Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening

"campaigns against far right-wing and fascist parties and groups" I have changed this to "campaigns against what it perceives to be far right-wing or fascist parties and groups." I do not consider the BNP either right-wing or fascist, just racist, and I don't think this is a particularly unusual opinion. 128.232.251.18 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't have a strong objection to this, it seems a dangerous precedent to me. If every article about a campaigning group had to be phrased like this, it would mean that, for instance, anti-poverty charities would have to be described as acting "against what it perceives to be poverty", etc.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Somone commented on the page asking "does the author mean NATFHE trade union?". Google search does not return any trade union called NATFI. Searching NATFHE "Unite Against Fascism" "trade union" returns 393 pages, so I have changed NATFI to NATFHE. --Ezeu 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Funding?

Where doe's the UAF's funding come from? RichardLangford 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual membership and donations. Also affliation and donations by groups, particularly trade Unions.--JK the unwise 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Last two sentences

The anti-fascist magazine Searchlight disaffiliated from UAF after an argument over tactics to defeat the BNP. They feel that people should not be allowed to freely choose to vote for the BNP but should be persuaded or as a last resort intimidated into not voting for them.

Who feels that people should not be allowed to freely choose to vote for the BNP but should be persuaded or as a last resort intimidated into not voting for them?--Knowledge33 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: neither Searchlight nor UAF. I have removed this silly sentence! BobFromBrockley 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack on the BNP today

Would it violate NPOV to point out the irony in "Unite Against Fascism" behaving like Brownshirts as they sought to supress contrary viewpoints with violence today? I've repeatedly tried to edit it, but people keep removing phrases like "assault" and "freedom of speech" and replacing them with "threw some eggs" and "racism".

Someone has an agenda to push it would seem. There is nothing ambiguous about it, egging is legally defined as assault no matter how you slice it. It is a crime, and the UAF aren't even trying to deny it because its OK when it is the BNP apparently.

{Not a BNP supporter but a lover of democracy} 81.159.55.209 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would, because this would be a personal opinion. IF a reliable source made this comparison, we could cite it. In law, throwing eggs may or may not be an assault in itself ; however I believe the police have now received a formal complaint of common assault. Meanwhile, I removed "hypocrisy" because the cited source did not use that word. We should adhere strictly to neutrality policy. Rodhullandemu 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the agenda being pushed seems to be that of the BNP. Referring to the demonstration as illegal, without citation, saying that bottles and bricks were thrown, without citation, and that two members of the public were hospitalised because of the demonstration - when the cited source says they were hospitalised after being hit by a car driven by a BNP member! I will attempt to edit this later on, when I get a chance, but like the song says, there may be trouble ahead. SynEx (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of UAF by mainstream media

The article currently contains the sentence "The UAF were also criticized by the mainstream media for an attack on the BNP," sourced to an interview on the BBC. I don't think this is a sufficient source for the claim; although the interviewer does put forward some criticisms of UAF, it's not clear to me that he's actually criticizing them in the editorial voice of the program; rather, he's asking tough questions based on criticisms that others might, hypothetically, make (I'm pretty sure that's how the BBC would want to characterize the interview). So, giving this as an example of the mainstream media criticizing UAF requires a level of interpretation that heads in the direction of WP:OR. What we really need is a secondary source that describes criticisms of UAF by the mainstream media, or, perhaps, an item from the mainstream media that is unambiguously critical (for instance, a newspaper leader column would be appropriate).VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, i removed it on that basis, the BBC interview wasnt criticising the org just an argumentative style of quizzing. If there are sources it's fine but we should definetely stick to real substantial criticism by the mainstream media, criticism of a liberal group by right wingers on idealogical grounds is predictable and hardly of much worth. --neon white talk 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Have added POV check to this article as any attempt to add media information that somehow seems to criticise or be against the UAF is removed. Also my last edit was removed because it was said that the individual Ian Dale was indeed a fascist himself? There is no evidence to support this and only yesterday his the Wiki article on Ian Dale was Vandalised to say this without any sources being provided. This article Must be fair and show both side of the coin and not continue to be bias towards the UAF.(Johnsy88 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Excessive critisism has been removed because a) it was badly sourced b) it had undue weight c) it contanined synthesised claims d) needed to be rewritten in a neutral manner this is completely in line with policy. Editors are welcome to discuss content disputes here and work on neutrality but we cannot allow POV pushers to try and flood the article with personal POVs and badly sourced criticism. --neon white talk 12:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not individuals trying to push POV or to use badly sourced information. The source provided is genuine from Ian dales Official Blog from his official website. Ian Dale is also well known for his journalistic work and political blogging. Any attempt by anyone to add any negative critique is removed or undone as shown on the history of this article Johnsy88 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

WP:RELIABLE "There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, *******unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs******** (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsy88 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Johnsy, the opinion of one member is too disproportionate to characterize the organization as a whole, especially as you have placed it in the section criticism. Your pattern of edit warring over this article suggests you have an agenda. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's opinion? I am not trying to push my opinion. I am simply trying to add relevant sourced information to this article(see WP:RELIABLE). This article is very bias towards the organisation it represents and this is shown by the constant refusal of editors to allow any such criticisms to be added to the article(see history and also see this disscussion board).Johnsy88 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Iain Dale's blog is a reliable source for his opinion; the problem is that Iain Dale isn't a notable enough figure for his mere opinion to be worth reporting in this article. He is primarily a blogger, with a small amount of journalistic work to his name, and a minor involvment in politics; but bloggers who dabble in journalism and politics are two-a-penny, and we can't reasonably cover all of their opinions. Sources that would be notable would include (preferable) leader columns or (not quite so good) op-eds from mainstream newspapers, or comments from senior (cabinet or shadow cabinet, say) or at least elected officials; even there, it would be best to have a source that reports on multiple such criticisms. I attempted to find such comment in the Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail and Guardian, but I couldn't find any; if Iain Dale's opinion were notable, one would expect to find some coverage of similar opinions in the press, which does not seem to have occurred.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still self published, which alwaus should be avoided especially when they are making contentious claims about third parties. As the guidelines suggest if the opinion was worthy of note a second party source would have noted it. This is all before getting to the fact that it's just a quote of ridiculous length that adds undue weight. --neon white talk 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Far left

The intro has recently been describing UAF as "far left," sourced to a post at the Guardian's Comment is Free blog. However, the piece doesn't make the claim that UAF are far left, indeed, it says the opposite. I quote:

This is not, unfortunately, a story about goings-on in two marginal far left cults. Unite Against Fascism is the leading campaign against racism in the United Kingdom. It is supported by parliamentarians from all the major political parties, and by every significant trade union. It is Unite Against Fascism that sets the tone of the debate when it comes to opposing racism.

I can't find any reliable sources that refer to UAF as far left (I do see the claim on various right-wing blogs).VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

They only have support from Labour (which won't be one of the major parties after May 09) and the Lib Dems. Tory support is nominal, if they didn't support they would be smeared as "racist".

The fascist methods UAF use make it ridiculous to adopt the "anti-fascist" label they like to apply to themselves. Particularly in light of their alliance with radical Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.108.102.138 (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

UAF offical website reliable source?

I would like to know why the UAF official site is the main source of the information for there wiki page whilst any information on other wiki pages IE English Defence League and BNP have updates and changes to the article removed if they quote the offical EDL/BNP website?

Is the UAF Website a reliable source or is this one rule for this wiki page and another for pages like the EDL and BNP?

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Johnsy88 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not controversial but I have asked here WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#UAF_-_reference_to_own_website just in case. Leaky Caldron 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Claw Hammer assault incident

I think this section needs to be added - the following was a serious, up-to-date act of violence by a uaf member against bnp activist Tony Ward. I'm surprised it hasn't been added already - actually no I'm not because I'm well aware of the far-left/neo-marxist views held by many wikipedia editors. No doubt this will also be censored to protect the uaf's image with some bogus counter-claim. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs)

Since that article doesn't mention UAF, then there is no reason for it to be included. Do you have an WP:RS that the attacker was a member of UAF? Until then there is nothing to discuss. Verbal chat 07:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes very convinent that the media source doesn't mention them by name - I now understand why, however as this bbc footage shows [2] it was clearly uaf members who were involved in the incident. In the footage you can see uaf members running towards the camera (bnp) in an aggressive manner and considering a 25-year old man was arrested for gross bodily harm (gbh) against Mr Ward, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he was also a uaf member.

Your powers of magical divination are only surpassed by your inability to understand a journalistic report, containing the words "claim" and "alleged". If you really cannot separate the two, I pity you. And "GBH" does not stand for "Gross Bodily Harm", it's short for "Grievous Bodily Harm", as set out in sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Are you sure you're in the right place? This is an encyclopedia here. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh arent you a great guy, I make a grammacar mistake and now you think you can talk down to me - bravo. If you want to be a braindead zombie and parrot everything the media, aka the all knowing god as far as you seem to be concerned, claims then fool you. The media is often just as bias as any other source and is not something that can be taken word-for-word. Use your brain, theres a reason the media don't report things about the uaf that aren't positive - [3] go to this link, download the "ADM 2009 Preliminary Agenda" pdf and under section 94 it clearly states that the "ADM instructs the NEC to encourage office-based alliances with other trade union members and anti-racist groups". "Alliances" with groups such as the uaf - thus there very careful never to name the uaf, and similiar groups, when reporting things that could harm their credibility.

Off the record everyone knows the uaf were responsible for the assault, but certain individuals and groups with their own agendas seem to be doing a good job at covering it up via dogdy reporting practices; under the pretext of 'equality'.

There is absolutely no evidence this incident was carried out by UAF members. Having followed discussion of it on left-wing blogs, it was widely condemned by most pro-UAF commentators. The video shows that UAF members were "involved in the incident" in that UAF members were harassed by BNP members before the incident, but says nothing about their involvement in the actual attack. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

UAF and anti-Latinate racism/stereotypes

In this video starting at 4:35, UAF led by Weyman Bennett are harassing a South American man (with a Hispanic accent) who is walking down the street with his child. Bennett mistakes him for an Italian and says, "what happened to Mussolini, will happen to you" and then "we got rid of Mussolini, we'll get rid of you"?? Surely this is a racially motivated attack, from a so called "anti-racist" organisation? Bennett and UAF are threatening to "get rid" of a civilian, based upon the mistaken notion that hes Italian. I think this should be included in the article, to balance out the claim that this group is supposedly "anti-racist". - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the uaf are undeniably 'anti-racist' by name only, I dont think this particular incident is sufficient evidence (as far as wikipedia is concerned) as he never claimed to physcially "get rid" of him. I'm sure there are plenty of better examples out there though, which I would implore you to find.

NPOV

This article now appears to be a list of UAF's at violent confrontations, yet there is no mention of collaboration with Love Music Hate Racism or other peaceful protests. Also "UAF has also demonstrated against the English Defence League (EDL), which has declared no support to the BNP and has condemned racism as well" appears irrelavent and also untrue and unfounded, i'm sure you'll find quite a few reputable sources that call the EDL (and its forum pages) racist. Next they'll be saying the Third Reich didn't kill Jews! Oh, wait... 86.29.19.228 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with the kernel here. Similar to the EDL article, it seems that this article is biased by omission. The EDL article has mostly been fixed, but content should be added about peaceful protests and other non confrontational initiatives of UAF. Verbal chat

Political...

Is there any objection to the lead being altered to read "Unite Against Fascism is an anti-fascist political, organisation that campaigns against far right and fascist organisations in Britain" - the only change being the insertion of the work political?

