Talk:Unite Against Fascism

Removal of references to UAF being far-left.

I recently made an edit linked to a Guardian article which referred to the UAF as far-left. This was removed on the grounds that the article was an opinion piece and irrelevant.

Any article ever referring to a an organisation being far right or far left is clearly going to be an opinion since these terms do not have an objective definition. The piece was written in The Guardian; a well respected centre-left British newspaper so could hardly be described as overtly partisan.

In addition, the leadership of the UAF is made up of members of Socialist Workers Party who self define themselves as a radical left party.

Why is there such a massive aversion to using the term far left when the term far right is used in countless articles on Wikipedia to describe other organisations like the UAF's main antagonist the EDL. (the evidence for them being far right is also just links to opinion pieces in newspapers).

If the term far right is used then surely it is proper to use the term far left for activist socialist organisations which operate outside of mainstream politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.19.127 (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Any article ever referring to a an organisation being far right or far left is clearly going to be an opinion since". That is not so. When media has formed a fair consensus on labeling a group far whatever these terms will appear in regular news reports. __meco (talk) 11:59, 29

February 2012 (UTC)

Response to 109.144.19.127 (talk)

It wasn't a "Guardian article" - it was an opinion piece by David Toube under the "Comment is free" heading, a regular feature in the paper which allows people not connected to it to voice their opinions. As such, it is misleading of you to describe it as a Guardian article. You say that the terms far right and far left do not have objective definitions. This is not entirely true, but by the nature of politics, most terms have a certain vagueness. The same applies to centre-left, which you yourself use of the Guardian. The SWP does not self-define itself as a radical left party - it is a revolutionary socialist party. That the leadership of the UAF includes the SWP is not disputed by the SWP, the UAF, its other leaders or its supporters, or editors here. It is mentioned within the article, so adding it to the introduction is unnecessary. The leadership includes people from other parties/groups as well. This is also mentioned within the article. There is no need in this article to go into detail about any parties/groups other than the UAF - they have their own articles where this is done.

Your edit was not even based on a proper reading of Toube's comment piece. You wrote: "It is defined by some commentators as being a far-left movement as evidenced by its core leadership drawing its membership from far left parties like the Socialists Worker Party and other socialist direct action groups." Objections to this include but are not limited to: 1 A single person giving an opinion is not some commentators. 2 Toube nowhere mentions socialist direct action - he does refer to Socialist Action, a left group, which you clearly misread. 3 Neither does Toube specifically say that UAF is a far-left movement. If you infer that, then that is a case of original research and inadmissable. 4 Since Toube does not actually "define" the UAF as a "far-left movement", it is difficult to see how you can claim that evidence for his non-existent claim lies in the "core leadership" (your phrase, not Toube's). Emeraude (talk) 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not think we used groups definitions of themsleves were these were contradicted by RS. So are there any RS that call the UAF bfar left, if thre are that is what we use.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact a number of such have been given previously (including from The Times etc.). There is no reasonable doubt that relaible sources have used that term, applying it ti this organization.

Perhpas for the dake of discusion they shuld be re-listed here, and if they exist then clealry we shuld lable the UAF what RS label them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what had been removed in the past for no really good reasons:

[[The Times]], [[Daily Mail]], [[Sunday Business Post]], [[International Business Times]] and other news organisations have described the group as "[[left-wing]]".<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6790067.ece] TimesOnline 10 Aug 2009 "Left-wing groups including Unite Against Fascism "</ref><ref>http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=42484-qqqx=1.asp</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304139/Police-halt-English-Defence-League-march-riot-fears.html</ref><ref name="ibtimes.com">[http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/83847/20101119/english-defence-league-is-a-result-not-a-cause-of-islamism-says-leader.htm] IBTimes 19 Nov 2010 "the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter)".</ref>

Hope this clears the air. Collect (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK I wqould ask why clealry soourced content is being removed?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Read some of the "discussions" which boiled down to

Cameron is not far left therefore he can not possibly support a far left organization, therefore we can not point out that RS sources have used that term.

Note further that the claim only says that it has been referred to as "far left" and does not aver that it is a fact (another thing some folks like to jump on depending on whether they like or dislike something). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

