Talk:Aryan Guard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Discrimination  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

See history for content removed per WP:BLP. --Rob (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Even if this could be well sourced, I'm sceptical there is any merit to mention it and as it stands now it's poorly sourced so it doesn't matter. Also I would like to remind editors of WP:NPA and WP:Civility Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OR?[edit]

We need a reference if we're going to link the Aryan Guard's rally on March 21st with the UN Day for the Elimination of Racism. It doesn't matter that the link appears likely or what people may or may not know about that day. All that matters is that we need a source otherwise it's OR. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article asserts that that day is the UN Day for the Elimination of Racism. The citation supports that. There's no OR involved; it's a simple, cited assertion of fact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that I have added links to two local newspapers that reference the event in conjunction with the specific date and also of Good Friday, as you pointed out in edit summary. Note that this article does not indicate whether the date was chosen for any specific reason, which would be inappropriate, but noting significance in the date on which the event occurred is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Rob (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Just as a trivial point of interest, I discovered that the article Easter had been vandalized thanks to this. :) I can never remember the date of Easter. I'm not really fond of moveable feasts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaza protest changes[edit]

Regarding recent changes:

  • The last picture added (which I took and put on FlickR) is of little value in this article. Most people in the picture, including the people at the front, are *not* members of the Aryan Guard, but the caption doesn't make this clear. There's a possible WP:BLP issue here.--Rob (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph quotes an *opinion* piece with the National Post online blog, but put's it forward as fact. There is a major distinction between what a newspaper reports as fact, and a columnist gives as opinion. Opinions should be given as such, with proper attribution, in the body.
  • One citation is labelled as "Quote". That's not a proper cite. A citation gives complete information about the source.
  • This article was once well referenced, but now has three incomplete/inadequate citations.
  • One citation says "Photos from the scene taken by zombietime". Zombietime is a blog, and not a reliable source. Also, we can't make claims based on what we see in photos, as that's original research.
  • If we do use the last picture, we shouldn't have the url superimposed on it. I put it there on FlickR to promote my FlickR page, but that's not appropriate on Wikipedia.
  • Finally, I think we should re-evaluate the whole article, and consider changing it, so it's not a list of news events. It should really just describe what the group advocates and does, without so much detail. --Rob (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Please don't take things personally. Wikipedia has a set of core policies, that nobody, not you, or me, can single handedly change. For instance, the original research policy doesn't let us do our own analysis of pictures, and the reliable sources policy doesn't let us use personal blogs. Also, this article is about the Aryan Guard, and contributions should be focussed on describing them. Your comments about me are irrelevant and false. Note, I was the person who actually took the photo you falsely credited as "Photos from the scene taken by zombietime". Zombietime didn't create the photo. Zombietime used my photo. I'm hardly "hiding" anything, since I was the photographer who first released pics of the incident, and I was the main person to first alert the media to the incident. You're misreprensation of my image and me, shows the pitfalls of original research. I really can't stop laughing at the suggestion I'm suppressing my own image. --Rob (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to hear I made a leftist laugh. I guess miracles really do happen. Why do you refuse to use your own image on a Wikipedia article then?--Simpsons contributor (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
"Refuse" is the wrong word, since I put the image under a free licence, it can be used anywhere. I dislike and discourage use of an image, that features mainly non-related people. Note, I was the person who added the first image, and that image was altered by an admin to obscure the face of a minor. So, given that, it's odd to use a picture where most people aren't with the group, and includes minors. Also, I do show these any other images, unaltered, elsewhere. Wikipedia has different content rules than most sites, and what's ok elsewhere, isn't always ok here. It seems most of your problem, is you're upset the mainstream media won't publish certain things you think they should. So, you try to get Wikipedia to publish them. However, that's exactly opposite to what Wikipedia does. You have to stop