A similar situation has arisen on the English Defense League article. Despite none of the sources describing them as political, the "political" description has been construed as a result of the widely used press description of the group as being "right wing". Unless that is WP:OR (I think it is) then surely the same interpretation of UAF is valid? Leaky Caldron 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the number of political people signed up as members or supporters, id say UAF is more political than the EDL so no complaints. This article does need urgently updating theres almost nothing on their clashes with the EDL BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from it being grammatically illiterate, I see no objection to saying this a political group - it clearly is. However, it is already labelled as a subset of political groups. Also, the EDL situation is different - we have multiple, clear, significant WP:RS describing the group as right-wing, a political designation. The situation with UAF is more complicated, as they are anti a political ideology - fascism. I don't see what adding the word political adds here, whereas in the EDL article there have been attempts to hide the political nature of the group. Verbal chat 12:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of a comma in the wrong place doesn't make it illiterate, it makes it grammatically incorrect. Illiterate means uneducated, uninformed and ignorant but I'm sure you weren't implying it in the manner of a WP:PA so I'll not take it as such. ;)Leaky Caldron 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Conceded ( not conceited ;) ) Verbal chat 12:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not that complex IMO; the prime political goal of this group is broadly student Marxism. The people actually involved in running things at organisational level are all broadly Marxist and Trotskyite. It grew out of two groups (1) "Anti-Nazi League" created by the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, (2) A left-racial group, broadly opposed to Christian European interests, which was associated with the Trotskyite group Socialist Action. Outside of the far-left the other signatures are just pure tokenism or cheap attempts at oppertunism/trying to get votes, Tony Bla... sorry, David Cameron doesn't sit around organising UAF protests with their leadership or authoring propaganda for their pamphlets, hes just a one off name on a piece of paper. It would be spurious to present an ambiguity that there are somehow Tories running around at street level for UAF protests. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While your opinion is always entertaining on these matters, what is the relevance of the above comment? Are you suggesting an amendment (supported by a source) or just letting off steam? --Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think in the intro it should mention what is essentially a tokenist signature from Cameron, since its far from a central part of this organisations existence and they have even published article criticising him. It puts across a false notion to the reader that people who vote Conservative are likely to be found running around on the streets with UAF, rioting side by side with SWP uni-student "comrades". It should just mention Dave's camelionism in the article body. I'd like to see it specifically mention in the opening sentence that this is a far-left (or specifically, Marxist) political organisation. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If its a verifiable fact that the leader of the conservative party signed it, then .... --Snowded ^TALK 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, id like to see some more detail about Camerons position on this group. UAF has been around for some time, buts its only recently this group has been involved in serious public order offences. We need clarification on his support. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the groups own website, what other sources do we have on camerons involvement with this group? When did he sign what ever he signed? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically he just signed up as a token support "against fascism". But UAF still print articles attacking him for not being Marxist enough. I don't know if Cameron is just ignorant of basic street level politics or its just pure opertunism. I find it odd that nobody in the Conservative Party clued him in. All of the self-proclaimed "anti-fascist" organisations in the UK are unrepentant communist and/or anarchist. In Northern England anyway, UAF is part of a class war; they represent the bourgeoise student-left and are at war with the largely working class "nationalist" populance. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable fact is that Cameron signed it, the rest is your speculation. The article does not mention marxism, again your interpretation. --Snowded ^TALK 07:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of you seem very keen to attack Yorkshirian over the issue of citations. What he is saying happens to be true. It is a fact. So by all means encourage him to track down sources, but there is no need to treat his relaying of the reality of the situation negatively. The argument about Cameron signing up to the UAF cause is not a strong one. It may well be varifiable, but that does not mean the presentation of verifiable facts cannot be biased. The inclusion of that fact is done in such a way as to present a misleading impression of reality. By all means include the fact somewhere, in the right context, but do not create an image for the UAF that is untrue. Doing so is simple dishonesty on the part of whoever does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.45.84 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anti-fascism is political, so it's redundant to add the word political to the intro. As for some of the other comments above, it seems like certain people want to insert their own opinions into the article, instead of presenting neutral facts supported by reliable references. POV-pushing is discouraged on Wikipedia.Spylab (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You have hit the nail on the head. “far right” is also a political description, yet the word political in the opening sentence has been the subject of heated discussion at EDL. I would just like consistency without edit warring and block threats but we all know what will happen if I remove it, even although it is tautology. Try it and see! Leaky Caldron 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the term "far right" from the opening line on 22/10/09 as it is a politically vague term. The terms "left wing", "far right" etc are frequently misused and abused to pigeonhole people and organisations into a specific political agenda. Classifying the "enemy" of UAF as "far right" unfairly presents such people/organisations to have a set, irrefutable agenda where as the truth may not necessarily follow. To contrast, the term "fascist" is acceptable as it is a much more specific description of the persons UAF is against, where as "far right" is not, thus creating the danger of the article being presented as a biased point of view. WikiPhu (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you cannot call the UAF anti-fascist when they protest against the right of an elected politician to air his or her views on our state broadcaster. It's laughable, and makes you look rather stupid. "Alleged anti-fascist" might be more accurate 195.157.52.65 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This ' you ' you malign above is a collective of hard working editors striving for accuracy. Your POV, and mine, is not the issue, properly cited facts are. I doubt you will find a sensible source for your opinion. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition removed

"The British National Party has accused the UAF of denying them freedom of speech, arguing that the BNP are a legal political party and therefore have a right to publicly express their views." - this has not been said by the BNP. This has been said by "The British Nationalist" blog, which according to the BNP's own web editor is "independent". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a revised version of this paragraph back into the article. While you are correct that the accusation can not be attributed to the BNP, it has been made by a number of different groups and organisations, and the original text worded this as a generic accusation, rather than being a BNP-initiated attack. The reference cited is one example of such an attack, and as a valid argument of UAF interpretation of freedom of speech should stand. WikiPhu (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I needs to come from a reliable source and it doesn't, removed. --Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I'd forgotten it was added by a new editor, who wouldn't have realised that when I said "blog" and "independent" that was the reason I didn't just change the text and leave it in. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Clash

The groups clashed. Two willing parties. Replacing "with" with "and" makes a difference in the way it is read.It is a minor change to improve neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Guterman

Was listed as a notable supporter. In fact he died over 2 years ago. If he was notable then his details should be reinstated in an appropriate section with relevant sources. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead - headline names

The UAF site lists dozens of MPs (mainly Labour). Is there anything especially notable about the 3 listed (apart from them being all from the right of centre)? Leaky Caldron 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to find a good article in a RS to re-write the lead, since it is sourced entirely to the website. Based on the source, however, there is no reason why these MPs were chosen other than to show that support crosses party lines. However a RS would probably point this out anyway and avoid charges of OR and SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have no balanced it the other way. What you need to do is find a reliable source explaining the broad support that UAF has. Substituting your own OR for someone else's is unacceptable. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is exactly the same! That's not OR. I would ask you to restore my latest edit, or remove the existing incomplete list. The source is not in dispute is it. Leaky Caldron 20:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not cherry pick information from the the UAF website to present them as a leftist organization when they clearly state "We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat." That is original research. As I mentioned there we should use mainstream press as a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Their website should not be cherry picked at all. The original list of 3 used their website as source. It does them no good service to select 3 UK/NI politicians from the right. My change (using the same source) names no names but shows the broad church of support. You are either assuming bad faith on my part or you don't understand the subject matter. Leaky Caldron 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Labour and SWP parties are mentioned, mentioning the Conservative Party and Ulster Unionist Party makes if more clear that their membership is broadly based. The Labour and Conservative Parties are btw the two major political parties in the UK so it is unbalanced to mention only one. I would point out that where sections are poorly sourced, you should find better sources. Your new version as I said is poorly sourced and distorts the views presented in the source. I am not assuming bad faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Labour and SWP are mentioned because the individual's named hold executive positions in UAF. The next paragraph then mentioned David Cameron, Teddy Taylor (Cons.) and Martin Smyth (Ulster Unionist - sort of NI conservative). These were taken from the UAF website list. I cannot help it that no Cons. politician holds an executive position, but it seems a strange take on things to balance 2 left wing executive holders with 3 non-executive conservative ones. What is the point? AS for you continuing to accuse me of not using a Reliable Source, I'll say it one more time, IT IS THE SAME SOURCE. That is why I went to RS Noticeboard. If the source I quoted is unacceptable to you surely the existing line should be removed on the same basis? I have simply used the same source in a broader fashion. I am changing it but will make a slight modification. Leaky Caldron 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it reads better now because it reflects what UAF say about themselves. However it would be helpful to get secondary sources, but I don't know if much is available. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it claims anything that would not be acceptable to Cameron and I'm sure a source exists for his membership. If anyone else on the website list was concerned that they are listed when they shouldn't be they would have it removed by UAF. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectly sourced material

An editor continues to insert the following text: Usually and ironically they [UAF] use violence. Their aim, if one does not conform to the current Political Correct mindset, then beatings and abuse are prescribed.[4] The source cited is a link to their website that says no such thing.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly just an attempt at mischief by the new editor. Policy and guidelines will take care of it. He's been invited over here and has been shown the WP:Pillars. Leaky Caldron 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

UAF is a violent left wing group, and the BNP and EDL are not even fascist!

UAF is made up of hard left activists pushing a hard left agenda and using violence to achieve it! Whenever they form a counter protest against the BNP or the EDL, they instigate violence. As much as I hate the BNP and do not support the EDL (I am socially liberal), it is not those groups that use violence for political means, it is UAF. How can a heavily bias page like this one be acceptable? It is the job of Wikipedia to relay the truth. The chair of UAF allies himself with Marxists around the world.. He is a fan of Mugabe, Zimbabwe's Marxist dictator, Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's de-facto Marxist dictator, he entertained the IRA (a Marxist terrorist group) in London whilst they were still murdering British citizens.. In what possible way can you claim the group is not hard left when its chair supports violent left wing groups and dictators globally??

The BNP is also not a fascist group. I'm sure it might seem easy and popular to use anti fascist slogans, but what reasonable grounds are there for claiming the BNP or EDL to be fascist? The BNP is racist, but racism does not equal fascism. The BNP are nationalist, but that does not equal fascism either. Even putting the two together, racist and nationalist, still does not equate with fascism. Both of those are elements withing facism, but they are by no means exclusive to it. A huge amount of facism is economic, but in economic terms the BNP are not even right wing, they have a hard left economic ideolgy! The fact is, no matter how much UAF or other socialists wish to suggest otherwise, the BNP is by definition fundamentally not fascist. The EDL have even less grounds to be called fascist than the BNP, so why does UAF use violence against them too? Maybe a name change is in order, Unite Against Racist Nationalism maybe? (Although the EDL has a mixture of black and white supporters opposing Islamic fundamentalism - So clearly opposition to an ideology and not race.) So far whatever the UAF has been aiming its violence against, the one thing for certain is that it is NOT fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.45.84 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy demands that the article present the topic as it is seen in meanstream sources. If you have any reliable sources that present a different view of the topic, then please provide them. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when the majority of the media use the wrong terms "far right" and "fascist" to refer to groups like the BNP and EDL, but they by definition do not fit those terms? The EDL has a single stated agenda that has nothing at all to do with fascism, they simply want "Islamic extremism" out of the UK. And the BNP economic policy involves left wing ideals and no corporatist economic system. So how is it fascist? Mugabe is racist, yet he is a Marxist dictator. The USSR was far left, yet it was nationalistic too. And China is a perfect example of a combination of the two, its government is racist and nationalistic, yet the Communist Party is in control.. Does that mean the Communist Party is fascist/far-right? It doesn't sound right does it? The media (even more decent sources such as the Telegraph) use terms that are simply wrong by definition, mainly because they are lazy and don't want to think about it. That creates a conflict between types of sources.. So which should Wikipedia favour? Facts by definition, or popular consent?--86.178.45.84 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We report what the sources say. Please read the section about righting great wrongs which explains this WP policy. If you disagree with the policy, you will have to get it changed before changing this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What happens when there is conflict between Wikipedia pages? The Fascism page states: "Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5]...", but the BNP do not want a corporatist economic system, they want a socialist economic system. The EDL call for neither autoritarian nationalism nor a corporatist economic system. Since the BNP are by definition not fascist, it is wrong to label a group that was set up to oppose them as "anti-fascist". There is no citation for the anti fascist label on this page, it cannot be justified to use it. UAF is a Marxist group set up by Marxists to oppose a non-fascist nationalist (and racist) group, the BNP. Thus to call it anti fascist (especially without citation) is wrong in every sense of the word.--86.178.45.84 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Er... "the BNP do not want a corporatist economic system, they want a socialist economic system..." and "Since the BNP are by definition not fascist....." Says who? You? See BNP article where numerous citations attest to the BNP's fascism. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusation against police

March 21. The leading organizer ( Mr Bennett, from Haringey ) after he was released after being charged ( and released ) with conspiracy to commit violent disorder accused the police of being hostile to anti racists! Anti-fascist charged after Bolton protests

Arrests

I was looking through this section and I think it needs a rewrite. It smacks a bit of material being tagged on without much thought. The references also don't support the statements. For example "believed to be predominantly from Unite Against Fascism" is the only link to UAF on the Griffin Story. Lots of the articles relate to EDL demonstrations, now referencing this is fine but listing everyone is excessive. It seems to me that what is needed is something that says that UAF do engage against organisations such as UAFEDL and that arrests have taken place. Its also not clear from the references if the arrests include UAF members and a misleading impression is given at the moment. --Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded: I think you meant "UAF do engage against organisations such as EDL....". Leaky Caldron 11:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

oops, thanks --Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing at all to suggest that this group are anything but violent, the only time there is ever any violence when the EDL march peacefully is when this group turn up. All the reports on the television yesterday and comments from the police was focused on the detail that it was this group that was the aggressor and that this group violently attacked the police in what the policed described as organized tactics. Off2riorob (talk)

No doubt on your position then. Thanks for that, its an honest declaration of a position which helps explain a lot of your edits. Now can we return to what is supported by citation, and also what represents a balanced entry on this article. --Snowded ^TALK 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral, I don't like the look of either of these groups of people and if either of them are looking for aggressive bigots they need look no further than their own mirror. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

However,...

Please see WP:AVOID for how to not use "However,...". Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources may also be relevant.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph's structture is similar without the "however". Better though. Should probably rework it completely and find secondary coverage to alleviate the neutrality concerns.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Gaius Octavius Princeps

This editor has already received a warning for attacking other editors on the British National Party page,[6] and is attempting to place the UAF in as negative light as possible. --139.184.30.132 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lord.

1. 1. I attacked no-one. Regardless, that issue is irrelevant to this one.
2. 2.I have added sourced (from national papers and the bbc) refs, whether you think these sources are negative is irrelevant.
3. 3. You have removed sourced material, added material without any reason, personally attacked editors, ignored requests for civility.

Please consider what you are doing. Take a break. Come back and discuss any grievances you may have in a civil manner and I will go through them with you. Personal attacks on editors are not on. I have removed the subheading. Stop now or I will have no option but to report your actions. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaius is now making slanderous claims in the edit summary.[7] --139.184.30.132 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are edit warring and making accusations of your own.Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which "accusations" are these? --139.184.30.132 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"... and is attempting to place the UAF in as negative light as possible." You do not know that that is his intent.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious given his ridiculous claims here. --139.184.30.132 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made no "slanderous claims", I was referring to the sourced GUARDIAN ARTICLE, in which the writer criticises the UAF's continued invitations to a holocaust denying organisation.