May I remind editors that this discussion strand is specifically on the edit by 109.144.19.127 (talk) and my reverting of same, for which I have given a rationale, i.e. that the source was inadequate and was being misused and misrepresented. Before dragging us interminably over old ground that has been flogged to death ad nauseam, please refer to the archives of previous discussions where this has been more than adequately covered. Emeraude (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect is exhibiting a selective memory. S/he raised those same sources in a previous discussion with went to the NPOV and RS notice boards as well as an Rfc before being resolved in favour of the status quo, i.e. no use of "far left". ----Snowded ^TALK 08:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite why Collect added back the information to the lead despite Talk:Unite Against Fascism/Archive 2#RfC: Should Unite Against Fascism (UAF) be described in the lead as "left-wing"? is something only he can try and explain, if he can. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is that "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid reason to remove properly and fully RS-sourced claims whuiich are stated in an absolutely NPOV manner. And per WP:CONSENSUS, assertion of a consensus must accept that not only can cnsensus change, the discussions here and on other pages have shown that the Wikipedia general practice has changed. The material does not use Wikipedia's voice to categorize any group here, and does not "describe the UAF as 'left-wing'", it only states an ascertainable and objective fact about what named sources have stated. It is thus improper to remove the properly sourced and stated claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And your evidence that consensus has changed over this issue can be found where? "ILIKEIT" isn't a reason to ignore past discussions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Further you (Collect) are simply repeating the same point with the same material as last time, and edit warring when you know full well that to change a concensus requires discussion on the talk page. This is generally true, but especially so after an RfC process lasting months. You assert that wikipedia general practice has changed - can you provide evidence for this? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The same material in the same place in the article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are insuffiicient sources for the description and it is misleading to include it. TFD (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How many sources would be sufficient to state that the sources named referred to it as left-wing? 10, 20? 50? I suggest that "source counting" is an inane exercise - the RfC from over a year ago was over calling the UAF "left wing" and was not about stating what named sources call it as a matter of their opinion. We should not say that it is "left wing" of course. Now again -- how many sources do we need for stating that The Times referred to it as "left wing"? I thought showing that it did so rationally only requires one source, but here you aver we need many sources for that simple fact - so how many sources do we need to show that The Times used the term? Cheers. Would [1] from ABC Online (from Australia) help? Collect (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You made the same points a year ago, and with the same sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And there are more sources available now. The RfC a year-ago was basically no consensus - and my suggestion over a year ago was that we can state what named sources say, but that we should not assert any position in any "political spectrum" as a simple fact. My position then and now is the same, and to say "but we discussed it more than a year ago without any consensus therefore we can not discuss it now" is simply inane as an argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is extremely tiresome. Nothing has changed since last year (except one of the sources has now disappeared from my view). The fact that four (or three) sources say something does not make it so. The article has to be concerned with what the UAF is, not what a few very carefully selected sources once said, but other equally or even more reliable sources don't. Has it not been considered that the Times and the Mail (famous for "Hurrah for the Blackshirts") may have got it wrong? It all hinges on the fact that some senior people in UAF are from the left; that does not make UAF itself left, any more than the Allies were communist because one of its leaders was Stalin! All you can say (and this itself is only an OR inference) is that UAF (or the Allies) are to the left of fascists, which really is saying not very much at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you were asked a series of direct questions above. I note you are avoiding answering them. Perhaps you would do so. Then please list what are "new sources" and what "new arguments" you have that justify you returning to the issue (and your interpretation of the RfC result is wrong by the way)----Snowded ^TALK 14:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They are far-left, you know it, I know it, he knows it. But a small group of individuals will never allow it to be written here without an avalanche against them. It's fortunate that anybody who checks wikipedia on such groups will, on finding this article, look elsewhere for info. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It is plainly obvious that an agenda is being pushed here that rather mysteriously doesn't apply to articles on the other side of the political coin.--Panzer71 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous double standards and a stain on Wikipedia's neutrality.--lincs_geezer (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The SWP who are the UAF's parent organisation are accepted as being far left. The UAF are supported by far left Unions and other left wing groups, left wing newspapers, the left wing BBC, and the left wing Labour government.(Cyberia3 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

Bias in intro

The EDL page and infobox has descriptions of right and far right. Let's not kid ourselves, UAF is a left wing at best and extreme left organisation at worst. It is not a pure anti-hatred group like Hope Not Hate or One Law For All. Its core includes members of far left parties, and an Islamist, Azad Ali. It has never protested Islamic fascism or any racism comitted by any non-white. And for an anti-racism group, they do seem to bang on an awful lot about trade unions... Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

UAF has received support from all mainstream British political parties. As for the remainder of your comments, we base article on published sources, not contributor's opinions, AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More accurately: "has had members from each of the major British parties" as I have not seen any source stating that the parties as such have supported the UAF. Collect (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"UAF has received support from within all mainstream British political parties"? Anyway, the point is that UAF cannot be simply characterised as 'far left'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Close - but I do not favour characterising any group in Wikipedia's voice - but where a reliable source uses the term, it is reasonable to ascribe such an opinion as an opinion of that source, no? Collect (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As always, weight matters. How significant is the opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Times and other newspaper usage as noted in the past? [2] Collect (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that Barack Obama was born in Kenya - a Kenyan newspaper article when he was elected to the Senate. Editors have used your argument to say that we should mention it in articles about Obama. TFD (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And we certainly could say that a Kenyan newspaper had the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan. So? The issue here, however, is you saying that a well-known exceedingly reliable source's opinions can not be mentioned here. Which is absurd. I suggest that The Times is a teensy weensy bit more notable than that Kenyan newspaper. Apparently your mileage varies by a huge factor. Collect (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where Obama was born is a matter of fact not opinion. It is helpful to be able to distinguish between the two. TFD (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that UAF should not be characterized as "left-wing", because it draws membership from people of different ideological backgrounds. How other groups are characterized should be discussed on their talk pages. TFD (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - that's a no-brainer. We should always be wary of assuming that a newspaper, however well-respected, has no political agenda. The Times is still a journal of record when it comes to reporting events; no paper is bias free when it comes to opinion and whatever it (or any other paper) says about the political position of any group is always suspect. Emeraude (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a far leftist front group for the swp, they share all of the key figures. Everyone knows it. To pretend it just some neutral protest group is immensely absurd and makes this wiki entry utterly laughable. Question, since when did the TIMES become not a source? Answer, when certain biased editors decide it goes against their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.217.38 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between 3 times that the mainstream media has mistakenly called the UAF "left-wing" and the tens or hundreds of thousands of times the EDL, BNP, NF, BFF, BUF, etc. have been called "far right." TFD (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Answer: I didn't say that The Times was not a source. I said it "is still a journal of record", i.e. a highly reliable source. Please read what is written and take it in. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't call UAF not left wing because it has been supported by members of each main party. Has it been supported by the entire party? EDL is widely seen as right wing, ethnocentric or racist, but has members who are black or even Muslim. That doesn't mean that the Muslim Council of Britain or Operation Black Vote support them. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013

The edit is requested due to the importance of highlighting the increasingly militant street-violence employed by the organisation, which I believe is contemporarily relevant given its position as opposing fascism, doing as much, often more harm, than the organisations it gathers to oppose.