seeing Wikipedia as a political forum, and stop trying to engage me in a political debate (with terms like "leftist"). There are many other places, where you're free to express your opinions, share facts, state criticisms, show any pictures, and do pretty much whatever you wish. Just not here. --Rob (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll build John Galt's motor before I try to return my contributions to the article. I realize the futility of fighting against, what are you, not a leftist? An article on the subject of a neo-Nazi group can hardly avoid the subject of politics. Writing about neo-Nazis in the most objective fashion possible is always going to damn them. I just wanted to add the fact that liberals/leftists/progressives whatever you wish to call them colluded with the same Nazi group they damned not a year prior. You (or some other editor) feel that event was important enough to add to the article, but in the more agreeable form "The Aryan Guard again received attention on January 10, 2009 when they appeared in a protest against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers". I must have missed that part of the news story, they seemed pretty happy walking side by side in the image. Like I said I'm not going to attempt to edit the article again, I just wanted to ask why you felt the need to change the reference to the incident in question from collusion to disagreement. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, I actually see no value in the whole business of incident-by-incident coverage. It was a compromise on my part to event keep these by-day-by tidbits of what the Guard does. The article should be a general description of the group. This is an encyclopedia after all. Incidentally, the principal news story of the event, did say the organizers asked the group to leave at the start. Anyways, most of your problem seems to be, you don't like Wikipedia policies. I haven't seen you address any policy issues. Rather, you keep trying to descend into a political debate, which is not appropriate. Again, this isn't personal. You can seek help from other editors, from places such as the Canadian Wikipedia Notice Board. I have no personal authority over the article. It's Wikipedia's, not mine. --Rob (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, most of your problem seems to be, you don't like Wikipedia policies. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. I covered one side of the story (protesters marched alongside Nazis) you covered another (protesters... err, kinda didn't). I don't think you or I are breaking Wikipedia policy, it's just the people who cover events from your POV are more dedicated. I'm not. I can't be bothered changing the article again. I'll stick to apolitical subjects like fractals, image processing algorithms and cellular automata. Even Simpsons episodes can become major issues for some editors --Simpsons contributor (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The strategy of libeling somebody and immediately saying you don't wish to argue further,, is quite annoying. You had every ability to get others involved, and I would happily respect a consensus, opposed to my views. You keep on missing that we're not supposed by pushing our POV's (even if your point of view is correct!!!). It's not about which POV "wins" or "true". We're supposed to reflect what reliable sources say (right or wrong). Unfortunately, there's really only one reliable source that covered this incident (Herald), and that's all we can use in the article. Of course, it's impossible to give good coverage with just one source, which is why it's a bad idea to cover every individual event, as the article has, and why I suggested before, losing the item-by-item coverage, and just have a general description of the group. The thing you refuse to accept, is you can be right about the facts, right about interpretation, but you still can't put you're views in an article, if they aren't reflective of the reliable sources. That's simply the policy of the project. --Rob (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to argue with you until one of us grows bored, but I'm saying I won't try to reintroduce my former revision. If I'm libeling you, sue me. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine; you refuse to engage in discussion, and just keep deleting my discussion edits, then I go back on my word. I'll just revert your edits and reinsert the truth.--Simpsons contributor (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You labelled the image "Members of the Aryan Guard at an anti-Israel rally on January 10, 2009.". That's a blatant lie, as most of the people aren't with the group. Also, you fail to attribute the quote to a person in the body of the article. You are confusing the opinion of a columnist with the facts reported as news. As said before, we need to reduce the item-by-item news coverage of this article, and just have the original image. --Rob (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A better way to present a balanced view would be to reduce the coverage of leftist opposition to it. I also find it a very strange argument that it's POV-pushing to present that balanced view, and non-POV to eliminate all material that deviates from your POV.
Ambox warning yellow.svg