If ANON is going to attack me, he should at least read the sources he dislikes so much.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which "holocaust denying organisation"? --139.184.30.132 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The UAF's website featuring a holocaust survivor is irrelevant and does not refute or even address the section it has been tacked onto. The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism. In particular the inviting of MCB speakers to UAF functions after the MCB had called for a boycott of Holocaust memorial day, Daud Abdullah in one year and Muhammad Abdul Bari the next. The MCB had already had a previous 6 year boycott in place which they stopped for a year and then restarted.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We can debate the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism forever here. The MCB has the approval of Prince Charles.[8] --139.184.30.132 (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I was referring to the sourced Guardian newspaper article, I am not pushing an opinion.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about the MCB being a "holocaust denying organisation". --139.184.30.132 (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we discussing the UAF or the MCB? I was condensing the writers article assuming that you had read it. If you have now actually read it then you will understand why it is irrelevant that the UAF have a picture of a late holocaust survivor on their website. It does not refute or even comment on the paragraph you have tacked it onto. The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one person's opinion that these groups are anti-Semitic, and there is a lot of counter-evidence which shows that the UAF is not silent regarding anti-Semitism. The MCB is considered to be a moderate organisation and I doubt that Muhammad Abdul Bari would keep his MBE if he was any kind of Islamist. --139.184.30.132 (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article is an opinion piece not an editorial or a researched news story. That aside the edit war was overnight was crazy. I've tidied it up, but can we please use the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Following on from the request at RPP, can I also encourage everybody to use the talk page, or this article will be fully protected. I have watchlisted it, and if I see the edit war breaking out, I will protect it. Also, please remember to be civil, and comment on content, not fellow editors, IP or logged in. Thanks. GedUK  10:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaius is still deleting stuff without giving an adequate explanation. Calling something "irrelevant" isn't good enough when it is clearly on-topic. --139.184.30.132 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin Smith is a senior UAF spokesman, so I don't see how his stance on the EDL is "unreliable". --139.184.30.132 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look around last night, none of the major national newspapers have reprinted the statement in the Martin Smith article, to the best of my knowledge, only partisan sources. Looks to fall foul of WP:GRAPEVINE to my eyes. 94.192.227.0 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have repeated ad-nauseum to you why the piece you keep inserting is irrelevant... The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism. Your addition of 'the UAF's website featuring a holocaust survivor' does not refute or even address the section it has been tacked onto. It is not an official UAF response to the criticism. It is your addition and your response to the criticism, it has not been given by the UAF. If the UAF respond to the criticism that would be fine to include. I cannot explain this any clearer. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to express that this particular edit of 139.184.30.132 is a form of Association fallacy? 94.192.227.0 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This "organisation" is totally racist to white people and extremly offensive to English people and British people in general. I mean look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrn93zOW2cs

--93.97.218.221 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This also shows their strong connection to the extreme left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.218.221 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

UAF attacks on freedom of speech

Shouldn't there be a section devoted to this? They do seem to be against freedom of speech, somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.61.208 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If references to this keep being deleted, this article will clearly not be neutral in any way. Ukfreespeech (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This depends on a reliable source saying this, otherwise it is pure original research and not permitted here. We cannot impose our own opinions on any article here, whether it be The Simpsons or Quantum chromodynamics. It's just not on, since we are a tertiary souce, merely reporting what others say, and are not purveyors of original thought, however correct that opinion may be. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What? By exercising their right to free speech by heckling Griffin, UAF are against freedom of speech? Bit contradictory that. Emeraude (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. Griffin is a democratically elected MEP. I have nothing against protests which involve heckling alone. However, when violent conduct and intimidation (such as throwing eggs at individuals which is illegal) are involved to prevent a democratically elected MEP from holding a press conference, then this is a clear attempt to stifle freedom of speech. Ukfreespeech (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user Ukfreespeech above - recent interviews (Newsnight, Channel 4 News) have shown them to have policies equally fascist if not worse than the BNP. Free speech for all except those you disagree with?? The article is not neutral and needs to be balanced. UAF's recent anti-democratic thuggery has drawn fire from all quarters but this is not reflected in this entry. Democracy lies in the ballotbox, not the eggbox. If UAF don't like that perhaps they'd like to move to somewhere more their liking. North Korea maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.11.158 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree with the above poster - there is definately plenty of evidence to show the uaf as anti-free speech i.e. the claw-hammer attack against a bnp member.

Find some reliable sources then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.6 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For starters:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/The-egg-white-supremacists-BNP.5349762.jp

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23773418-the-pound-143000-bill-to-protect-bnp-leader-on-question-time.do

--Panzer71 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a left-wing group

I don't see how it's POV to identify this group as one that attacks "right-wing" groups, given that its claim that the groups it attacks are right-wing does not automatically mean that all of them are, while identifying UAF as "left-wing"-- its leadership is entirely left-wing, if not far left-- is considered non-POV. Maybe Leftists at Wikipedia don't want the organizations they support to be identified as such, while identifying any group right of center as right-wing, but that's a clear bias that Wikipedia seeks to abstain from.

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say this isn't a left wing group. A couple of token tories doesn't change the fact that the groups primary base of support comes from the left, including groups like the Socialist Worker's Party. After their stunt today (pelting the BNP press conference attendees with eggs and signs), they'd be more appropriately labeled "Unite Against Fascists Other Than Us". Doesn't this all remind you a bit of Germany in the late 20's, when the German Communists and the Nazis would get into street fights with each other? Just because one group is fascist doesn't make their opponents virtuous or noble. They can be just as bad as that which they claim to fight.66.168.232.159 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--Gerkinstock 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... although it's true that Ken Livingstone and Weyman Bennett are left-wing, that doesn't necessarily mean the organization is - it claims to want to "unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat" (by which it means the BNP) [9], and its supporters include, for instance, David Cameron, who isn't left-wing [10]. And being opposed to the far right doesn't make UAF left-wing; it's in principle compatible with a centrist or moderate right wing position. Does UAF do anything else other than campaign against the BNP, which would lead you to believe it is left wing? VoluntarySlave 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with VoluntarySlave. I can't see what is added by calling it left-wing. It is led by leftists (not least the obviously left-wing SWP), but its stated aims are not at all left-wing, nor is its practice. Unless you call a vague support for liberal democracy, or the use of the ballot box to further political aims, as left-wing. David Cameron is a pretty irrefutable argument for not calling UAF a left-wing organisation. Are there any other views? If not, I will once again take out the adjective. BobFromBrockley 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do they only seem to oppose radical right-wing groups? Europe is overloaded with radical leftist groups. They don't oppose Socialist or Communist groups, which are as at least as fascistic (lowercase "f") as the right-wing groups they oppose. Non-leftist groups don't attack only right-wing groups (i.e., a non-left wing group would not attack Fox News for its bias while not also attack The NY Times or Bill Moyers for their biases). Gerkinstock 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - could it be that their name is United Against Fascism? You could argue that some ultra-left groups behave in a way that is similar to fascism, but you'd be hard pushed to call them fascists. It may also have escaped your notice that the fall of Communism has meant that there isn't much employment for the Unite Against Stalinism brigade. I guess the final point is that the far right stand candidates in UK elections, where they demonstrate their thuggish tactics and racism. The far left don't (obviously that would imply that they believed that democracy rather than revolution could deliver their goals). Duncan 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are against right-wing extremists, but are not opposed to left-wing extremism (which resulted in more killing, subjugation and famine in the 20th century than all other centuries combined). And it is an outright lie to say right-wing extremists engage in violent tactics but left-wing extreminists (Communists, Socialists, Anarchists) do not. See http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext19/Rioting.html. The far left are notorious for promoting extreme views and threatening violence, just as the far right are. Perhaps you are part of that group and wish to deny their extremism, but this isn't supposed to be a Leftist propaganda scribe. --Gerkinstock 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But my point is that in the UK (and they are a UK organisation) the far left usually doesn't stand in elections, and where they do to the best of my knowledge they do not threaten violence. The far right do stand in elections, and they do threaten violence, not just theoretically, but personally and directly. The behaviour of the far-right and far-left elsewhere in the world, and at different times is not really relevant to the aims of UAF in the UK electoral system... You also shouldn't launch personal attacks in Wikipedia, and your final statement is getting a little too close to that. Duncan 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it follows that, because they focus on the far right, they are therefore left-wing. The organization could be centrist, and identify the far-right as a more severe threat to centrism than the far-left; the fact that the group is supported by moderate right-wingers like David Cameron suggests that this is the case. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what we think; what matters is, is the claim that UAF are left-wing sourceable? VoluntarySlave 02:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with VoluntarySlave. It is completely irrelevant to this question whether the left has been violent or extremist. Being against one form of extremism doesn't necessitate being against another. Being against right-wing extremism doesn't mean being left-wing. These points are all surely obvious. Please give some sort of evidence for UAF being left-wing. Evidence that it is NOT left-wing is already in the article: David Cameron's support. Look at the other signatories here http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4 You'll see people like Peter Bottomley and Teddy Taylor - Tories, moderate right-wingers. You'll see Kalim Siddiqui, right-wing by most definitions. And you'll see loads of middle of the road and almost apolitical people like David Gray. Read UAF's statement of views http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=3 and you'll find nothing left-wing (unless opposing racism, Islamophobia, anti-semitism and homophobia are in themselves left-wing!)

I don't want to revert again - it'd probably break a wikipedia rule - but it looks like the consensus is against the words "left-wing" being in there, so please someone else revert! BobFromBrockley 16:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to describe UAF as a left-wing group. Amongst other things, it opposes the deportation of failed asylum seekers, advocates a "No Platform" Policy in Universities (which has often been used in the past to bar speakers from the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Parties) and campaigns to get BNP supporters, such as Simone Clarke, dismissed from their jobs. These are all positions associated with the Left, perhaps even the extreme Left, in British politics.

Any support from any Conservative MP for this organisation is purely nominal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.11.71 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that UAF is certainly a left-wing group, even a far left group. This is because the core membership, activists and the leadership of the organisation come from the left and far left, in particular the Socialist Workers Party. The "united front" is a classic communist tactic in which the communist party or other far left group creates a campaign in which it can surround itself with 'moderate' elements in order to appear more palatable and to gain influence out of all proportion to the communists' miniscule level of support. Cameron's membership changes little as all it consists of is a signature without having any organisational or activist role, which is controlled by the left. Booshank (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is called UNITED against Fascism, as in uniting all parties from all political colours and idealogies, both of the left, centre-left and centre-right. You do not have to be a left winger to oppose fascism, indeed, a lot of centre-right wingers also oppose Fascism, including a number of high ranking Conservatives. The UAF does not push for any political idealogy, other than anti-Fascism.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

~~ Having just seen their attempts to "protest" against the BNP, I also agree that they are against free speach and democracy. I also believe that they are political correctness gone mad, and although I am anti-racist, the major political parties need to look at the immigration (economic) issue and resolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.233.151 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the main signs of a "fascist" group , a hatred of jews as a race, a religion and a nation. I see that UAF protests a lot against BNP (which is anti-immigrant) and EDL (which is anti-extreme Islam). I do not see any protests by UAF against anti-Jewish groups. There are plenty of individuals and groups in this country supporting violence or discrimination against Jews. Most of these seem to originate from the far-left. I know that Ken Livingstone who is prominent in UAF has supported anti-semitic individuals visiting the UK. Its not clear what action UAF is taking to ensure that anti-Jewish groups/individuals are not amongst its supporters, nor is it clear if UAF is opposed to anti-semitism, therefore it cannot be classed as "anti-fascist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.72.209 (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

U-Tube evidence

OK I watched the U-tube interview cited. For one thing at no point is a direct statement or accusation made that UAF is fascist. The BNP leader says that he is not a fascist, and that violence can be fascist but he at best infers the accusation. For another a news interview like this is not really a reliable source. However, in this case we don't have to debate that. Even taken at face value the interview does not support the inserted text. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Im not saying that UAF is fascist (well I would but thats not the point im trying to put forward on the wikipedia page) im merely stating that opponents have reffered to them as fascist, come on you seem to take an interest in the BNP's place in UK politics, you must have heard it before. Anyway, what would it take for you to accept it being noted on the UAF's page that the BNP have called the uaf fascist? I'll see if I can get on to it for you ;) DharmaDreamer (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source and some indication that it was notable and not just a ya shucks boo response. You really need to address this evidence issue though. That UTube in no way supported the statement you inserted, let alone justified you putting it in again when challenged. I suggest you read WP:BRD and try and follow it. --Snowded ^TALK 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

UAF is primarily against the BNP so surly their opinion counts for something, just like mentions of the UAF on the BNP article is noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by DharmaDreamer (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

None of that affects the point I made above. Also UAF has the support of all major political parties --Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? because the 3 main parties support the UAF the BNP arn't allowed to be mentioned on this page??? DharmaDreamer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC).