"The UAF organisation has in recent times descended into militancy, readily resorting to violence not only against those against whom they oppose ideologically, but against any police presence separating rival marches. On the 1st June 2013 58 members alone were arrested at a rally opposing the BNP in Westminster, increasingly questioning the legitimacy of the UAF as an organisation opposing fascism and all its worst traits. The differences between the BNP, EDL and UAF in terms of rally/march behaviour, tactics, animosity, intent, and fear and alarm caused to the general public is now blurred.

Source: 'Fifty-eight arrested during Westminster protests' 01/06/2013 BBC News Online

Abbamanic (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to BBC article: [3]. As for your proposed edit, we base article content on published sources, not contributors own analysis or opinions. The BBC article makes no comparison between UAF and the BNP, says nothing about violence at the counter-demonstration, and likewise nothing about "the legitimacy of the UAF as an organisation opposing fascism". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree with requested edit Not supported by source. TFD (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SYNTH. In the future, please stick to the source, and seek consensus for your edits before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky-phobia

An edit to the lead adds "deploying the spirit of Trotsky’s united front method" "It describes itself as a national campaign with the aim of alerting British society to a perceived threat of fascism and the far right..." The source used is an opinion pieces in the International Socialism (ISJ), published by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party.[4]

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. ISJ is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it is an opinion that lacks notability.[5] We would not say for example that the Alliance in the Second World War was a typical Trotskyist front? I notice that the view that UAF is left-wing appears fairly consistently in the literature of the BNP, EDL and other far right organiations but is not a normal description in mainstream writing.

TFD (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The author of the article, Martin Smith, is on the steering committee of UAF. Are you telling us that a UAF steering committee member is an unreliable source for the methods deployed by the UAF? --Nug (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is, per se, and unreliable source, but it's a characterisation rather than a concrete fact, so not something we can state in WP's voice. Formerip (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Smith isn't writing in the journal as a representative of UAF. In any case, it is clearly opinion. Who knows what 'the spirit of Trotsky's united front' is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It was attributed to Martin Smith, who identifies himself within the article as UAF steering committee member, thus he is writing as a representative of UAF. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

'Thus'? Sorry, but that is questionable. He identifies himself as "on the steering committee of UAF" in a paragraph which recounts his own personal 'campaign' against 'fascists' - it is a personal statement of commitment, nothing else. Anyway, it is opinion - Trotsky is long dead, and as much as the SWP might like to claim to be his spiritual heirs, Wikipedia isn't here to give credence to such claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no explicit disclaimer, so the default position is that he is writing as a representative of UAF, and he is describing the methods employed by the UAF. You shouldn't allow your personal animosity to Trotsky to influence your editorial POV. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite policy for this 'default position'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It raises alarm bells when for subjects that have received widespread mainstream media attention, editors provide obscure, highly partisan sources. I sincerely doubt that Nug and Estlandia rely on the Trotskyist press for their understanding of current events. I could find no mention of Smith or the steering committee on the UAF website. I did find however that members of UAF Scotland elect a steering committee. But the fact one speaks for a group that elected one to a committee does not mean one speaks for an entire organization.

Oddly, Smith appears to confuse "united front", which is a working class coalition against the bourgeoisie, with "popular front", which is a coalition of left-wing and bourgeois forces against fascism. And the "united front" was a Communist, not specifically Trotskyist, invention.

My interpretation of weight is that Trotskyist interpretations are not normally included in articles. If we do then we should be using sources that are experts with that ideology.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox mentions Martin Smith as assistant secretary, which he was at the time of writing his article. I find it incredulous that TFD can't find any mention of Mr Smith on the UAF site, a simple search on the that site reveals many hits such as "UAF officer Martin Smith will appeal against his conviction by magistrates for assault on a police officer."[6]. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See the list of officers on their website. Smith is not included, although he may have been an officer at one time. Note also that it says its officers are "elected". Also, note the list includes a Labour MP and MEP. but no elected MPs or MEPs of the Socialist Workers Party. TFD (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The lack of transparency of who the officers of the UAF actually were, is remarkable. But nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that Smith was on the steering committee (and may well still be) when he wrote his "insider" view of UAF tactics. Now do you have any evidence that Smith's view is "Trotskyist interpretation"? You state "I notice that the view that UAF is left-wing appears fairly consistently in the literature of the BNP, EDL and other far right organisations", are you claiming Smith is far right because he writes that UAF was "deploying the spirit of Trotsky’s united front method"? And what exactly is the problem with Smith's article being published in International Socialism Journal, which you characterised as being published by a Trotskyist organisation? I know Stalinists have a problem with Trotsky, but what is your issue with him? --Nug (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Find a non-fringe source that describes UAF as a Trotskyist united front (or a Communist popular front, or whichever permutation you prefer) and we can consider including this in the article. Otherwise, forget it. We don't base assessments of protest movements on the unsubstantiated assertions of single activists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, has RSN deemed the ISJ as a fringe source? Secondly Smith never described the UAF as Trotskyist (or Communist popular front), he just said the methods deployed by the UAF are in the spirit of Trotsky’s united front. Why the knee-jerk reaction? I thought only Stalinists go ape over any mention of Mr. T. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not suggest that we provide Trotskyist, Stalinist or far right opinions in articles unless they are noteworthy, and even then we must present them as the opinions of those groups. Since the UAF does not have an ideology, different members of the steering committee may have different views, and it is incorrect to ascribe the views of one member to the group. Even if we did, it would be wrong rely on documents sourced to political groups to describe them. Do you think that Peter Hain, who is an officer, would describe them as a Trotskyist front group? TFD (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin Smith is a notable person and his view as a member of the UAF steering committee, which was properly attributed as his view, ought to be in the article regardless of your own personal political POV. We can also include Peter Hain's view too if you like. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions become noteworthy when they receive widespead attention. It may be that the media is wrong in not reporting this story, but not up to us to correct the errors in the media and to right great wrongs. You should write to the UK broadsheets and ask them to report what Smith said. TFD (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such policy that requires opinions be covered in mainstream media before they can be covered here, you are misinterpreting WP:Noteworthy which describes the criteria related to whether a topic can have its own article. --Nug (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

@TFD... It is blatantly obvious you simply do not want this entirely relevant and valid source included because you do not like it, which isn't a reason to not include it.Wikipedia:I just don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.173.55 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.... Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

The ISJ is not a reliable source, and Trotskyism is the view of a tiny minority.

If you disagree with this policy, then get it changed.

TFD (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

58 Arrests in the UAF's latest 'demonstration'

This needs to be added to the arrests and controversy section. refs: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/58-arrested-as-antifascist-demonstrators-clash-with-bnp-in-westminster-8640650.html ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10093427/Police-arrest-58-as-anti-fascist-protesters-clash-with-BNP.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.217.38 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll have a tough time getting any real warts and all coverage of the real antics of the UAF on here. It's ever more apparent editors are not taking a neutral viewpoint regarding the violence and harassment the UAF cause. If you try and enter it, the editors will find some feeble justification to have the content removed (probably consensus initially) and if you continue to counter it, it will then just ultimately boil down to "complain to the Press Council".

Had this been the EDL they would be falling over themselves to enter the noteworthy content.--82.3.162.93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So what specific content is being proposed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is about a BNP demonstration and no one has fallen over themselves in adding it to that article either. TFD (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No and that, I suspect, is because not one of the arrests was of the BNP and that would not conform with way these articles seem to portray BNP and the UAF.--82.3.162.93 (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just what is "the violence and harassment the UAF cause"? 58 people were arrested at the UAF demo. None has been charged with crimes of violence. None has been charged with crimes of harassment. They have been charged under s14 of the Public Order Act, i.e, with being where they were not allowed to be between certain hours under an order made by the police, maximum sentence a fine. And it's extremely doubtful that the arrests were legal given that no one seems to have heard the police announce that the area was proscribed. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"Racist" Blood Donors

This should go in:

On 5th June 2013 the UAF were criticised for heckling blood donors when they mistook them for UKIP supporters in Hove Town Hall.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10463657.Blood_donors_heckled_by_anti_fascist_protesters_at_Hove_Town_Hall/ http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3710/anti_ukip_protestors_disrupt_another_farage_event_this_time_in_sussex

212.139.97.203 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Commentator is not a reliable source. The Argus might be, but I can't see that this is anything other than trivial. If it was not mentioned in the national press then its not really notable ----Snowded ^TALK 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Of the two sources, The Argus does not say that the demonstrators were from UAF, and The Commentator seems to be some sort of right-wing pressure group (and note that it only says that the demonstrators were "believed to be" UAF). I very much doubt that The Commentator would be seen as a reliable source for anything beyond its own vague opinions - hardly worth a mention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Surprise surprise.87.112.173.55 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked The Commentator out. It is owned by Robin Shepherd.

"Robin Shepherd (born 6 January 1968) is a British-born political commentator and analyst. He is Director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society.[1] Formerly a senior fellow at Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, he has been associated with a number of think tanks in the United States and Europe.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Shepherd

I'd like to know why people who claim it is an unreliable source can say that without reason. I think it is reasonable to say that if he is trusted by the above then he is at a level of trust that is generally accepted in other Wikipedia entries. It's a general news publication in just the same way as any other trusted media source is. Saying it is rightwing is rather biased. I mean the Guardian Newspaper is leftwing, but that doesn't prevent it being used as a source. The idea is to state the facts and let the reader decide. It most certainly did happen. That fact should be stated, and it isn't trivial either. It was a major embarrassment, hence the two news reports made.79.67.254.105 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If it was "a major embarrassment" it would have been reported in more than a local paper which doesn't say that UAF was involved anyway, and a minor partisan website which only states that UAF were "believed to be" involved. Vague assertions about minor incidents quite possibly not involving UAF at all don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Commentator has fact-checking, unlike the Guardian (which is liberal not left-wing) or for that matter the conservative newspapers, the Times, Telegraph, the Mail, etc. It is really just an opinion piece. TFD (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK so put it in as "believed to be" then. Of course the reason it doesn't say categorically is that it doesn't have absolute proof, as in perhaps they were arrested and convicted of it for example. Now we all know that Wikipedia sources are not restricted to cases where there is absolute proof. We have many examples of commentary by those who have some sort of authority in a subject. In fact, as I was saying before, it is up to the reader to decide, and so if there is a source that later finds evidence that they were not UAF, or perhaps some were and some were from a different group, then that could be put in as well to counter it. It seems to me that your purpose in arguing this is more to do with the desire to keep it out and that you don't approve of rightwing media and think it makes it inherently unreliable. Most sources in political publications are biased, but you enable a voice to all.79.67.254.105 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How the hell do you know "the reason it doesn't say categorically"? You can't possibly know that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

While policy does not require that every statement be true, it does require that it be reliably sourced and relatively widely reported, per verifiability and neutrality. The political orientation of Commentator is a red herring - other right-wing publications are acceptable as rs. TFD (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason publications avoid say anything untrue is because they are legally liable for damages to reputation under British law in cases where an untrue accusation defames them in any reasonable way, and this would quite likely fall into that category if it were untrue. So you will notice that for professional publications where circulation is wide and a lot of damage could be inflicted on the group they are extremely careful, and this is why you have a degree of reliability with large publications. So they played it safe and stated what they knew for certain to be true. The law is quite complex here, but it generally has the effect of publishers erring on the side of caution. Also the owner of the publication is liable for the actions of anyone he employs.

Now I have done some further research on this and I can verify the statement is true, in that it is believed that it was the UAF, so I accept now that it would be more accurate to say it is believed to be the case. If you look at the Argus comments section you will see numerous references to the UAF, despite the paper omitting this. I've had a bit of a search in other places, such as a Facebook page connected to the UKIP, and it also mentions the UAF. I've looked on the local UAF website where the event is mentioned and they say many different groups turned up and named some but omitted the UAF. However, one must understand that such behaviour is an offence in Britain where it brings distress to others. I'm not sure of the exact laws here, but I would suggest it is reasonable to say that if the UAF were there then they would have quite likely left out their name in case it may in some way help to incriminate them. I really don't know more than that and I'm simply saying this looks like the case. Of course one should be wary of publications with a direct interest, but the Argus readers are just the readers of the local newspaper, so they are in effect witnesses to it if they were around. Anyhow it verifies the claim of 'believed to be UAF'.79.67.254.105 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't publish speculation here, or material 'verified' by SPAs. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this then? "The EDL has been described as Islamophobic.[18]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League

I mean I just picked a group that would be around about the radical alternative on the other side of this political divide. Gerry Gable is hardly a mainstream or in any way a balanced source of opinion, and yet you seem to have one rule for one side and another rule for the other. Perhaps you might to explain the difference. All I'm asking here is for you to include an event that did happen and is attributed to the UAF by a media source of considerable authority. See the contributing journalists to the publication if you care to investigate further. This isn't anything like just someone's personal blog. These people are experts and some are widely known and write for all sorts of professional publications. Gerry Gable is a radical far left activist who campaigns against the very people he is commenting on. So you are showing a remarkable lack of political balance here.79.67.254.105 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not about political balance, its about what is in reliable secondary third party sources. Also please learn to use WP:INDENT ----Snowded ^TALK 22:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss what is in other articles is on their talk pages. The argument that what is published must be true because of libel laws is not part of rs policy. Not all false information is libellous. Even reliably published facts may not be significant. TFD (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious why my reference to that group is valid in this discussion. I was proving to the person above that the statement was false, so I proved it, since you seem to insist on proof for everything. Now since it is the case that Wikipedia does accept comment from those types of sources and features what is most certainly 'speculation' and a pure matter of opinion then it's hardly fair to say my source is insufficient because of being 'rightwing' etc or that it is just the catch-all term 'speculation'. It is reasonable to believe such a source is likely to cross-check things. I just think you are tying yourself in knots. I've no idea what you mean by 'rs policy' or what that has to do with it.79.67.254.105 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

RS = reliable sources. As for what is 'perfectly obvious', I'd say that it is perfectly obvious that you are obsessed with getting a bit of poorly-sourced trivia into the article in order to cast UAF in a bad light, in spite of the fact that you don't even have a source that states for a fact that they were even involved. Well get over it - it isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got about the best proof here. This is an address from Nigel Farage at a UKIP conference. It's currently on the front page of their website, so it is official. Go to 21:00 or there abouts. He says it was UAF and he was there. This is not trivial or he wouldn't have brought it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZJdyEB7aUQo

I expect you will probably find some other reason to dismiss it now, but that's how it is. It happened it is political. It's pretty obvious really if you think about it. I mean it was rather sublime, and unlike the trivial, you don't see these things happen very often.79.67.254.105 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Farage says nothing about UAF 'heckling blood donors'. Please stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No but the Argus does. Are you suggesting the UKIP held more than one meeting that night or something? Also if you care to listen on he has decided to write to the Labour leader about it asking that he withdraws his support. So it is clearly escalating into something of significance, hence the trivial claim is groundless. 79.67.254.105 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. And I don't give a toss whether you think it is 'escalating into something of significance' - we go by published sources, and none have said anything of the kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a published source. It was published on the front page of the UKIP website and it is also on Youtube. I gave you the Youtube link here simply because the link is a permanent one.

