Talk:UnHerd

This is advertisement, not a Wikipedia page.
This Wikipedia page looks suspiciously like advertisement for UnHerd and offers little or no other perspective what so ever. For instance, the UnHerd Youtube channel is I reality full of bias statements and misinformation, but that is not reflected on this Wikipedia page at all. 90.225.4.62 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What bias and misinformation has been expressed by UnHerd? X-Editor (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of UnHerds reporters are known fringe disinformation spreaders and got kicked out of proper media, it's literally the reason they came together on that platform. 62.131.169.143 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Compelling argument: "known", "fringe", "misinformation", "disinformation". Are you sure you don't have an account here? Eric talk 00:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the original statement. The entire "Reception" section reads like an advert written by people closely associated with the site.94.174.66.37 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have trimmed some of the more gratuitous padding. If examples of stories reflect the website's reception, we should contextualize that according to WP:IS. To imply significance without that context is editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Anna Winslow
Is unherd based on a true story???? 2A00:23C6:95A1:4D01:9984:27B7:10DD:3887 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Known source of russian propaganda
Some of the articles on UnHerd.com are clearly biased in favor of Russia. This needs further investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.92.157 (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not even one example? How lazy. Equinox ◑ 11:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

the lead should summarize the body
Please see wp:llead, and please help me summarize the body in the lead. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed assertions you added to the lede that appeared to be conclusions drawn from body text that are not supported by that text or the sources cited. Also, you may want to make use of the "Show preview" option before you save your edits. Eric talk 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issue in lede
Hello all- Just now I reverted for the second time a sentence added by that I found to be lacking in neutrality: UnHerd has published controversial articles about the COVID lab-leak theory, trans activism, and Russian misinformation. The rationale in Grayfell's edit summary prior to this was that these assertions were sourced in the body. I do not see anything in the body that supports what appear to be dismissive judgements made in Grayfell's summing-up of UnHerd. Hence my second revert. Eric talk 22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, this is your third revert.
 * See UnHerd. If this is notable enough for a section of the article it should be summarized in the body. The specific wording can, obviously, be adjusted for neutrality, but to leave this out completely isn't going to work. Further, UnHerd provides context indicating that the current lead is insufficient. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Now I see that the addition I found questionable two days ago was a restoration of one added in November, with edit summary "the lede should summarize the body", which I reverted at the time and had since forgotten. The mere assertion by that user does not mean that his lede did in fact properly summarize the body. I re-read the whole article yesterday before my second revert. The lede as you restored it reads to me as a negative opinion, one apparently drawn in error from the "Notable stories" section. Perhaps worth noting: That lede as originally added in November included a further, gratuitous editorialization: Among the authors it publishes are some who are considered unseemly. Still, I do agree that the lede as it stands is a bit brief despite it being a short article. Eric talk 12:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Update on reception section
Regarding the 'update needed' tag on the 'reception' section, this one seems useful:

(Note that the story's author, Samuel Earle, is not the same person as Samuel Earle) This source does discuss the website's pivot away from open partisanship:
 * The site has amassed a diverse stable of writers, editors and readers, drifting away from explicit concern for the Conservative party and the future of capitalism, and towards a focus on culture war topics: lockdowns, wokeness, cancel culture and the trans rights movement, as well as more general journalistic fare.

It also goes in to further detail about Unherd's connections right-wing and conservative ideologies, such as the funding from Paul Marshall (investor), and these two paragraphs:
 * UnHerd and GB News are far from the only self-styled free-speech champions to find their rebellious ambitions endowed by the rich and powerful. The battle against what author Lionel Shriver called, at UnHerd’s inaugural event in New York, “the woke mind virus … a genuinely dangerous disease, unlike Covid”, attracts a level of investment much of the left could only dream of. Spiked, the Critic, Quillette, Compact magazine and the Free Press are among the cluster of rightwing and libertarian publications to have arisen or expanded in recent years, united by their dissident affectations and the wealth and political connections of their financial backers.
 * UnHerd’s stomach for diverse viewpoints on certain issues may be unique, but this set of media outlets – don’t call them a herd – move within the same pastures, grazing on culture war fodder and pushing political discourse in the same direction. They claim ordinary people and free speech are under threat from the shady influence of elites, but focus their ire almost entirely on progressives – with comparatively little to say about either the burgeoning profits of the ultra-wealthy or how their financial interests shape and subvert democracy. These outlets offer a glimpse into Conservatism’s future: a ruling-class creed desperately trying to reinvent itself as an insurrectionary crusade, relinquishing any responsibility for the world they have played no small part in shaping.

I would hope that any fair summary of the website's reception would provide at least some of this as context. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree the page so far has minimal information which leads positive overall as it doesn't provide much detail on the lack of evidence provided by unherd to support it's articles essentially making it a glorified right-wing blog posting site rather than news org. Galdrack (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)