The youtube link doesn't support the text added. Even if it did, it can't be linked to per WP:LINKVIO thus making it no use as a source anyway. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't unhelpful, intentionally inflammatory, and unsigned comments like the one above be removed to make the talk page more readable? Pollythewasp (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been now. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

UAF ties to Islamists, and the Holocaust survivor

No Response to my assertion about the irrelevant tacked on POV push? The piece ANON keeps inserting is irrelevant and is only there in an attempt to soften the criticism. The Guardian article criticises the UAF for its closeness with anti-semitic Islamist groups, and its silence on modern day anti-semitism. Anon's addition to this paragraph of 'the UAF's website featuring a holocaust survivor' does not refute or even address the section it has been tacked onto. It is not an official UAF response to the criticism, It is Anons addition and Anons response to the criticism. It has not been given by the UAF. If the UAF respond to the criticism that would be fine to include. This should be removed now. Anon tacked it on again just before the lock.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The complete lack of a response from ANON to my reasoning leads me to ask that this added-on irrelevancy be deleted by an admin, or for the article to be reduced to semi-protection. Thank you.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• The real irrelevent tacked-on content is the mention of Taube's editorial. By definition it's an opinion piece, of which I'm sure there are many about the UAF. There doesn't seem to be anything significant about that particular one, to warrant it being featured in this encyclopedic article.Spylab (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reaching consensus through edit summaries is silly. But if you could respond to the one made before your 2nd revert it would be appreciated or else it should be reverted.[11] Let me know if you want me to elaborate on anything in particular. Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

@Skylab. The guardian piece is relevant in that it deals directly with the UAF's invitations to anti-semtic Islamists to speak at their meetings.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to refer to it as "The guardian piece", just as the description that currently appears in our text as "David Toube of The Guardian" is also totally misleading. Please, look at the article and find out who David Toube is. It's quite easy: The Guardian helpfully provides a clickable link that leads to the information that "David Toube blogs at Harry's Place, where he focuses on extreme left, right and Islamist politics, and the works of Morrissey." In other words, he is not The Guardian's, he is a blogger who has been given space for an op piece in the paper. As far as I can tell, he has no claim to academic or expert knowledge and the use of this quote is as invalid as any other blogger's. It is certainly misrepresentation to suggest it is in any way the view of The Guardian. Emeraude (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Toube's opinions are not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

I've reverted the changes made in this series of edits. UAF's only political stance is anti-fascism which is already covered, if editors wish to claim that being anti-fascist is far-left by definition then that simply makes the additional label redundant. The labeling of the SWP is also selective, we don't say "the centre-right David Cameron" or anything similar, if you're only going to apply a label to one group then it's POV in the extreme. Hardly surprising given the editing tendencies and username of the editor in question, but I digress. In addition the factoid added about Weyman Bennett is selectively including a factoid in an attempt to paint him in a negative light, and doesn't belong in the lead. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.23.7.128, 11 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Update link on reference 4:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=1976

95.23.7.128 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

you need to change the weblinks - they are out of date and are producing error 404 pages

Sorry, not sure what format these requests are supposed to be made in, but I have given you the new URLs you need.

OLD

NEW http://uaf.org.uk/about/

OLD

NEW http://uaf.org.uk/about/our-supporting-organisations/

OLD (done via search request - why?)

NEW http://uaf.org.uk/2009/10/ken-livingstone-speaks-out-against-“the-bbc’s-gift-to-the-bnp”/

OLD

NEW http://uaf.org.uk/2007/02/hundreds-gathered-to-launch-campaign-against-the-fascist-bnps-may-election-offensive/

that's the end of the request.

91.85.210.213 (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thankyou for your help. --Stickee (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system Please be aware of this. It has come to my attention that certain militant editors are ignoring this rule when "correcting" adjustments. Despite the overwhelming implied evidence that the UAF is clearly a Left wing pressure group, one admin in particular is disallowing the calling of this group "Left-Wing". Please wake up and smell the coffee admin.

All of it's organisers and leading activists are on the left hand side of the political spectrum. The fact that members of the group have called "UKIP" "Nazi's" demonstrates their comeplete disillusionment with politics, this sort of language only comes out of the mouths of hard core socialists. Despite my own, but astoundingly obvious speculation, I don't want you to think I want that you change anything based on speculation. But based on the rule I've just quoted, it seems equally as justifible to call the UAF left wing, not even a slate, but an accurate assertion, if the "ideology" of the "BNP" is actually written as "fascism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to name this admin you are accusing? Personal attacks tend not to go down well on Wikipedia, and if there is a problem, you should be prepared to name names, and this doesn't belong here, it belongs on the Admin noticeboard. Whether it is justifiable to call UAF "left wing" relies solely on the reliable sources and not on personal opinions. And Gaming is a behavioural guideline, not a policy guideline. Furthermore, being "anti-fascist" does not necessarily predicate being "left wing". They are not opposites. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note "Editors" in the plural and with " Wake up and smell the coffee", I don't see that as a personal attack. Again, very hard to find sources on the blindingly obvious, people don't tend to state such things. (By the way, I don't think you look like Q.T, but you do look like one of the characters from The bond movie where James has a figure skater fall in love with him, can't remember the name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you went beyond that and specified "one admin in particular", which you later repeated as being in the singular. Please clarify or withdraw that comment. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just withdrew the comments. If you have removed my accusation, then please remove your reprimanding to it. I.E ":Would you care to name this admin you are accusing? Personal attacks tend not to go down well on Wikipedia, and if there is a problem, you should be prepared to name names, and this doesn't belong here, it belongs on the Admin noticeboardy"... People ought to see the whole issue or no issue at all. This which I had resolved by deleting the topic. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TP. You cannot withdraw comments by deleting them, since once you've replied, the conversation needs to remain for visibility purposes, and closed threads can be archived. That isn't the same as just deleting threads to avoid embarrassment, which is deprecated. A withdrawal of accusations, for completeness, is not achieved by cowardly deletion to avoid embarrassment. Rodhullandemu 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but you have edited my post out of proportion, so it looks like you're having a rant at nothing. I suggest you leave the whole post or nothing at all? What are the rules on that for admins?Alexandre8 (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

International Business Times source

The International Business Times is a very reliable source, it provides sound financial and general news to a multi national audience and has around 250k viewings per month . any news site that provides business and stock information must be reliable or it wouldn't be a very useful to any potential viewers who trade stocks or follow world affairs.

IBTimes, offers news, analysis and opinion on geo-politics, the global economy, markets, large and small cap companies, science and technology , and business life and culture. IBTimes also publishes 13 editions across 12 countries.

Therefore i must insist the label remain Johnsy88 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

IBTimes seems to be some kind of online newspaper, so it looks like it exercises editorial control, and so just about meets the criteria for being a reliable source. But it's a marginal website at best, so it's not nearly as good a source as a mainstream newspaper, or an academic paper, would be. If this were a topic that hadn't received significant coverage elsewhere, it would probably be OK to use IBTimes as a source. But given that this topic has been covered by better sources, that don't back up the IBTimes article, I'm not sure it's appropriate for us to use this source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan of the paper, but one has to accept that every source is biased thus am backing Johnsy on this one. Emeraude, I'm afraid to say, but looking on your page, and seeing your clear stance on anti fascism, I don't think you're the perfect person to be critiquing the sources. I understand Wikipedia is open to editing from anyone, but in your better judgement you might have to back down on this one. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that because I listed among my interests "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections" that I'm not fit to edit articles about anti-fascism? What about elections? I've also said I'm interested in French history, education and airfields. Am I fit to edit them? You are making what amounts to a personal attack on the integrity of a Wikpedia editor and should think more carefully before making such statements. You also disclose a degree of ignorance - the fact that I am interested in anti-fascism can in no way be construed as even implying that I am a supporter in any sense of UAF or even that I am, personally, anti-fascist! As it happens, I am opposed to fascism - aren't you?

To get to the more serious point. Any user of Google can get it to come up with whatever they want. Search for "pretty" and "Wayne Rooney" and you're sure to find somewhere a page that says "pretty Wayne Rooney". That doesn't mean he's not, as Private Eye frequently refers to him, "spud-faced". Now I fear that the IBTimes article you have found was discovered in exactly this way. But there are a number of problems with the IBTimes article that mean it cannot be regarded, in encyclopaedic terms, as a reliable source. Let me itemise just a few. 1 It is not written by an acknowledged academic expert in the field, in fact 2 it is anonymous. 3 The article is not about the UAF but about two other unrelated organisations. 4 The article is a rehash of statements made by people on Radio 5 Live (i.e. not even original journalism) and 6 they were not talking about UAF. 7 The reporter's tagging of the adjective "left wing" to the UAF is neither explained nor justified and, perversely, 8 the reporter mentions that UAF is supported by David Cameron who cannot by any means be described as left wing (though the reporter does not say this).

But there's a deeper issue here. In what meaningful way can an organisation be described as left (or right) wing? It would generally be agreed that all political parties are somewhere on a left-right spectrum and their position on this spectrum depends on the policies they advocate or implement. There may be disagreement about exactly where any particular party should be - it's not an accurate science - but it provides a rough and ready description. Now, with an organistion that is not a political party and is not interested in gaining power there is a problem. Is my local bridge club left wing? What about the garage that services my car? What about the charity that supports a local hospice? UAF is engaged in politics, unlike these examples, and has a programme of opposing fascism. But what is it for? It has no policies, it is not a party, it is not seeking power. So describing it as left wing is actually pointless. UAF garners support from across the political spectrum, left and right (David Cameron even). Its leaders and, I suspect, the bulk of its activists are left wingers but that does not mean that the organisation itself can be described as left wing. As it happens, my local bridge club's secretary is a life long communist, the treasurer is a Labour councillor and the captain is a trade unionist, but no one in their right mind would say it is left wing (especially not the Conservative party chairman!).

Incidentally, Alexandre8's edit to describe the UAF as a "protest group" rather than "organisation" is quite an improvement and certainly more descriptive. However, the link (to protest) is not particularly helpful. The infobox describes UAF as an interest group, which is wrong: pressure group is more accurate. Unfortunately, Wikiedia does not differentiate "interest group" and "pressure group".

I am editing to remove "left wing" and to include "pressure group". Emeraude (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a source that says it is left wing. I also believe we should not be labeling groups in the first line of articles but it is common (see EDL). It might be better to simply describe why it is called left wing and by who. Not sure. However, consensus appears to be against you regardless of your lengthy reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is flawed and unreliable - and as there is only one source, what can you possibly mean when you say "it is called left wing"? By whom? One flawed source. Incidentally, I see no consensus on the lines you describe.

A further point. Anyone who wants to claim the UAF as left wing needs to explain the following MP/MEPs who were founding signatories: Peter Bottomley, David Cameron, Edward Garnier, Chris Heaton-Harris, Anthony Steen, Teddy Taylor (Conservative): Mike Hancock, Paul Tyler (Lib Dem); Martin Smyth Ulster Unionist;

Adam Price (Plain Cymru). Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, I was particularly careful not to make it a personal attack, merely a suggestion to which you may wish or not wish to agree. I don't take the decision to insult someone lightly, so please don't take it personally. I would imagine most people are opposed to fascism, myself included, but most people don't proclaim in public profiles. I imagine this is because most people feel it normal and just to be an anti-fascist. I was suggesting that in your case, since you have taken an express interest in anti fascism, you might not be the best person to state which is a reliable source and not. I actually agree with your point about not labelling organisations, and so by that, I would also like to see the tags from the EDL removed from "far right". However, seeing that this isn't ever going to happen, I'm going to back the people who believe in citing that the UAF are left wing. There are times when the original meaning of a word get distorted and so people in some situations expect to see a political label to a non political group. But, seeing that, as stated on the UAF website "We are opposed to Fascism, especially that of the BNP", in their ideologies, I would argue that they are taking a direct stance in politics, and thus should be given a political labelling. So either we label all organisations that "se melent" in poltics, or we label none. I myself am a fluent french speaker, and share a similar interest in French culture, just for the books. However, writing a historical article is slightly different from writing an article on a highly controversial political/politically related group.

Final point, I internally linked "protest group" for no other reason than creating an internal link. It's standard practise to link articles. Debate seems to have more to say, can we have some more views please. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed addition per WP:UNDUE. The opinion of a single source most certainly shouldn't be presented as fact. I note the source doesn't even say what makes UAF left-wing. Considering UAF's only policy is anti-fascism, if as expected the source subscribes to the popular misconception that anti-fascism is left-wing, it's a tautology to describe a group as both anti-fascist and left-wing. If they don't describe to that misconception, then better evidence that a bold claim of left-wing without any supporting reasoning is needed as to why an organisation with only one policy is left-wing. Finally, "There's a source" is not a valid counter-argument to WP:UNDUE before anyone attempts it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As already stated the source is reliable and all articles regardless of news organisation have a political agenda unless state as neutral IE BBC. You cannot just ignore a sourced article because you do not agree with the opinion of the articles author. Just because this is a world wide news website does not mean that its sources is not reliable. it is ranked 2,223 in terms of traffic for a website in the us alone and has almost an equal amount of daily reach statistics in comparison to another reputable website of the Guardian newspaper..

I feel that the people who want to undo the label do have a non neutral point of view and this need to be looked at before any more changes are made to this article to make sure it shows a fair and balanced point of view to the readers of WP worldwide

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not willing to make any further edits in favour or against the use of the wording "Left-Wing". I think that there is no final consensus, and I myself am unsure of what the correct phraseology should be within the outlines of wikipedia manuals. Any additional edits I make will ignore this terminology until there is a clear solution. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We would need a source for left-wing. Being against the far right does not make a group "left wing". TFD (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

please read the source that is provided before just removing/undo as this has been discussed and the source is provided. See the previous discussion and evidence also. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexandre8 - thanks. I accept you did not intend a personal attack. However, your logic does not hold up on my suitability to edit this article. If I had said that I was a member or supporter of UAF you might have a point, though even then it could still be possible to write factually and without bias. Indeed, academics do it all the time and the process of peer-review assures that personal bias does not interefer with academic rigour. On an amateur level, that is what happens in Wikipedia. But consider what my personal page means when it says that among my interests are "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections". (In point of fact, my inteest is fascism, but I wasn't going to leave at that and be sure to be misconstrued.) What it means is that I have studied and researched fascism (and anti-fascism) at higher education level, including writing a post graduate level dissertation on the subject. I have a firswt degree in political science. I think that gives me every right to edit this and other articles from an expert viewpoint, and, as an educator and political scientist I am well aware of the issue of neutrality and bias.

You also make a very valid point that sometimes the original meaning of a phrase or word becomes distorted. Absolutely correct, which is why, of course, we must be sticklers for accuracy in Wikipedia and ensure that "left wing", "fascist", etc etc are used consistently in their proper meanings. In this case, as another editor has said above, it is wrong to call the UAF left wing simply because it is anti-fascist. You have said that you are opposed to fascism; does this make you left wing? Were the Allies in WW2 left-wing simply because they opposed fascism? There has been no other suggestion as to why the UAF is "left wing", apart from me accepting that most of its leaders and possibly a large proportion of its members are left wing, just like my bridge club! I suspect that attempts to describe UAF as left wing are more to do with using it as a term of abuse than with any scholarly judgement.