It seems like you are really desperately scraping the barrel of reasons why it shouldn't go in. If it were like most other pages then the proof that I provide would be sufficient. You are just talking nonesense. We are allowed to use our own words on here, as it is a discussion. If you don't consider that an escalation then what on earth do you call it? He's asking the Labour leader to withdraw his party's support, and most of the founders are from his party, including many MPs, and so that is an escalation of events in my dictionary.

We could try a published source as well. "es·ca·late (sk-lt) v. es·ca·lat·ed, es·ca·lat·ing, es·ca·lates v.tr. To increase, enlarge, or intensify:" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/escalation 79.67.254.105 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The same three or four editors have been collaborating to keep a positive bias spin on this page for years. They are utterly shameless. 87.112.173.55 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got another local newspaper article on the event here:

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2013/06/03/hundreds-turn-out-in-hove-to-hear-ukip-leader/21702

So far that is 2 local papers, one currant affairs publication, one party conference and a letter to Ed Milliband, and still it is trivia! Well I guess some of us have more of a nose for what is and what isn't than others. This is a political embarrassment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassment ) and this is why the party is now using it for their own campaigning.79.67.254.105 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More irrelevance. No mention of UAF. No mention of blood donors. As for you nose, it isn't a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Stick it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided you with links to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Essentially what makes something "non-trivial" is widespread coverage in mainstream media. If this article is neutral then it should reflect what the average reader of the independent or the Times would know about the UAF through reading his morning paper. It could be that those papers are biased, but it is not up to us to correct that bias here. TFD (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's one local paper. Brighton And Hove News is a website whose reliability cannot be established, but regardless of that, its report makes no mention of blood donors or UAF so as a source for '"Racist" Blood Donors' it's of no use whatsoever. The "current affairs publication" is so blatantly biased that it can in no way be regarded as a reliable source. Similarly, letters by anyone to Milliband are not reliable sources for this story and neither is YouTube. So we are left with ONE local newspaper report, from the Brighton Argus, that does not even mention UAF, and only says that some blood donors were mistaken for UKIP members (but were not prevented from giving blood) - bit of a non-story really, until it gets blown out of all proportion and away from the facts by the typical morons who inhabit local newspaper comment blogs! Emeraude (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a video of that actual event inside with Nigel Farage saying it is UAF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJLi5NyQQ8

Are you still going to deny that this is reliable? I can't see how it could possibly have been faked. You can watch the event as it took place and judge for yourself. I think it would be balanced by referring to this as an embarrassment for the organisation.79.67.254.105 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. What NF says inside a meeting of the party faithful is not a reliable source. He no doubt said a lot of other things that we don't take as gospel. He's a politician! That the event happened is not in dispute; that it was UAF is not proved on NF's say so. (And even if it is, this still remains a trivial incident barely worthy of Wikinews, let alone an encyclopaedia, which explains why no other publication of note has seen fit to cover it.)Emeraude (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

He’s a leader of a the third most popular party in the country. He said the UAF did it. I've proved that and I've proved that it is widely believed to be the case as well, and so far I have not come across any denial that it was the UAF from one of their representatives.

Essentially what I've been doing here is finding sources and trying to get as close to the truth as possible. You have video evidence there and video evidence is a primary source, which is vastly more reliable than any report, because you can see it with your own eyes, so on the contrary, it is better, not worse. In addition I have presented numerous sources so you can cross check one with another, hence increasing the reliability factor.

Now go and put it in, and say Farage says it is UAF, because that is exactly what he has said. Once it is in the page as a feature then it can be added to later on by other users and other information that comes to light, as per the normal function of Wikipedia.79.67.254.105 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No. We are not going to 'put it in', for the reasons already explained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? Are you all acting as some sort of Wikipedia cabal here? All your reasoning has been absolutely pathetic. You scream it is speculation when you don't agree with something, you argue sources when they are perfectly reliable and so on. Now you have run out of your parenthetic excuses so you simply tell us you demand it to be left out. This is blatant political bias.79.67.240.102 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not found a proper source and this has been explained to you. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources I have found have been proper sources and of the same type as used elsewhere in Wikipedia, as in local papers etc. You and others working with you have rejected them on bogus grounds. I have shown you a video published on the UKIP's website with Nigel Farage saying they were UAF, and the same video shows them in the building. Why is this improper? Why can’t we simply put in Wikipedia what I have proved without any reasonable doubt what so ever? All you are doing here is stating without reason that it doesn’t conform to a set of Wikipedia standards. You don’t say why. Surely a party conference is something that can be recorded in Wikipedia? It was witnessed by enough people. I think that you are applying the rules in a grossly unfair way. 79.67.240.102 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you see any difference between how the UAF is described in this article and how it is described in the Sun, which I presume is the paper you read? TFD (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't read The Sun. You would be better off looking at that video, as it gives you footage of what actually happened. That beats second-hand accounts, which I quite agree, can be very biased when we are dealing with political groups liker this. The EDL is the same. It's one of those things where publications take sides. It's not too dissimilar to a game of football in fact.212.139.103.109 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a bias in mainstream media then it will appear here, because policy (WP:WEIGHT) requires that articles reflect what is in those sources. I suggest you read that policy by clicking on the link and if you disagree with it then to discuss it on the policy talk page. TFD (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