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

I have removed the image and caption, as it is impossible to verify if anyone in the picture is or it not a member of the organisation in question. Thus the image and caption violate BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why do you believe that an article about a fascist group would be a biography of living persons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.200.116 (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Heavy POV[edit]

Why is an opinion piece in a blog quoted in an encyclopedia article - especially one so heavily POV:

In his National Post blog, Kevin Libin wrote "The 150 “anti-racists” who came out in force to protest an Aryan Guard march in downtown Calgary last year didn’t complain this time. In fact, they marched right along with the Aryans, united under the swastika: the Arabs and Communists labeling the Jewish State a “Nazi” regime; the skinheads hoping to resurrect the Real McCoy."

This quote says the 150 people who marched against the Aryan Guard marched with them this year. Really? The same 150 people were all there and now support this group? WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE. Seriously, this has no place in a Wikipedia article. --JaGatalk 08:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources[edit]

The following are in violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations (opinion pieces):

The following is in violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources (politically extremist publication):

The following is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position (doesn't mention Aryan Guard's protest on that date--the other two sources are an opinion piece and a politically extreme newspaper, mentioned above):

The following are broken links (404):

The following are inaccessible (pay site):

Please review the relevant policies and help me to take action to improve the sources for this article.Ecto (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the material sourced to the opinion pieces and the politically extremist newspaper in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources, respectively. The two editorials should still be used in the article in reference to their writer's opinions! I also removed the citation to the UN website in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Any connection between the Aryan Guard protest and the UN Day for the Elimination of Racism will have to be drawn by a reliable source (not an editorial, not a communist party publication, and not a Wikipedia editor) before we can report on it. I fixed one broken link in a citation (I unlisted it above) but still can't find a working link to the article about the assault on the Japanese woman (this content should be removed immediately in accordance with WP:BLP, but I think it might just be a temporary error or a problem with my browser). I haven't had the chance to look for free alternatives to the articles at the pay site yet. Ecto (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree on properly labellings opinion pieces, and being careful on who we rely on for facts, but...
  • The Calgary Sun and Herald are paper newspapers, published in a large market, by large publishers, widely available in paper form in libraries. Wikipedia has always accepted such offline sources. The fact it is/was online, was a convenient bonus, that's not important. So those references can be kept, although, it may be appropriate to put a note that the link is not to the article content. It may also be appropriate to hide (but not delete) the link, if it has no useful information. It's an unfortunate reality that most reliable publishers do not make all of their material permanently free. You tend to get what you pay for. Sorry, if I misunderstood you're point, as it seems like you're objecting to use of these as references, just because there's no longer a free article online.
  • The association with the UN date is well established, and supported by this Canwest report, who said "It’s the second year in a row that the two sides have clashed on March 21 — a date recognized as both a white pride world wide day and as a celebration for the elimination of racism.". If needed, I can find others, but this really isn't a contested point (all sides recognize the importance of the day, but for different reasons). If it wasn't for this association, the specific date, wouldn't even be worth mentioning.
  • The main problem with this article isn't sources, but the excessive detail, of mentioning every little incident that occurs. --Rob (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rob. I hadn't read the Canwest article in full, so I didn't know it mentioned the date (I'll restore that information with a citation to that article). I'm not objecting to the use of the paid Sun archives as references at all, I'd just like to see free alternatives to link to in addition to the Sun articles, if we can find them. If we can't, then that's fine, too. I've seen notes on similar citations before, making it clear that they're from paid services, so I think this article's Sun references could use some of those. Ecto (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I see you mention the Herald too. Does that mean the reason why I can't access the article is because it's been moved to the paid archives? I'm having problems with the scripts from the Herald website, so I'm just getting a white page, and if I click anywhere on it I get a 404. If it's just been put in the archive and it's a problem on my end, then it's still good for a reference, possibly with a qualification, as per the Sun articles. Ecto (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying your concern with the Calgary Sun. I suggest not worrying about finding an alternative link to those expired articles. Any copy we find on the web is probably an unauthorized copyright violation, which we should avoid linking to, per WP:EL. By including all the relevant information (article title, author, date) people can find the articles on their own. As for the Herald, I have no idea why the link went dead, as they don't seem to expire their stories like the Sun does, but instead, are selective about which ones go on-line in the first place. --Rob (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Criminal activity[edit]

I changed the name of the section from “Allegations of criminal activity” to “Legal troubles” for two reasons. The first is because “Allegations” violates WP:ALLEGED, raising doubt that they are guilty of criminal activity, when members have been convicted of two of the three crimes mentioned. The second is because the section also includes information about the vandalism on the reserve, for which, as far as I know, members of the Aryan Guard have only been arrested, not convicted. I don’t know if they were even charged. Saying that the vandalism is an example of their “Criminal activity” when they haven’t been charged or convicted of the crime violates WP:BLP. We can’t call it “Alleged criminal activity” because of WP:ALLEGED. They were arrested, though, and that constitutes “Legal troubles”, as do the criminal convictions, but, like an editor said, “Legal troubles” doesn’t make clear the severity of the two crimes the members were convicted of at all. Maybe we could call the section “Criminal convictions and other legal troubles” or something. Ecto (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is really violent and hateful?[edit]

On topics of racism and those that oppose racism a few of the facts do not add up. The whole foundation of people who oppose racism is that they are "fighting against hatred and violence", yet, the "anti-racist" acts in hatred toward racist, and often, become violent during racist protest and they end up arrested. Does no one else see the truth? White pride groups only wish to protest in peace, yet those that oppose white protesters become hateful and violent. The "anti racist" are being hypocritical as they hate the "racist". Governments would have you believe that white racist groups are violent, yet when they protest, it is the anti-racist counter protesters that become violent that lead to their arrests. When will you people open your eyes and see the truth for what it really is. Racist groups try to protest in peace, but it is the anti-racist that become violent, acting out their own hatred of people. B14FFB14

blogs and rumours[edit]

Per sourcing policy, we can't cite blogs, and we can't publish rumours. We have to wait for the media to report stuff. There's lots of new speculation following the recent bombing. But, we have to be patient, to get proper sources, before we say anything about the new status of the organization. --Rob (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Known members"[edit]

I removed the list of "known members" because the entries were unsourced. Any material like this involving living people needs to be clearly cited to reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)