I want to revert protest group to pressure group. You are right about the desirability of internal links, but protest group actually links to protest, which is not very helpful. As I explained above, UAF is apressure group - the link actually goes to Advocacy groups, a term more common in the US I believe, but it does cover both pressure and interest groups as well. Similarly, "interest group" does not cover the UAF. The distinction is crucial; pressure groups exists to pursue a goal (as UAF does) while interst groups exist to unite and forward the common interests of a "community". (Interest groups would be, for example, a trade union, an association of peanut growers, the a Bridge players' action group etc.) Anyone any problems with this? Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No one needs to explain anything. No one needs to debate it. What do the sources say? If the sources say that they are left wing or a protest group then it belongs there. Is pressure group sourced? If not it does not belong. The only stipulation I see to this is if it appears derogatory or is debated by the group. However, EDL did not receive that treatment so I personally would find the humor in not extending the courtesy to this article. If sources call it one thing enough it either needs to be used as a definition or used as a describing line in the lead. "Left" is common and it deserves prominence in the lead even if it is not a definition. I say apply it as a label since EDL is labeled right but first things first.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Only problem is, EDL has more of the attributes of a political party with programmes and policies, so that left-right actually makes some sense. UAF does not, and if it is to be described as left there remains the anomaly that a number of its original sponsors are politically to the right!!! And the only source suggested for UAF being left remains a single Internet article, not about the UAF, that applied it as an adjective with no reason, qualification, nothing. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I've just googled "left wing UAF". Google came up with nothing of any use - all entries were from right wing and extremist blogs, or EDL supporters writing to newspapers. A very large proportion of results were, frankly, hate sites. Google eventually said "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 58 already displayed." That's 58, and not one reputable, reliable source. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you did it wrong: [12][13] I can provide numerous sources. Same thing as the EDL. It is a label that is disputed so why not simply clarify it. Just because the UAF don;t have as many hate mongers? Not good enough of a reason.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Except those searches just give articles where "UAF" and "left wing" appear in proximity in the text, such as "left-wing groups were supposed to unite against fascism", and this isn't even about the UAF!!! Incidentally, "pretty Wayne Rooney" returns 7 hits, but he still ain't pretty! Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a swift reply Emeraude. I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, and accept that you're as qualified as anyone to edit this article. I've made "protest group" link internally to the wikipedia main article of "Advocacy groups" for the time being, if you wish to revert it to Pressure group because you think that's more accurate please do so, I don't midn. Additionally it might be wise for someone to make a more precise article, or stub for "Advocacy Groups" to try and make it more specific to the aims of the group. Groups like the EDL, UAF, Islam for UK, West Marboro church ect the list is endless. All take a very active role in voicing their views and I don't think Advocacy Group is fit for purpose to describe that, the requirements as to what should be included in the new group can be debated at a later date.

As for Left wing labelling, It's still hard to know where to go with this. I think Emeraude's right in saying that it does seem to be applied to the UAF with the goal of it being more of a burden to the labelling of the group and not out of academic accuracy, but at the same time, it does seem startlingly obvious to me that they are very much a left based organisation (Oh it's just started to snow here in Moscow outside, thought I'd let you know aha), seeing that many of the same members of UAF were involved in the vandalising of the Tori HQ (I can get a source if need be) I can't help but think that if the BNP and EDL were to disappear, they'd just rename to "United Socialism" and use the large support already united under one banner to protest against the Conservatives or UKIP in the name of socialism and not tbhat of fascism. Obviously this does not affect the current labelling of the article and I'm not suggesting anything should be included about my conclusions, but just tp bear in mind that many people share my opinion about the UAF being politically socialist or at least left wing, and so having mentioned how terminologies become distorted, they would expect to see this labelling in the article. In principle I totally agree with you Emeraude that just because someone opposes fascism they are not therefore by default left wing. It's only come to be perceived in this way in England, Scotland and Wales (N. Ireland is in a different boat) because there IS no real threat of fascism in Britain. The BNP are not necessarily a fascist party, they have some arguably fascist policies, but the chance of them ever getting to install them in English Common Law, or from the point of Governmental majority are so slim that only left wing people actually bother to fight against them. For most people the EDL are just a bunch of people who are fed up with immigrants, not fascists, and so again, they won't join a group that calls themselves "Anti fascists" to oppose the EDL. If however another Hitler was to arise in Europe, just about every Brit I know would do the decent thing and fight him, that I do not doubt.

Cptnono, sources should be questioned for reliability, and if irregularities occur in the articles they may be considered for dismissal. I think myself and other would be much obliged if you could go out and find those extra sources. Many thanks Impartiality shall reign (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll change it to pressure groups then, and I agree with you about the poor state of the Advocacy groups article, but one job at a time. Snowing outdoors in Moscow? Good job it's not indoors! Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no attempt to address the WP:UNDUE argument, other than an admission by the editor edit warring to retain it that it isn't even a majority view in the first place, I've removed it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

More sources added. I still think mentioning it int he second line with clarification would be better but without that happening at EDL I see no reason to treat this one better.Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. See no reason, in light of my last post, why it shouldn't stay since there has been no further discussion on the matter. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow that is tons of reverts. So does anyone object to all of those source? If so, say so and start discussing. If the problem is in the spirti of WP:WORDS, please draft a line to be place in the second line or third line of the lead that details why and who calls them left wing. I also recommend you do the same thing at EDL. Of course, both articles can rely on the sources to apply the label but I think that is not the best solution.Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and due process

As far as I can see the position is as follows For the change (insertion of left wing): Alexandre8, Johnsys88, Cptnono, Chzz, Wayne Slam,82.22.6.46 Against the change: ~Voluntary Slave, Emeraude, 2 lines of K, Snowded, 94.170.240.237, one night in Hackney, The Four Duces

So that makes 7 for the change, 7 against so there is no consensus for the new wording. per WP:BRD the stable position should be restored and the issue discussed bringing in other editors via the RfC process if necessary. Wikipedia is very clear on this.

In respect of the sources and arguments:

• An on line journal (IBT) which focuses on business issues is not a reliable source and it contradicts itself when it says ".. left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter".
• reference 2 does not load and therefore cannot be checked
• reference 3 is a causal reference in a provincial newspaper to a forthcoming meeting, hardly authoritative
• reference 4 is a single mention in the Mail (not a broadsheet) reporting an incident, it is not a researched article on UAF

None of these are sufficient to overcome the verifiable fact that the UAF ha all party support, something with all party support cannot be left wing The EDL arguments probably go to the heart of this, people don't like the label "right wing" there so they are indulging in tit for tat. Each article is separate. UAF is an "establishment body" founded for some time with a body of referenced material showing its support from across the political spectrum. In the case of EDL we have a recently formed and secretive body for which we only have press material, however that material is broadsheet.

As I had said, the stable position should be restored per WP policy, if we cannot reach agreement here then we raise an RfC. At the moment I'm sorely tempted to raise it an ANI, but lets try discussion first. --Snowded ^TALK 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Given no response I have restored the previous stable position. At the moment there is no consensus for change. --Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, Please dont thake this the wrong way as i mean no offense.

I feel that considering that you are a self proclaimed Democratic socialist you are not credible position to make edits on this subject matter (the label of left wing) considering you are a self professed believer in left wing politics. Also your opinions about the credibility of the Sources provided are exactly that (opinions) and we must deal in facts that are sourced, from reputable sources (which has been discussed previously in the above chat about the sources provided). Therefore i have reverted your undo as these sources are valid and your are not editing from a NPOV. Please bring this to discussion before starting an UNDO WAR.This topic has been discussed previously and resolved and we should not have to tread over old ground. Thanks Johnsy88 (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not previously resolved, editors were split 50-50 on the change. I and others have challenged the sources and you have not even replied to that. WP:BRD is very clear on policy here. If a consensus cannot be reached for a change then an RFC should be raised, and the previous stable version should stand pending agreement. Please address the issues raised with the references and the other arguments and do not revert to a controversial position. Please do not make personal accusations as to another editors suitability or not to edit this article. --Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, An accusation is a formal charge of wrong doing brought against a person; the act of imputing blame or guilt. I have made no such accusation but simply stated a fact about your self professed political belief which states that you believe in left wing politics so could you please refrain from claiming i made an accusation with malice in mind. If you wish to raise an RFC then i feel you should to try and resolve the matter but until that time the article should remain with the label of Left Wing due to the fact that their are now several sources to prove such a label (3 of these from a very reputable source and 1 from one of Wall Streets top financial news sites which is about as popular as the Guardian Online.

Also by starting an undo war you are potentially getting one of us banned from editing whilst the issue is resolved,please leave article until officially resolved.

Thanks for bringing this to chat

Johnsy88 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I brought it to chat some time ago and got no response. So I have restored the long standing version per WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

my apologies for late reply but i have been working long hours and try to keep up to date with goings on on WP. As i stated before please leave article with LW label as this is a sourced label and not cause an undo war which will get one of us banned when this can be sorted properly , I agree that if you wish to raise an RFC you should .Johnsy88 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been challenged by several editors and a consensus has not been reached for a change, so the long standing stable version should be restored. Please revert per Wikipedia policy --Snowded ^TALK 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Im afraid im unwilling to undo LW label as i an several others do not agree also which leaves this unresolved, Please raise an RFC. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Thanks

I know you want the label, however you have not got consensus for the change and you have not engaged with the summary of objections I made above. Please follow process and restore the stable position and engage with the discussion. You might want to withdraw the suggestion that I am not in a credible position to make edits as well by the way. If you don't then its another failure to follow due process. --Snowded ^TALK 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You also have no consensus, hence why it has not been resolved in the past and i would also like to remind you not to make threats on WP and actually extend to me the common courtesy i am extending to you. I feel no reason to withdraw such a suggestion because the suggestion was made based on facts from your own admission. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What threat did I make? Also please read WP:BRD (you have been blocked for this before); you agree there is no consensus so the stable position should be restored. I have challenged the sources you used, and you have not had the decency to respond to those arguments so there are no facts. Please also formally withdraw the "credible" statement --Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your guised statement in which you said "You might want to withdraw the suggestion that I am not in a credible position to make edits as well by the way" AND im afraid you are in the wrong on this matter as i stated previously. The label should remain as a consensus was made which ended in the label being left and which you are now ignoring by raising the issue again whilst bringing no new evidence that it should be reverted. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also a WP:BRD was established and the outcome was that a reasonable compromise was found Johnsy88 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus was reached for the change, there was an edit war and the discussion on the talk page shows no agreement reached. I can't see anything that would support your statement that "the outcome was that a reasonable compromise was found". Perhaps you could provide a diff?

When I reviewed the history on the talk page I a summary comment on there, with detailed comments on each of the references used. I left it a couple of days for response, and none was forthcoming so I restored the long standing stable position. You have not responded to the questions on the references. You have admitted that it was 50-50 on the change so you are not entitled to claim consensus. Neither have you taken the opportunity to withdraw the "credible" comment, please do so. (I also formatted your comments by the way, if you want your signature on a separate line then please put enough colons in front if it so its aligned.--Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The general consensus was that because there was no concrete resolution to the label it should remain. Are you are also claiming that the Times,the IBT,the Mail, and the echo(echo---which is abit dubious i must admit and was not added by myself) are not reliable sources. you cant just pick and choose what sources are reliable and which are not because you don't agree with the author because that is simply your opinion and not a fact. the sources are from the editors of some of the UK and in some cases the worlds most reputable news organisations which have been trusted for many years. i would suggest if you have an issue with the sources you contact the Authors of the articles and get clarification of the POV on the matter. AND as stated before i have been working and therefore not able to see your updates until today hence my reply today. And i will not withdraw the "credible" comment because it was neither an insult nor an accusation but simply a fact about your self proclaimed political beliefs which put you in a position which could potential mean you are not editing from a NPOV Johnsy88 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the diff for your claim of consensus, I can't see anything which supports it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

