Talk:Hope not Hate

Recent contributions by User:Londonblue

Changes by the above user have been reverted more than once. by me twice and by User:Millahnna once. The problems include:

• Removal of references
• Addition of unreferenced material such as the list of celebrity supporters
• The addition on unformatted material such as the list of celebrity supporters
• Much of the material is about the BNP not HnH.
• There is original research in the implcation that the reduction in BNP votes in some areas is a consequence of Hnh's actions
• The material is propagandistic and not encyclopedic.

If Londonblue were to respond to the message I left on his/her talkpage or responds to this message we, or other people, might be able to collaborate on addressing the above issues. However the combination of problems is so bad that for now I am reverting to the status quo ante.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi There

As you have rightly guessed i am indeed a new user. No offence was meant when i reverted the changes you made. However, I am still learning and have yet to work out how to add references etc. I felt that as Hope not hate is such a large campaign it deserved a much larger entry than it currently has. Perhaps rather than just deleting the whole entry you could help edit it properly. I don't believe it is particularly biased. Perhap's it is more a matter of the language i have used. Again please do edit it to make it more in keeping with wikipedia.

• All of the celebrity supporters you refer to have pictures on hope not hates website.
• It is widely recognised that Hnh's efforts in the key campaigns mentioned was very important in reducing the BNP's vote.
• In terms of stating that much of the information is about the BNP and not Hnh i believe you are very misguided to believe the two are seperable.
• Please point out the parts that are 'propagandistic' and i will endeavour to change them. Please not that most points are backed up by facts and figures.

All that i ask is that rather than simply deleting the whole entry (most of which i believe is fine) please edit it. After all the point of wikipedia is to provide information and that is what i have attempted to do. Having such a poultry entry for such a large organisation does wikipedia a disservice.

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonblue (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you participating in discussion here. Please do not remove referenced material. Adding additional sourced information from reliable sources would help improve the article. See WP:RS for info on reliable sources and WP:CITE for info on how to cite them. Photos of celebrities on websites are not reliable sources. In fact, the group's website is not an independent source and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to add that the reason your new material keeps getting reverted entirely rather than edited is because it is completely unsourced. The key concept in Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V), the idea that a reader can verify that what is written here reflects what reliable sources have written about the group. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lb, for the reply. Let's go through your points

• The website can be treated as a reliable source for who Hnh claims are its celebrity supporters and that would need to be in the wording. When considering references, third party sources are generally counsidered more reliable than first party ones. Political groupings will play up their support, musical promoters will concentrate on the positive points, sexism and ageism may lead to female performers claiming to be younger than they really are, etc. If the official websites of any of these people state their support HnH, then that will be a good extra reference to insert. If they have given interviews to the mainstream press, (or if they are sports people, musicians etc. to the professional specialist press for their field,) in which they express their support, then that would be even better.
• If HnH has been widely recognised as an influence, then do please give examples of sources that support each of the claims. The ideal source would be a peer-reviewed academic journal that mentions this. But a news column (not an opinion piece) in the Guardian etc, or on the BBC site would be very acceptable. Don't worry if you don't know how to format the references. If you give as the details (author's name, title of piece, publisher, date, web address or page number) then someone else can insert it and you can look at the raw text to look at the ref tags inside angled brackets <> or templates inside double curly brackets {{}} that we use so that you can do it for yourself in future.
• We need reference to WP:Reliable sources that support this. In the absence of those you could provide pointers to the relevant pages of the HnH site so that we can state that they claim that they were a key factor. And if there is BNP material that blames HnH for their lack of success, that could also be noteworthy.
• I felt that things have a propagandistic feel throughout. Toning down the language could help. In the section on Dagenham I see.
  • "area most at threat from the BNP" You and I may agree that they are a threat but the language needs to be neutral e.g."area where the BNP was likely to receive a high proportion of the vote"ections.
  • "An unprecedented campaign was mounted". Unprecedented needs referencing.
  • "A large office was renovated in the heart of Dagenham and over 10 full time staff and volunteers worked 6 days a week for four months in the run up to the elections." "Large", "heart" "over" have a feel of puffery and are a bit journalistic.
  • "Regular days of action saw hundreds of local residents campaigning on the streets of the borough with an estimates 1000 different people taking part." Whose estimate? How do you know the people were local and didn't come fromall over the Southeast?
  • On 17 April an astonishing 541 helped deliver 92,000 tabloid newspapers. "Astonishing"? Yes that is a lot more that in any action I've ever taken part, but "astonishing" makes the article read like "hype". See WP:Words to avoid for dangerous terms.
  • "With a low turnout (25.29%) the risk of the BNP gaining a seat on the council was large but the voters once again rejected them and Barnbrook received just 642 votes." "Risk" makes the article sound as if Wikipedia is taking sides. "Just" is pushing apoint of view. (If you look at WP:SYN you'll see examples of how language can be used to slant whether the number of wars since the UN was founded can be used to indicate failure or success.) If an independent newspaper (preferably a daily but a local can be used) has described Barnbrook as failing, then you can justify the slant. If not, then it is propaganda. Oh and if the press were divided on how well the BNP did, we would need to give WP:DUE weight to each point of view rather than just picking the sources that suit our personal views.

Writing for Wikipediais very diffrerent from writing for a campaigning organisation. We aren't meant to advance our own political views, though many editors do try to do just that.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

UAF

[1] Many problems.

• Nick Lowles was Hope not Hate leader in February 2011, as the link ([2]) says he ran it between 2004 and 2010.
• a report criticising pressure groups for concentrating on the threat of white extremists whilst ignoring the increasing threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism is not sourced by the link above. The only mentions of Muslims or Islam are these
  1. here is a widespread fear of the ‘Other’, particularly Muslims, and there is an appetite for a new right-wing political party that has none of the fascist trappings of the British National Party or the violence of the English Defence League.
  2. The vast majority of people reject political violence and view white anti-Muslim extremists as bad as Muslim extremists and there is overwhelming support for a positive campaign against extremism.
  3. Over two-thirds of people view ‘English nationalist extremists’ and ‘Muslim extremists’ as bad as each other.
• Recognising that this critcism referred to groups like themselves, Unite Against Fascism responded to the article in March 2011 since there is no sourced criticism to start with the UAF link ([3]) is not a response to any criticism, it is interpretation of a primary source to even suggest it is.

This material shouldn't be added back, since it was not even a report made by Hope Not Hate. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate Not Hope

Can you trust anything Nick Lowles says or has said when he has such a twisted interpretation of the truth, and such a hatred of right wing organisations? This interview at the BBC is a prime example of his using outright lies to gain his ends: [4] (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC))