormack, and sociologist David Miller.

The SPM states that the 2018 Douma chemical attack was faked by the White Helmets civil defence organisation. In early 2018, The Times newspaper ran a series of reports on Hayward and the SPM, in which it said the group spreads "disinformation" in support of the government of Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War and "conspiracy theories promoted by Russia". In response, the Group said that its members have a shared interest in "investigating the 'information operations' (...) associated with the Syrian conflict" and stressed that "the Working Group does not take any position for or against the Syrian government." Burrobert (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Students at Edinburgh have accused Hayward ...
- Firstly, as we know, we can ignore story headlines as they are generally not created by the journalists responsible for the story.

- The story quotes two students. The nature of the accusation made by the first student is unclear. Apparently she re-evaluated Hayward's lecture after speaking to a Syrian friend. The second student said she “was distressed by Prof Hayward's recent tweets” and that “The oppressor - in this case, Russia - should not be given the same kind of platform as those who are being oppressed”. It does not appear to be an accusation of misinformation. She may be accusing him of poor taste.

- The accusations seem to be mostly coming from members of the UK state apparatus - “MPs in the House of Commons in March”; Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi; Dr Nader Hashemi, director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver; Jamie Hepburn, Scotland's minister for Higher and Further Education; minister for Higher and Further Education, Michelle Donelan; James Roscoe, UK ambassador to the UN. None of Hayward's accusers make specific claims. The accusations are in the form of general statements such as "Academics sharing misinformation about the war in Ukraine are useful to Russia". What specifically are they accusing Hayward of being wrong about?

- We have Hayward's response which can be included as well: "Acquiring knowledge involves investigation, research and reasoning," he added. "If that's always going to be dismissed as disinformation, I think it's a very dangerous line to go down." Burrobert (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since investigation, research and reasoning are clearly not always going to be dismissed as disinformation, that response is pretty meaningless. Ex falso quodlibet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My interpretation, irrelevant here of course, of Hayward's remark is that the learning process sometimes involves missteps which should not be characterised as misinformation. The criticism itself is meaningless as it omits specifics. However, that is not a reason for excluding it, just as our feelings about Hayward's response should not stop us from including it. Readers can draw their own conclusions about both. Burrobert (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet the whole thing has been excluded... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * is wrong to suggest this is undue. It's not just the opinion of "some random students" - the BBC have made a programme about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BBC does not dictate what we add to articles. We're NOT press digest. Given the overall length of this article – someone's entire life condensed into THREE sentences – sticking yesterday's media piece centred around – wait – a tweet and a babble of two students (sic!) is UNDUE to the power of 100. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the students were somebody notable or their criticisms had any kind of lasting impact like Hayward being given a slap on the wrist or suspension by the University or whatever it would be due but right now its not in my opinion. Reflecktor (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just one media piece. There was a 40-minute programme about it on Radio 4 tonight, with significant coverage of Hayward. The issue has also previously been covered by the Times. According to WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The BBC and the Times are reliable sources and to exclude the material from the article on the grounds that the university hasn't suspended him is a violation of that policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "to exclude the material from the article on the grounds that the university hasn't suspended him is a violation of that policy" is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Its important to keep in mind WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Reflecktor (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Some further coverage: Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That's still a single occurrence. Hayward posted a single tweet (agree, an idiotic one), then conservative media are having orgasm for 3 days, a government official responds to media query, and then someone on Wikipedia feels this must be encyclopaedic material. It's as if Wikipedia's role was to document what media are reporting about. Well, it's not. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A "single occurrence" with that sort of (extensive) coverage is entirely normal for Wikipedia -- I suspect you know this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems it's not a single occurrence, either. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And why would it be... Separately: we've now got enough "both sides" to make Joni Mitchell happy.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Include and expand. There is a long history here. Syria war crime denialis: 2018 Times, 2019 The Tab, 2021 Times. Then you've got denying Russia on 24 March, New Arab and 31 May, BBC. There just so much stuff out there about this. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Academic review of Hayward's book
John O'Neill published a review of Hayward's book in Contemporary Political Theory. It has been in Hayward's wikibio since 1 June 2022 but was recently removed. As long-standing content it should remain in the article until there is a consensus to remove it. A discussion about this should take place on this talk page. Burrobert (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, an encyclopedia is not a repository for arbitrarily-selected publications - peer-reviewed or not. Notability must be demonstrated. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who originally added this. I do think including some coverage of Hayward's published academic work is important, given that it has received a very different critical response to what he's become famous for. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that it's not a single review by O'Neill but a "critical exchange" (a sort of review symposium) between O'Neill, Hayward and Anahí Wiedenbrüg. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Under Wikipedia's editing rules the sentence should remain in the article until a consensus decides it should be removed. As mentioned above it is longstanding content and therefore, if its removal is contested, it should remain. It is appropriate content for Tim's bio because it is an academic assessment of his academic book. Guidelines for reliable sources for scholarship are at Reliable_sources.
 * "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper ".
 * "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses ". Burrobert (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you refer to the subject by his first name,, I should remind you of the conflict of interest guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ⌛  Burrobert (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe critical review of work is WP:DUE as scholarship should be given more weight than the typical news sources that are already in the article. However, consensus must be achieved for inclusion in BLPs (WP:ONUS, WP:BLPUNDEL) even for long-standing WP:STATUSQUO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is DUE as well. Here is another scholarly review of the book in - Business Ethics Quarterly; ;, and it is also cited as a reference in an article in Ethics & International Affairs; ; . Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 08:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Any additional thoughts on this? I suggest creating a section for academic assessments of Tim's work. So far we have two assessments that can be included. Burrobert (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes have been restored to the article by, following the discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right-ho. Hadn't noticed. Burrobert (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert's recent edit/deletion
By this edit, User talk:Burrobert appears have deleted the explanation for the very reason that this person (Tim Hayward) has achieved any mainstream notability/notoriety at all. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)