212.139.103.10 should not assume that others have not watched the UKIP video. So let's be clear what is in it: NF does not actually say that the hecklers were UAF! (That may have been his intention, but he doesn't sy it.) He casts various aspersions on UAF, the unions and Labour - all standard political party attacking opponents stuff; he does not say the hecklers were UAF. But suppose they were (and NF is not a reliable source in this - he says all sorts of stuff that would also not make him a reliable source - he's a politician for goodness' sake) this still remains a trivial news item that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. That video is evidence of what? That NF asks the always pointless question "Can you hear me at the back?" Yes. That UKIP can't give their leader a decent microphone? Well, yes. That his supporters continually chant his name? Yes, again. But that's about it. NF is NOT a reliable source by definition, and a video, produced and edited by UKIP, is certainly not a reliable source. But who cares anyway - the whole issue is trivial, pointless and dull. Emeraude (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well what is interesting in the wider scheme of things is the UAF's target was traditionally the BNP and as the EDL came along later on they included them as well. Quite recently I spotted an article by the UAF that was discussing whether the UKIP should be targeted as well. (I could dig out the link if you want it) Anyway, this seems to be the first major UAF organised disruptive protest against the UKIP. There might have been others that I have not come across, but to my knowledge this looks like a bit of a turning point. One possible reason is the BNP's support has plummeted and the UKIP's has risen substantially, so it is as if the 'right' (in the eyes of the UAF) is regrouping under the UKIP banner. Indeed this change of direction is why I have found it interested. I'm not sure how much you people who claim it is trivia understand regarding British politics in this area, but I've got quite a bit of knowledge in it and so I hope that helps.

Incidentally the Telegraph has just published this on the UAF http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html You might like to read it for a bit of background as it is currently. 79.67.241.151 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how much you people who claim it is trivia understand regarding British politics in this area...." That is an unacceptable remark to make about other editors. But seeing as you have questioned the integrity and expertise of editors, how does a degree in political science from a UK university, postgrad research into extreme right politics, contributions to academic journals and a lifetime of teaching politics and related subjects grab you? That UKIP is to the right is unquestionable (see the sources) and not some new idea dreamt up by UAF. And it is a trivial news item though, there's no question. Emeraude (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't grab me nearly half as much as someone with real-life experience of the battles fought between the UAF and groups of the 'right' of British politics. The UKIP is economically right, but it is by no means extreme right, as in it wouldn't use violence to achieve its political ends. Besides, I said I didn't know whether those claiming trivia knew. I wondered whether they might be foreign themselves. So please calm down. I'm not disputing your academic experience. 79.67.241.151 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You think Wikipedia editors do not have real life experience? I wouldn't wish to trumpet my academic experience, but it was you who raised the qualification of Wikipedia editors to comment on what is trivia. That some blood donors were mistaken for UKIP members (and still gave blood) is an utterly trivial news event, so trivial that just one local paper reported it! Regardless of my academic credentials, prior knowledge or whatever, it is of such insignificance that it does not belong in an an encyclopaedia. Any foreigner can work that out! Incidentally, UKIP's political position cannot be defined by its non-use of violence. It is possible to be extreme right without advocating violence, and UKIP is not just economically right wing, but that discussion belongs on the UKIP page, not here. Emeraude (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the vice chair Azad Ali

No where in this article is the vice chair, Azad Ali's, somewhat interesting opinions mentioned including implementing sharia law & ending of democracy in the UK[7], Killing British soldiers[8], etc etc. I feel in the interest of balance it's important to inform the readers that the organisation chooses to put people with these views at the top of the organisation. --Richardeast (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Without going into this further (there may be other issues, but I'll leave them for now), I'd point out that there seems to be a sourcing problem here - the article states that Azad Ali is one of four UAF 'vice chairs' but doesn't provide a source for this. Neither do either of the articles cited above. We have to get the facts right - not least to ensure sources are referring to the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The second soucre, which Richardeast says is evidence of Ali's views on " Killing British soldiers" says: "Mr Ali said: ‘I have never called for or supported the killing of British soldiers or any violence whatsoever. My work with the Muslim Safety Forum and response to the terrorist attacks which took place in London are a testament to this. I have given presentations to senior police officers and other officials on how dialogue is the best way forward, and not confrontation and the use of violence. At these meetings, I have openly condemned Al Qaeda as abhorrent and very far removed from Islam'." We really must read things carefully before jumping up and claiming things that are not supported by the source! Emeraude (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The first link is to a blog and neither source mentions the UAF. According to another blog by Andrew Gilligan of the Telegraph, Azad Ali of the UAF is a coordinator of the Islamic Forum of Europe. You need a source though about Azad Ali and UAF, otherwise it is just synthesis. It seems to argue btw against UAF being "left-wing", since the Left does not advocate sharia law. He is not the vice-chair btw, but one of four vice-chairs. TFD (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. Right-wing groups are the ones wanting one law for all. Labour push for sharia to satisfy their Muslim core vote and LibDems are too spineless to criticise it at all. The enemy of their enemy (Capitalism, USA, Israel, assimilation, any degree of nationalism) is their friend. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony Blair was not anti-American, Ben-Gurion was not anti-Israel. TFD (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Left-wing multiculturalists wish to ruin the nation's harmony by allowing different ethnic groups to continue their native traditions in their new country when it contradicts British norms. That's why they want sharia. And the Ben Gurion claim was a straw man because we're talking Britain here. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Indiasummer95- I think you're confusing Wikipedia with a UKIP conference, kindly don't spout that rubbish here again. TFD/ AndyTheGrump, agreed - I think the 2 Azad Alis are 1 of the same, but will look for a source to verify. If I can, I would still like to include in the article as I think the information would interesting to the end reader. Emeraude, any sourced response by Mr Ali should obviously be included too... let others decide the validity of the arguments of those who claim he holds these views and what he claims he didn't say, but, as I said - the fact that someone, on record stating these opinions, is considered a key person within the organisation is relevant. --Richardeast (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you add biographical information about one of the four vice-chairs, then you should add information about the other officers as well. The other three vice-chairs for example are trade union officials, as is the treasurer. The officers also include a Labour MP (Peter Hain) and MEP. TFD (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If those appointed vice chairs were controversial, made a statement or were of interest to the reader then I would totally agree with you. For instance, if Plaid Cymru (heaven forbid!) appointed someone like Nick Griffin as a vice chair... I would support highlighting that. I believe the statements attributed to Mr Ali definitely elevate his relevance and are of interest to the reader given the area of politics UAF are engaged in. I'll have a think about how best to word it.--Richardeast (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious, the nature of the organisation is that it has people of different political views and backgrounds. To highlight one based on a definition of what is or is not controversial is questionable. Peter Hain has several controversial rules and an interesting history with the Labour Party not to mention his views on the current South African regime. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You would have to show that Azad Ali's membership on the board is controversial, but I have not seen any sources that say it is. I think too that vice chairs are elected not appointed. Nick Griffin was elected too - to the European Parliament, but is not mentioned in that article. I am sure that if he were on the executive of Plaid Cymru it would be controversial, but then we would have newspaper articles about it. TFD (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan says it is (15th june), as does channel 4's "Dispatches (TV series)", and for very good reasons:
"One reason why UAF will not campaign against Islamist extremists is that one of its own vice-chairmen, Azad Ali, is one. As well as his UAF role, which he took up last year, Mr Ali is community affairs coordinator of the Islamic Forum of Europe, a Muslim supremacist group dedicated to changing “the very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed from ignorance to Islam”.