With internet search engines it is possible to find sources, even reliable ones, saying anything one wishes. We need a source that explains why they are left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but for the moment I am trying to sort out process Johnsy88 is claiming he had a consensus for the change, I am asking him for the diff to establish that this was the case. --Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

yes by using a search engine you can find that and if we went by that way of thinking 95% of WP sources would be removed. We use these sources which i will state again are reputable because they are from long time reliable news organisations. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And the diff to support your position on consensus please --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As already stated the Diff was that this was discussed and due to the issue not being resolved it was agreed to leave the label in place. If you wish to find it scroll through the discussion page and find it instead of wasting my time. If you can provide a source that says that unite against fascism is not a left wing group then i will be happy to revert the edit or at least add the dispute to the article. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

is a far better way of partially resolving this issue [User:Johnsy88|Johnsy88]] (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Please learn to format your comments). I have read through the discussion page and I can't see anything that supports your statement. I can see agreement to pressure group but not to left wing. If you wish to maintain your position please supply the diff. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the method in which you reply to me as very unreasonable and somewhat insulting and would ask you yet again to extend to me the same courtesy i extend to you in conversation and as a teacher of secondary school students i hope you do not teach in the same way that you intend me to learn my lesson by saying (Please learn to format your comments), this may seem petty on my part but to any other new WP editor it can be very off putting and could be taken in the wrong manner even if good intentions are actually meant by your comment . As already stated the label remained as left wing because there are reputable sources provided, i fully understand that should be added as news sources cannot always be taken as exact fact unless there is in depth analysis, however the label should remain with label until this is researched as reputable news organisations have released articles to the general public which state that the UAF is left wing. this has clearly been cleared by an editor who would not allow such an article unless first checked. If such news organisations retract there views that the UAF is infact not left wing then the label should be promptly removed. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't told you that you are in no position to edit the article and you are not formatting your comments correctly, I've tried to help out by doing it for you, and have just done so again. That aside you are avoiding the question. Please provide the diff which shows that your statement about a consensus is correct. --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are all fine sources. Loading problem is on your end. Those sources meet our standards with a professional structure in place to engage in fact checking and the like. Feel free to go to the RS noticeboard. Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

references

Ok we now have two citations for "left wing", one of the four was removed by the propose of the change and I have removed one which was a diff link. That gives us a single mention in a non-broadsheet newspaper and the IBT which is an online business journal. Neither of these provide any weight. The IBT one shows its ignorance when it says that David Cameron is a support (and he is right wing the last time I looked). Given this, the most that could be said (and not in the lede or the information box, is that UAF has been described as left wing. That would be an acceptable compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and seems like a fair compromise because it represents the facts as they are presented. Thanks for bringing this to discussion and resolving the issue once and for all. Johnsy88 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK if no one else chimes in I will remove it from the lede and the information box and insert a sentence in the main body to the effect that it has been described as left wing, using the Mail reference above - if you have the Times one that would be better --Snowded ^TALK 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not satisfactory because, per WP:WEIGHT, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". We would have to show that there is notable opinion that UAF is left-wing. TFD (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if human common sense when something is glaringly obvious ever plays a role in the evaluating of worthiness of minor sources? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is satisfactory as it now has a majority agreement that backs the left wing label (be it a majority by 1). i would also say that there is notable opinion in the form of the reliable sources but i would not argue with being inserted if a consensus cannot be reached on this matter whilst leaving the left wing label in place with the provided sources remaining in place Johnsy88 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources originally provided do not show it to be a minority view. Those are some decent RS. Like I said, treat this an EDL with some respect for LABEL and there is an easy fix. Until then: stop edit warring. And who removed some of the sources anyways. One of them is not in the citation given now but it was fine a couple days ago.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The new source inserted has the phrase "but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter" which is more or less identical with the other business source. There is not a single source from a British Broadsheet there, which tells you something. In the case of the EDL there are broadsheet citations that it is far right. Two of three have the phrase above which is contradictory in nature and probably picked up from the same source. A majority does not back the left wing label either (and wikipedia is not a democracy). I am prepared to agree a sentence in the article which says that "it has been called left wing, even though the Leader of the Conservative Party is a supporter" which would be backed up by the reference. But the label in the lede and the information box have to go unless another source can be found. --Snowded ^TALK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied above. I am not repeating my arguments here but feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. Or you can take the suggestion and make the topic area even better.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't replied as far as I can see. Why if this is true can you now find a British Broadsheet newspaper which uses the term? Also as far as I can see Johnsy88 has agreed to my proposal. --Snowded ^TALK 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I sentence closely modelled on the following I think should be the best course of action. "The UAF, an antifascist pressure group, is predominantly made up of left wing sympathisers and activists, but people in the likes of David Cameron, the leader of the conservative have alleged their support. The group officially adopts no political stance". Put that somewhere in the opening paragraph, and remove the left wing tags from the info box and I think we shall have arrived at a gentleman's agreement ;). Alexandre8 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that they are "predominantly made up of left wing sympathisers and activists"? Have any studies been conducted on the people who donate £10 on-line and become "members"? What does left-wing mean anyway? Trotskyist, Labour, LibDem, or broadly anyone who opposes the groups the UAF opposes? TFD (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats not supported by the references Alexandre, or by the list of sponsors of UAF. My suggested compromise to use those references to support a statement along the lines of "Despite the support of people such as David Cameron, Leader of the British Conservative Party, the UAF has occasionally been described as left wing". If you can find a reputable text book or a broadsheet quote I am happy to revise that position but the moment the current (non-consensus) wording fails verification. --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You only have to look at the placards of the street activists to demonstrate their political leanings. It's beyond recognisable doubt that the majority of the street activists, those who go out there and actually put their antifascism beliefs into practise are leftwing. And yes the word left-wing is very broad, but so is right-wing and that is applied to many many articles here on wikipedia without further discussion. I'd imagine from your profile that you know a fair bit about this group and may have taken part in some of the rallies? If so, then perhaps you know what I'm talking about and in the genuine goodwill of wishing for Wikipedia to be a non biased and accurate information centre, go out and find those sources which you are requesting. Socialist Worker newspaper has very strong ties with the UAF, often commentating on its website how their proud members led marches and how they distributed stickers and what not. The bulk work is there, everyone knows its leftwing if not socialist. Weyman Bennett for pommigranite's (lol, just spur of the moment) sake. 3/4 their founding members are self proclaimed socialists. But as you rightly say, some citations are needed. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to understand the political leanings of the UAF its easy for anyone with the time to research the history and members who created the organisation. Created in collaboration with the TUC (Left-Wing Union), the T&G/Unite (Left-Wing Union), The Socialist Workers Party (Far-Left), Chaired by "Red Ken" Livingston (Left-Wing), Supported by Weynan Bennett (Far-Left Socialist Workers Party executive member),Supported by Billy Hayes (Left-Wing trade unionist), Lee Jasper (A supporter and colleague/Close friend of Ken Livingston), and Peter Hain (Left-Wing Labour Politician).

Although UAF do not directly claim to be officially left wing their inner infrastructure is made of up people with politically left-wing leanings and political thinkings and this will no doubt have an influence over the policy's and workings of UAF.

However until the press or investigative journalist analyse the political leanings of UAF the Left-Wing label must remain with the or . The sources provided do label the UAF as Left-Wing and this is clear for anyone who reads the reputable sources but it will take time to finally clear up exactly where they stand politically and this will come through independent and factual investigation Johnsy88 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those tags are not being used correctly. Fact is for when a source is needed and Failed verification is when it isn't in the source(well the sources were originally there but removed). Dubious might be the correct tag but I prefer to rely on sources. And as I have said, Snowwed has an easy fix available if they choose.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for one of you guys to (i) provide a diff of where a consensus was reached to change the article and (ii) to deal with the question of WP:WEIGHT and the absence of any broadsheet references (as we have for the EDL article). Speculating on motivations and activities of other editors may entertain you but it has nothing to do with this article. --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that UAF has a good deal of support from the political left. Its website has a list of people who, it looks like, can be considered its founders [14], and the majority of these are either people representing trade unions or people who it is not unfair to categorise as holding left-wing views. However, some of them are very clearly not left wing. Martin Smyth and Teddy Taylor were both leading figures in the Monday Club, for example. And David Cameron is even listed there. So to describe it as a "left-wing" organisation without qualification seems to be some form of POV nonsense, I think.

What characteristics of the UAF do people see that might make it "left-wing"? That's not a facetious question - I think it is probably the key to working out what the more appropriate encyclopaedic content might be. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowed please don't be so flippant. You're not actually arguing against any of the "speculations" I prefer to call them "glaringly obvious unsubstantiated facts" You know deep down which components make up this group and you're not willing to act upon those. This is indeed a shame. It's all too easy to quote generalised wiki rules and apply them willy nilly, but I'm yet to see you argue against them being left wing, apart from citing David Cameron who to this date hasn't even participated in any of their rallies. He's on the list for popular appeal. If I bought an encyclopaedia from a shop and it had this group listed as anything but LEFT wing I'd go and get my money back.It's like King jong il was trying to deny having W.O.M.D because no one had documented. Farfelu je dis. I know you won't like this analysis, but at least bear it in mind for other activities in life. http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/love-music-hate-racism-london.html take a look at who makes the placards. Yes you're right. the Socialist Worker. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not being remotely flippant. I am asking two questions that you and others seem to be avoiding answering. I am not interested in original research on photographs or on my or your personal opinion. I am concerned about edit warring to assert a non-concensus based change and a failure to deal with evidence. Comments by you and another editor on my views and suitability are also unwelcome, focus on content please and answer the questions. --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I repeat the question - will someone please point to the diff where consensus was reached to change the long standing stable version of the lede. When I went through the material it was 7-7 on a vote and the sources proposed by those wanting a change have been challenged. If there is no consensus to change then the prior version should be restored until a consensus is achieved. Edit Warring to achieve a change is disruptive behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Left Wing

The Times cite given says specifically "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism " which appears sufficient to say "left wing." Collect (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A broadsheet quote is useful and I think justifies saying that it has been described as left wing. The (verifiable) fact remains that it has all party support and one casual reference is not really enough to overcome that. I've amended accordingly and just left the Times reference as its the only one with any real value. Given the previous split and lack of consensus for change this represents a reasonable compromise position--Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The assetion that the Times is not RS for the claim shoulf be brought to the RSN board. And emoving RS sources one does not like is not valid on WP. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is asserting that the Times is not a reliable source, its a question of weight. You can't simply insert something simply on one reference, if other referenced material contradicts it. In this case the Cameron sign up to the group. WP:WEIGHT is clear here. It is also the case that consensus has not been reached for a change so the prior stable position should stand. If you are not happy with the compromise then I will retag and raise elsewhere (but not the RSM Board as that is not the issue). --Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You are the only person reverting the claim. At that point, it appears that you are a "consensus of one" at the best. See WP:RS/N. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If RS say its left wing so do we, are there any RS that deny they are left wing?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT Slater and see the various arguments above. --Snowded ^TALK 16:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Snowed's action on this. I understand his point and he has done the right thing to leave it up there. If one more tabloid/broadsheet paper can be found I think there will be no question about it. For instance Guardian and Telegraph differ greatly in their interpretations of events and groups yet both are reviewed as reliable sources. Snowed, I think the diverse membership on paper is listed in the article already so I think even if the citation "left wing" remains readers will still be informed about the various political views of the groups subscribers. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a matter of proper balance really. The diverse membership is clear, its also clear that they are called left wing and that (although this is a personal observation only) the majority presence on the active demonstrations is left wing. However that has often been the case with pressure groups, CND for example has similar issues. Hence my proposed compromise, happy to look at alternative wordings on that but I don't think the label is correct in the information box or the lede sentence. If we had the same universal broadsheet labeling as we have on the EDL then I would not be disputing it, but we don't. --Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources they are left wing

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4426947.Left_wing_group_to_meet/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=42484-qqqx=1.asp

We say what the majority of sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to go and explain that to David Cameron. Slater if you had given a whole set of broadsheet references fine, but you haven't. --Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "Left wing" such a dirty word? I'm sure they'd love to be considered a middle-of-the-road movement, but based on multiple links shown above it seems that they are described as "Left wing". In each of the articles, that adjective is used when the group is mentioned. --Habap (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a dirty word at all, but they were set up with all (including right wing) party support. I think the reason there is only one broadsheet reference to left wing (and that casual) is that those newspapers are more aware of the nature. Its also interesting if you do a search on UAF and left wing most of the hits are right wing blogs and web sites using the word as an epithet. Its been a common tactic for far right groups (and here the context is the EDL) to portray their opponents as left wing or far left rather than admit that the level of opposition to them crosses the political spectrum. Hence the long term edit ware here and the fact that it is an issue. --Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know UK papers at all, so can't evaluate the sources. Here in the US, we have far fewer newspapers per capita and they are less ideological. Well, some would say they're almost all equally liberal, because I don't think there is any right-leaning paper that has significant circulation.

So, are Daily Mail and Sunday Business Post right-leaning? The article on The Northern Echo says that it was started "as a liberal alternative". Is that no longer these case? --Habap (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Broadsheet newspapers are Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, those are generally considered authoritative. Tabloids like the Daily Mail and the regional newspapers (such as the Northern Echo) are less so, more prone to sensational stories and ones with a strong political bias. The Sunday Business Post is Irish and says "The Unite Against Fascism group, a loose collection of left-wing and anti-racism organisations in Britain" which doesn't support the left-wing lable - not all anti-racist groups are left wing. UAF was started by an ALL PARTY group and that support (including that of the leader of the main right wing party) has not been withdrawn. Demonstrations attract left wing support (hence the reports) but that has been true of many a protest group in the past. Hence the issue. --Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, even though the Times does refer to the group as left-wing, and at least two of these 'less reliable' papers also refer to the group as left-wing, it's still WP:UNDUE? Should that go before WP:NPOVN? --Habap (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest you would expect a far more substantial body of references. One minor one in the Times, a passing reference in the Mail and a single paragraph report in the Northern Echo. We've also had an on-line US and Australian new service. No serious political commentary. Its in marked contrast the the body of broadsheet references to the EDL as far right (and if you check back that was the original motivation for this change). I think we have both content issues and behaviour issues (the refusal the abide by WP:BRD and the claims for consensus for change when none existed. It might even be ANI. For the moment I made a change to day which removed the main label but made it clear that it was described on occasion as left wing. This seemed (and seems) to be a more than reasonable compromise. Well that or some variation on the wording. I'm happy to leave it to see if other editors agree - its looks like there is some support above. If there is no progress then it will need to go another forum or a RfC. --Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come over from the RS noticeboard. In the lede for describing political organisations, we typically go with self-description unless there is a compelling reason for doing otherwise. Compelling reasons would mean several analytical sources (academics and serious political commentators) placing a group on a certain part of the spectrum. This usually only applies to more extreme groups, such as far-right and far-left groups (As such, the English Defence League is identified in several journals as well as serious journalistic commentary as "far right", and may be described so on Wikipedia). I don't see such compelling reasons for the UAF to be described in the lede as "left-wing". Yes, the Times is RS, but it's only a passing comment. Some editors here have forgotten that RS status is only a threshold, a minimum requirement for sourcing, not a sufficient one. This RS is too flimsy for the lede. If there is a debate about the UAF's alignment, then it might be worthwhile including in a section, if there are sources to support that. (And the Daily Mail should not be taken as a reliable source on these matters at all. Please can we remember that our role here is to reflect good RS, not to scrape the barrel looking for potential backing for our viewpoints.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty. Do we need to add more? Long story short: Not in the lead is laughable. Not in the very first sentence makes perfect sense.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not RS for this full stop. Not because it's editorially right wing, but because it's just not a very good newspaper when it comes to objective assessment on a whole range of subjects, not only politics. Sunday Business Post describes UAF as a collection of left wing and anti-racist groups. So not "left-wing" itself, which actually counts against the descriptor being used. The list of people clearly not left-wing who are signatories is extensive enough for us not to go with this in the lede without some heavyweight analysis, which is not there. Of course, it may be the case that the UAF is dominated by left-wingers, but that's not grounds enough for us to describe the organisation as left-wing. It does not campaign on left-wing issues. (anti-fascism is not a left-wing issue in itself). Including "left-wing" goes against standard practice of using self-descriptors except where sizeable high quality RS puts it in a category. Ignoring this would be to introduce POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono - does your statement above mean you are supporting my compromise? --Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: All the major sources have been found to be RS in the past (including the Daily Mail). No RS source has been furnished to claim that the statement is fringe at all. We are not calling UAF "radical" here - only stating that it is "left wing" as stated in RS sources (which is how WP works). Collect (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly there is no evidance that this label has been contested by them (or any one else, except here on wiki). Sources outside the UK have also called them this (odd that the Irish sources seems to have been ignored). Nor do I recall in policy anything about accademic or broad sheets being neeed to establish that something is not fringe when no one has contested something. As to undue, as far as I* am aware that only come into it when something recives more coverage here then it does in the sources. As no source has contested this label we are not gving it more coverage then it deserves. As to the support they recive, that wouold be synthsis we say what RS say not the inferance we draw.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The absence of material is relevant to an assessment of WP:WEIGHT. As our one independent commentator so far says having some sources is not necessarily a sufficient reason for inclusion. --Snowded ^TALK 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source (not a broad sheet, local newspaper)

http://www.sthelensreporter.co.uk/news/business/the_hardest_job_in_the_world_i_love_it_1_735173 (calls them far left)

International source

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-far-left-uaf-and-muslims-riot-%5BAumLIxb0ye0%5D.cfm

There are also many sources that describe left wing reaction to (say) the BNP but to not explicitly say the UAF is left wing, but include them as an opposition group (such as groups on the left oppose the BNP. The UAF has demonstrated a number of times…)[[15]][[16]]. Or they say that left wing demonstrators clashed with right wing rivals and go on to talk about the UAF [[17]].

So it’s clear they are either directly called or linked by inference to the far left in multiple sources. This does not appear to be a fringe few at all, just not one widely publicised.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Regional newspapers and do not have the same standards as the broadsheets. They provide evidence that it is called Left wing by some sources, but not that it is left wing. That would require weight in references from the broadsheets and/or literature. Google searches on left wing and UAF produce more right wing blogs and web sites than they do serious commentary. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And non of those blogs or commentries have be used so I fail to understand why you raise the point. Moreover your citeria for 'evidance' is not backed up by policy. There is no requirment that we only use broad sheets or accademic sources to establish wieght. If I am wrong then pleae direct me to policy. Another source (national newspaper (though not a broadsheet)).

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/150522/EDL-and-UAF-Bradford-marches-banned-/

How many do we need?Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are using the Star then you really are "scraping the barrel". --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NO just demonstrating that this is not resstricted to one national newpaper (or even one country). So I shall ask again do you have any sources that deny the UAF are right wing? even one as por as the daily starSlatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, how about three articles in broadsheet (let's say Times, Independent or Guardian) that deal pretty much exclusively with the UAF, or academic imprints? There seems to be some serious misconceptions about RS here:

• RS is not a binary yes/no status. There is better and worse sourcing, even after it passes any basic criteria for RS. One can't say "It's RS, so it gets to go in without qualification". RS is a minimum, not a free license. A one line mention in an article is not the same as an article dealing with the topic in depth. An article written by a comic in an RS newspaper is not the same as one written by a university professor in the same publication.
• RS status is not context free and good for all times in all subjects. It doesn't matter if the Daily Mail has been considered RS for something else. We're talking about accurate descriptions of political groups. This is a newspaper that in its factual reporting has headlines like "How Blair cuddled up to Red Ken" and "East European Immigrants carry out one tenth of crime" (not actually borne out by what it was reporting on for those of you concerned). It is also not a newspaper with a glorious history when it comes to race relations. And the Daily Star, Slater? Come off it. And your source in the St. Helen's Reporter is a stand-up comic, for Heaven's sake. I'm sure you mean well, but citing them is symptomatic of someone scrabbling around for something to push a point of view, rather than trying to reflect the best sources. Please don't put a strain on other people's AGF.
• RS status is not like pixie dust. It does not make anything in the RS perfectly verified and duly weighted for all use. In this case, we don't appear to have any serious analysis of the UAF. It's fine to mention that it has been referred to as left wing with appropriate sourcing, but not as the first line descriptor. There should be very great care taken with the first sentence of any Wikipedia article, as it has to be a simple declarative sentence. Collect mentions the John Birch Society. It is referred to as radical right because it is classified as that by many serious political scientists (others see it as far right). It is literally defining of the category. We just don't have that kind of sourcing for the UAF, at least not for the first line description.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(out_ What we are left with is a clear case of IDONTLIKEIT when faced with the simple fact that every single outside source dealing with the UAF on the political spectrum used the term "left wing." It is really a teeny bit difficult to disagree with unanimity. Try the socialists: When Chris Bambery of the SWP spoke on behalf of Right to Work at the Coalition of Resistance conference on Saturday 27 November he declared that: "we do not want different anti-cuts campaigns in the same town or city". We agree, but just a day later the SWP's party notes again re-emphasise the importance of building separate Right to Work groups in every local area! He also stated that: "we do not want demonstrations taking place at the same time". Again we agree, but it was his party that, just weeks ago, knowingly organised a national Unite Against Fascism demonstration on the same day, time and venue as Socialism 2010 - our 1,000 strong weekend of discussion and debate. As a result the UAF demonstration was far more poorly attended than it could have been. IOW, the Socialist Workers Party is connected with UAF directly. I would submit that at least 51% of the populace would consider the SWP to be "left-wing" [18]. [19] The Express. [20] Wikileaks. [21] Socialist Worker. Of course, some might claim that the SWP is not left wing. Some. Collect (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you're just being silly. Saying that "every single outside source dealing with the UAF on the political spectrum used the term "left wing." " only means that a few sources, in passing, out of the many that have referred to it, have called it left wing. It is not even the overwhelming balance of sources on the UAF. And none of it comes from decent analytical work on the UAF. Saying it's a matter of IDONTLIKEIT, given the analysis of sources offered to counter your view is rather more a case of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Daily Express? Really?. You'll be citing Jim Davidson or Bernard Manning at this rate. What IDONTLIKE is wikipedia being used to pursue people's political viewpoints. I am starting to suspect that that is happening here, given that we've had the Daily Star, a stand-up comic, a non-RS webpage carrying BNP supporting material from Slater, and now the Daily Express cited. You have a collection of distinctly right-wing sources with poor reputations for objectivity in such matters, BNP praisers and a stand-up. And one sentence in an article from the Times. Yes, SWP is involved with UAF. It allowed the Anti Nazi League, which it dominated, to be subsumed in a broader organisation called the UAF, which has support from all mainstream parties. On the same grounds as your argument, no one would call signatories Teddy Taylor, Martyn Smith, Peter Bottomley, Edward Garnier, Anthony Steen, or David Cameron left wing. Whether or not you or I think it is a "left wing" organisation is neither here nor there. The RS to support such a bald statement in the lede is too insubstantial, especially given what we know about who signed up to its founding statement. Having predominantly left wing members does not make the whole organisation itself leftwing,at least not for wikipedia's purposes.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind whatsoever about the UAF. I do find it interesting that a slew of RS sources call it leftwing, that it is specifically tied to the Socialist Workers Party which is pretty definitely leftwing, and that zero sources calling it anything else seems probative. WP has no "purposes" other than to use claims made by reliable sources in articles. The claims here are clear, the sources are RS, and thus the claims can reasonably be made in the article. Collect (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I've been quite clear that it's not about including reference to the Times having called the UAF left wing that I object to - it's describing the UAF as left wing in the first sentence of the lede that is wrong. There is not a slew of RS, no matter how many times you or Slater claim this. Tabloids like the Star or Express really don't count, nor do stand-ups, nor do websites carrying BNP material. And we do have an RS that describes the UAF as made up of left wing and anti-racist organisations, which counters your suggestion that it's described unequivcally as left wing in all RS. WP may have no purposes of POV, but it's difficult to believe some editors here don't, given the sources being brought to bear here. If you want socialist websites, how about the World Socialist Web Site piece here, criticising the UAF for being cross-party and corrupting the SWP into being a defender of the bourgeoisie? (See, you're not the only ones who can use google).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the World Socialist Website is RS. Would it even be considered a primary? And being anti-racist also does also has no bearing on if it is left or not. I do find it interesting that oppose reasoning is worded as to make this a different scenario than EDL. It really is the exact same situation. I would have an easier time assuming good faith if the solution to fixing what some people see as a problem here was being considered for EDL. UAF second line "It is sometime called left-wing (with an additional couple words if it is disputed by the group itself in a primary source)" with EDL being "It is often called far-right in the British press but the group disputes this". The problem is applying disputed labels even though there are plenty of sources, right? So remove them as being labels and there is no need for concern.Cptnono (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is the problem. It looks to me to be about cherry-picking sources rather than giving consideration to what information to present in order to give an accurate picture to the reader. Plus we should be wary about straying into an area where what we do in this article depends on what we do in another article, because the two cases are not mirror-images of one another.

Clearly, the UAF gets the majority of its support from the left, and it is appropriate for the article to say so (using appropriate sourcing). However, it is also clear that it gets support from a broad section of the political spectrum, including significant and noteworthy support from the mainstream right. So it is not appropriate to use weak sourcing in order to give the impression that the organisation is straight-forwardly left-wing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a single source which says other than "left wing" for the general tenor of the UAF? I am sure a few "liberals" have been members of "right wing" organizations - that does not affect the general tenor of the organization. And The Times is not exactly a raving right-wing source. Collect (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Cptnono, I'm not suggesting wsws as RS, more pointing out the problems in Collect's use of sources. The EDL is not an equivalent case to the UAF, and I'm thoroughly surprised you think they could be. The EDL is described as far right in scholarly sources here, called extremist in a detailed Independent article here, called right wing in BBC articles here and here, by Channel 4 news here, in a Belfast Telegraph article here, by the Herald here, by the Times ("right wing fringe") here, by a government minister reported in Reuters here and as right-wing extremists by the Telegraph here. And that's only the first two pages of a google news search, excluding the trashy results. Nothing like that exists for the UAF. Equating the UAF and EDL situations is simply wrong, and I find it very odd that you think they might be equivalent. I'd love to see the EDL list of signatories and affiliates. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect: what about a "group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties" or "group which was founded with the aim of uniting 'the broadest possible spectrum of society' against far right politics"? The first sentence should include objective, easily-cited information, not cherry-picked POV. --FormerIP (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And I would still stipulate that The Times is not a front for the BNP. Indeed, I would stipulate that anyone who ascribes The Times to "far right" is quite likely to be on the left. YMMV. Collect (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please show the diff of where someone has asserted that The Times is a front for the BNP. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I did not make the claim, it is inane to expect me to provide proof of a claim which I did not make. I would note, moreover, that the Daily Mail and other RS sources seem to be derided as "right wing" which rather makes the case that the UAF is "left wing" to be sure. Thanks for nitting. Collect (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as noone is disputing that the Times is RS, I found your remark puzzling as well, as it appeared to be creating a strawman. You don't appear to even be attempting to meet any objections - chief of which is that what RS you have is too thin (basically, one mention in one Times article) to determine a lede description of the topic. Given your disbelief that people could object to the use of the Daily Star etc. I get the impression you're really not very familiar with the British press. It's a bit of a minefield. As a rough guide, I posted lots of links to coverage about the EDL from various UK sources. All of those would pass the basic news media test for RS. None of them are tabloids (Red tops, yellow press etc.). Some of them are editorially right wing. That's quite a few to be going on with, and there are others as well. I cannot stress this enough - we are here to reflect the best RS, not to assemble evidence from wherever we can to prove a personal point of view. Nothing substantial enough has been presented for the encyclopedia to state that the UAF is left wing in the lede description rather than further down the article and attributed, and certainly nothing to make us ignore the principle that we go with self-description. "left-wing" and "right-wing" are always treated with great care on Wikipedia, especially in ledes. There's no need to go against that here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Collect. To someone who didn't know you better, it might look as if you are just trying to drag the discussion off-course for some reason. The bottom line is: why do you prefer what is in the inferior sources to what seems just plain common sense?

Randomly, I noticed this picture whilst Googling: [22]. The woman situated, appropriately, on the right of the picture, is the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Annabel Goldie. I'm not claiming this is a killer source, but thought it might help people to get a clearer picture of what the UAF is actually like. (In term of the issue of whether we need to treat the EDL and UAF in the same way in order to be fair, please compare and contrast this picture: [23]. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- The Times is decidedly an "inferior source." Not. Collect (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, a single reference in the times which goes contrary to other sourcing as well as ordinary common sense is not enough to dominate the first sentence of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Collect, I'll put this bluntly - you appear to be POV pushing. Please stop.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And you appear to be wrong. Why are you discounting something that would almost always be considered RS? And POV pushing could go both ways. I know one editor here is but we are supposed to comment on content and blah blah blah.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You made the statement that The Times is not a front for the BNP. Given that by your own admission above no one has made the claim it does rather look like an attempt to drag the discussion of course. If you think another editor is POV pushing then show evidence from their edits to demonstrate that. Overall it does look this matter is now resolved and the article can be returned to its former state. I remain open to the compromise I suggested above. --Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And I remain open to the compromise I suggested above. And we are not supposed to comment on contributors but you did it again. So I will admit right now that I highly doubt there is anything you could say to sway my position. It looks like I am not the only one. So again, go take it to the RS noticeboard since this conversation could have been completed already. If we have multiple sources calling them left then you are just out of luck. That was your mentality at the EDL page and that is my mentality here. Any reverts will be considered edit warring so pleas (I asked days ago right?) see the RS noticeboard or get over it already.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been made very clear to you by several editors that no one is saying The Times is not a reliable source. The arguments relate to WP:WEIGHT and you have failed to address them. In the EDL case (as has also been pointed out by several editors) multiple broadsheet newspapers reference it as far right, you only have on passing reference here. It does I suppose confirm the motivation for the change you have supported here. You raised the issue at the RS notice board and the net result has been the engagement of some new editors here. Proper process has been followed. There comes a point where the behaviour of an individual editor prevents progress and three editors have now made comment on you to that effect; I suggest you reflect on that. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been made clear except for you not having consensus and still editing against our standards. It does nto matter how much you assert that. Better luck next time, go see the noticeboard since you are only prolonging the conversation which is something you said you were against. Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubtless if I persist I will be subject to this sort of comment. You didn't have consensus for the change in the first place as you well know, and more editors have now weighed in against the change. --Snowded ^TALK 07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. And yes, if you call other editors dolts I will tell you off. I assume you will not do that. So, consensus is still against you. Go cry about it or seek a change without red herrings. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous position, when you and others edit warred to make the change, had participating editors split 7-7 which does not represent a consensus to change. Since the RS case two other editors have now joined in and argued against the change you made. Please explain how this constitutes a consensus for your position? --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to wiggle out of this. You are asking for something when consensus is against you. Option 1: Reword the lead in a way that can meet consensus or Option 2: See the RS noticeboard. Stop trying to argue your way out of this.Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I just presented some facts Cptnono, how can consensus support your position given those numbers? --Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is based on argument and not votes. I feel your argument is poor and I also have not double checked your numbers since I assume you are incorrect during this recent conversation.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

cptnono, where has anyone said the Times is not a reliable source? Please don't follow Collect's lead. What do you think of the difference in sourcing for the EDL being right-wing and the one source you have here? Is it really an even thing? This is not about reliable sources so much as standards of verifiability. You have one RS that makes a passing mention, whereas what you need for a lede descriptor is several sources, preferably showing evidence of analysis. Like Collect, I imagine you're not overly familiar with the British press. Red tops like the Daily Mail make stuff up, and their reporting is infused with bias and misrepresentation. One of their targets is immigration. So they've literally just made stuff up, like claiming a "Chinese woman" stamped on her baby in the street, or that there were hordes of angry Muslims outraged by police posters with a dog in, or that the UK is being swamped by hordes of Romanian and Bulgarian circus performers coming to scrounge off the state. By inventing such stories, they forfeit, on Wikipedia, the status of reliable source. The Express is just as bad, and the Daily Star has more nipples on show than facts. One source is not enough for the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am actually very familiar with the British press for various reasons. Oddly enough, someone tried saying the same thing at the EDL article and I was one of the first few hundred to subscribe to their stuff (not because I am a fan but out of curiosity). So while EDL was nothing in the press out there I was hearing it from both the back page and the horse's mouth. But we are getting way off topic here. I assume the Times is acceptable and it looked like that was a question. I don't care what side of the argument you are on with this, it i a valid source more often then not. Regardless, multiple sources call it left wing. End of story right? Are those sources all disputed? That is a losing battle that isn;lt even worthy of a response. But if the question is that the primary sources dispute it, then I would love to see it moved into the second line of the lead with a quantifier. One source said that EDL was not known to be right or not yet and that was strongly rejected over there. It is going to take a lot for me to see any reason to disregard precedent. Luckily, Snowded has some good options.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do I sense some movement in your position here? Are you suggesting that you would accept removal from the first sentence of the lede and the information box if the second sentence said contained the wording I originally inserted as a compromise at the end of the lede? --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Captnono, you failed to answer any of my questions. Your insistence that there are "multiple sources" is not true, assuming you meant reliable sources. I've actually no idea which sources you are referring to except the Times, as you have not shown any desire to deal with the critiques of these sources. You ignored my points about the Daily Mail, so I'll assume you're not counting that (I credit you with enough sense to know that a paper that makes stuff up on a subject is not RS). Are you then claiming that the Daily Tits is a reliable source for good political journalism, or this lovely website which recommends anti-muslim material from "www.bnp.org.uk: Video made by very brave members of BNPtv", or Slater's other stunner, a stand-up comic writing a funny in a local paper?

In addition to the paucity of actual RS, there is counter RS, as FormerIP has pointed out above. The BBC here calls the UAF "a group supported by trade unions and MPs from all parties", the Guardian "here calls it a "group which was founded with the aim of uniting 'the broadest possible spectrum of society' against far right politics", and I'll add to that the Telegraph here which notes that "mainstream politicians" support the UAF. So actually, the number of reliable sources produced contradicting the "left-wing" claim are starting to outnumber the ones positing it, both in quantity and quality.

Your continued equal but opposite comparison of UAF (supporters - mainstream trade unions and the current Conservative Prime　Minister) with the EDL is frankly mind-boggling, and I'm not suprised you avoided answering my question about the scale of good sourcing available describing it as far or extreme right. Given your activities in the Israel/Palestine disputes, it might interest you to know that EDL is suspected by police in the UK of connections to the Hitler-worshipping Combat 18 and other neo-Nazi groups. They don't have any Labour Prime Ministers supporting them. They don't have any Conservative ones either. I doubt they have any supporters amongst conservative MPs at all. Opposition to fascism/racism (including anti-semitism) is not exclusively left-wing, just as opposition to communism is not exclusively right-wing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the sources that dispute the claim does not in fact say its not left wing, it does say it was set up to represent a broad front, but that it is begin hijacked by the socialist workers party (this was written in 2006 so cannot represent the current situation). One of the other sources actualy its a gang of left wing criminals.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are we

With the exception of Captnono and possibly Collect its pretty clear now that we have a consensus to restore the long standing version of the article. As stated I am happy to agree to the additional sentence I inserted towards to end of the lede a few days ago which said that it has been called left wing. This is further supported by the responses to the RS question raised by Collect --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that I had retracted or changed my position.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it still your position that a website talking about the "very brave members of BNPtv" is suitable as RS, Slater?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which source is that? Is it still you position that the Sunday business post (or its online incarnations) is not RS? What about Pakistani.TV, is that not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You continue to reference very weak sources Slater and there certainly isn't a consensus to change what has been a long standing position. In fact at no stage has any consensus been established for the change, which is only there due to edit warring and a failure to respect WP:BRD. My invitations to provide a diff to any consensus for change have been refused. --Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out that my exclusion from those who support the change was not correct. I have stated my opinion of the sources, we will have to agree to disagree. There is also no consensus for its revertion to the oder version either, so at this stage we are still workiing on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, pakistan.tv is the source with the pro-BNP text. You clearly haven't bothered to check it. You're also recommending a stand-up comic's view in a local paper funnies column. Normally I would applaud Snowded's attempts to build consensus, but here it's not worth it. Frankly, you and others are showing clear evidence of POV editing. You've been on here over three years, and you should know better than this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to think its ANI time, especially given the failure to allow the stable version to stand when the change was challenged. --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I did not see it was becasuse it was not part of that article but a linked one -(so yes I did read the source, just not ancilery material). If myou read that extra article you will see its headed with "From http://www.bnp.org.uk" so its not pakistani.tv thats saying it, they are repating it but do not take responsibilty for it. Are you susgesting that any sources that quotes the BNP withoout comment is unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not "repeating it". They are carrying it. Quite why you think the site is reliable apart from that is really not clear, as it's obvious from a cursory glance it carries all sorts of junk. Have you read WP:RS ever? How about the comedian's opinion column? What's your reasoning there? Do you believe everything you read in the Daily Star? Anyone with your experience here citing trash sources like this just comes across as a POV warrior.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying its RS, I am asking whjat about it renders it not RS? Moreover many news organisations carry press relaeases does this render them non-RS?. As to the comedaian, I shall reapeat I was using the local news sources (and there are otehrs I could have used) to demonstrate that this is not a view held only by the Times (and no I would not use it in the articel, but this is not the artciel), thats its a vieew that is held by many varied persons. same with hte Star, its about demonstrating that this is a view held by a lot of people, some whome write coumns in newpapers (and some of those in RS). At no point (beyond well thier rubbish) have I seen one reasoned argument as to why the Sunday Buisiness post or daily mail (which has i the past been found to be RS) are not considerd RS ini this case. Nor (beyond criteria I suspect would not be considerd acceptable (say) about searchlight) that it sometimes publishes crap that invalidates Pakistani.TV But it does seem to heavily rely on youtube so that does not exaclty install confidenc in me).Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reference to Searchlight is rather unexpected. Neither I nor FormerIP nor Snowded has put forward any sourcing from Searchlight. Nor have we framed this as an issue of opposing fascism. Our position is purely that the RS is not substantial enough, in accordance with Wikipedia principles of very good sourcing for lede descriptors. Searchlight exists to hound groups like the BNP, EDL etc. Do you have a conflict of interest with regard to any of the groups that UAF opposes?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So I will come back to trying to build consensus. The sources you are referencing are not enough to label UAF as left wing, they are enough (possibly in the interests of moving forwards although I remain dubious) to make a statement that despite the multi-party sport some people regard it as left wing. That was the essence of my compromise proposal.

My point about seachlight is that just becasue something sometime publishes rubbish does not invalidate it as a source (I could have just as easily said the BBC, but I piucked on a sources that there has been debate about in the past that I am aware of).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't pick the BBC. Your mention of searchlight, your use of the Pakistan.tv source, and your reference on the RS noticeboard to "Mr Griffin", make me ask the same question again: do you have a conflict of interest with any of the groups opposed by UAF?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I picked Searchlight because it has been disputed in then past for many of the same reasons (for example bias and inaccuracy) that many of these sources are being disputed and its linked to this debate (and is used as a source in the article). I find it odd that you should object to my using Mr Griffin as a source (I do not I use the telegraph which is quoting Mr Griffin) when in fact I did n not raise this source and am only quoting the other half of the line that others used to support their claim. To answer your question I suggest you look at my user page where I make my views on parties (and I suppose I should extend that to pressure groups) quite clear. I could also ask the same question of those who want to use a sources when it agree with them but then attack it when it does not, do they have a COI that make them want to dent the political leaning of this group. At no point have I done so, I have assumed GF throughout (until now).Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem Slater is that its not clear what you are now arguing. You seem to agree that the sources are not strong enough to establish a label just that some people think its left wing. Its not at all clear what point you are making by your reference to Griffin at the RS notice board. Previously comparison to the EDL evidence has been made but that has been answered multiple times. Are you now making a direct comparison with a source or sources on Searchlight? Are you making specific accusations of selective use of material against other editors? --Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Slater, regarding the COI question, it's interesting you don't simply say "no" (or indeed, "yes".). It's also interesting that you don't appear to care whether a source is RS or not, so long as it provides the impression that an opinion is widespread, or that you cannot tell the difference between a newspaper stating its opinion and reporting the opinion of others. I don't consider Nick Griffin's opinion on the UAF as RS for the lede. I am beginning to suspect that you do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If Mr griffins opinion of the UAF is not relevant I am OK with that. I was just pointing out that the telegraph sources used to 'prive' the non left wing nature of the UAF was quoting Mr Griffin in both cases. What I am asking for is consistancey in lableing (personaly I do not think we should have any lalbes applied from outside in nthe lead or the info box for any group). This is the talk page and we are not required to follow the saem RS rules here as we would when sourcing for the article. I would not ever use some (not all) of these sources for this articel. I have stated my view on my user page, I do not need to repeat it here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you now saying that none of the sources you presented were meant for the article? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No I was saygin that some where.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ Searchlight. Wasn't that pointed to previously to assert something about EDL? UAF has been called left and there is nothing anyone can say to make it not so. Why is this still being argued about?Cptnono (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the sources have been challenged by a majority of editors Cptnono as you well know. The challenge to the bulk of the references is that they are not reliable, and the one from The Times fails per WP:WEIGHT. Its been to RS now its time to settle this. --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you're pretending not to understand how lede sourcing works. I've seen your work on the Israel-Palestine articles, and you would never allow the weak sourcing there what you're arguing for here if it showed your preferred side (and you've revealed what that is) in the wrong light. This is what makes your editing POV. You are not applying a consistent set of principles across the encyclopedia. But more than that, you have been presented with RS that contradicts the left-wing label - you ignore it. You are presented with evidence that the EDL is overwhelmingly called right-wing (compared with the dribble of sources - effectively one, and in passing) that call the UAF left wing - and you ramble on about how you subscribed to something or other and refuse to answer the question. I've seen you do better than this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

another forum

Slater has now raised the issue here --Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

The clear position on the RS notice board is now in favour of the original position before the edit war started - namely that left wing is an inappropriate label for an organisation with multi-party sources. The limited RS used to counter this fail WP:Weight. It is of course open to editors to continue to make a case for the insertion, but they will need to establish a consensus for the change (as should have happened the first time) before making any direct edits to the article. If we get more edit warring then I think it is time for an ANI report --Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. Certain sources were ruled out but multiple other ones were not addressed. Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But you can try an RfC since there was some mention that you were going to the wrong board so a single centralized discussion wouldf be better than three. I will be happy to copy and paste my reasoning you think that is a better route.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See below, you (and are couple of others) are now being obdurate and this is a behavioral issue not a content issue --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)