Mr Ali has written on his blog of his “love” for Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric closely linked to many terrorist plots, including the September 11 attacks, and used to attend talks by Abu Qatada, the extremist cleric whom Britain is seeking to deport.

He has described al-Qaeda as a “myth” and denied that the Mumbai attacks were terrorism. On his blog, he also advocated the killing of British troops in Iraq. He sued a newspaper for reporting that he had said this, and lost.

Filmed by an undercover reporter for The Sunday Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches, he said: “Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html

A Daily Telegraph senior journalist, quoting one of the most respected current affairs programs in the UK is a valid source, but soon the uaf tag team shall come to agree that it isn't. 87.115.69.29 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So should we also report on the political quirks of the other vice-chairs? The issue really needs to be picked up as a controversy by more than one Daily Telegraph opinions piece. If it is then there would be a case for inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, so all of above are simply loveable little "quirks", thanks for clearing that up. This IS controverisial by any standard. Read the above, then google Azad Ali and have a look for yourself. As soon as this is covered by another journalist you will dismiss it equally though won't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.69.29 (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If it becomes a controversy and is picked up in more than an opinion piece then there may be a case. Can't be clearer or fairer than that. Oh and please don't suggest other editors engage in original research ----Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

− It is not "one opinion piece" it is a senior journalist in a mainstream broadsheet and it is Dispatches (TV series) What the senior figures in a high profile protest group say and do IS important, all the spinning in the world won't change that. What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.69.29 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

While you are waiting learn to sign your comments and use WP:INDENT ----Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, the article is investigative journalism that combines facts an opinions. But in order to include this "controversy", we need to show that there is a controversy, not just that one journalist is shocked. TFD (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely that should be "shocked". Emeraude (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Include Michael Adebolajo?

The EDL page mentions the claims by Anders Behring Breivik that he was involved with the EDL. I put a link to a video of Adebolajo, the murderer of Lee Rigby, speaking racial and religious hatred at a UAF march. I was told that the video evidence wasn't reliable, but also that it didn't matter.

If the Woolwich murder had been on a non-white, and the murderer had spoken at an EDL rally, I bet 100% it would have a whole section to itself. Indiasummer95 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, YouTube videos are not WP:RS. Do you have a reliable source that states that Adebolajo is in any way connected with UAF? One doesn't have to be a member/supporter to turn up at a demonstration...

Incidentally, per WP:YOUTUBE we have to be very wary of citing uploaded videos - they are frequently copyright violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Adebolajo's bio on the page Death of Lee Rigby has two citations for the oncident. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither source states that Adebolajo was a UAF member (not that digitaljournal.com looks like WP:RS to me - I'll look into this further). Anyone can attend a demonstration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked at WP:RSN. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#DigitalJournal.com - not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if he was a member, it only belongs in the article if there was been significant coverage in articles about the UAF. Breivik's involvement with the EDL has been extensively mentioned in media reports about the EDL. Also, there is no connection between Adebolajo's actions and UAF beliefs, unlike Breivik. The Church of England article does not include every member accused or convicted of a serious crime. TFD (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The EDL wanted nothing to do with Brevik because of his strange views. It should be remembered that while Brevik had seemingly racist views, he killed his own people and not immigrants.(Cyberia3 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC))