Talk:Redwatch

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Redwatch is a magazine and website produced by the British based Neo-Nazi group Combat 18 that displays photographs and information of its political opponents.

Combat 18? If illegal para-military groups had websites then they wouldn't last long (the group and the site). Removing all mention of Combat 18 running this site. Jackliddle 23:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of para-military groups have websites. FARC in Colombia is the first that springs to mind, but there are many more.

POV dispute

I have added the POV dispute tag for the following reasons:

Excessive quoting from Redwatch's own justification of themselves;
Little mention of any opposition to Redwatch but particularly from the TU and anti-fascist movements (Redwatch has been condemned by the TUC congress and the conferences of the teaching unions in particular);
No discussion of violent reprisals against people following their being listed on Redwatch (eg. the firebombing of a Leeds teacher's car).

Some discussion of "Noncewatch" (a subsection of Redwatch) would also not be amiss. 213.120.56.33 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy dispute 2005-08-02

As per the following history record:

07:19, 2 August 2005 85.138.0.224 (highly slanted, biased, politicaly motivated, at least have the decency to note its disputed (highly))

The above reason cited by the above user is far too general. Looking at the page, it would appear that the information is adequately referenced. For these reasons I am removing the 'disputed' tag.

If "85.138.0.224" or anyone else wants to restore the disputed status, please provide specific reasons for doing so, in line with Wikipedia custom and practice and this page. 62.7.143.154 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV=

deleted the following for contravention of NPOV:

, there is no way for them to enforce the ban because Redwatch do not disclose names of informers

then obviously this would apply to any organisation or political party, not just the BNP.

(Redzen 17:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Neutrality

This part in particular isn't very neutral:

Noncewatch has largely backfired, with its mendacity bringing doubts about the accuracy of information on the rest of Redwatch and spawning its own nemesis Gomechewatch.

The page could do with a going through with an NPOV comb though :) - FrancisTyers 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is objectively true that much of the information on Redwatch is inaccurate and has even led to attacks against random individuals. Much of the information is incredibly poorly sourced and vague. It would be POV to assert otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't allowed to include original research on Wikipedia. The above statement, presumably written by you, violates Wikipedia standards.JettaMann (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page. My source for saying that Redwatch is vague and inaccurate is Redwatch itself. Such items such as a photo of scruffy looking people carrying an SWP banner in Trafalgar Square several years ago with no notion of who any of them are is typical of the quality of information on Redwatch--Streona (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if you want proof, just look at the picture they posted of some poor bugger wearing a "Communist Party" t-shirt. Humour (as well the most cursory understanding of, well, anything) never was the Nazis strongpoint.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"However, Redwatch have been unable to provide details of any such websites or magazines." Redwatch was formed as a direct response to the details of "fascists" being published in searchlight magazine. This is stated several times on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.126.221 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, but the fact that an openly neo-Nazi website says something, particularly in an attempt to justify itself, doesn't make it true. As has been repetedly pointed out, Redwatch, and others making similar claims about Searchlight, never, ever, provide any actual examples of Searchlight having ever published any such information. It's a straightforward lie, as is almost everything else on their website.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Redwatch

There is what now seems to be a Canadian Redwatch as well. Hosted on Blogger.

www.canadianredwatch.blogspot.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.34.47 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Project Judaism?

Why is this in Project Judaism? Of course, I know that neo-Nazis normally target Jews, but RedWatch is really to do with Communists and left-wingers rather than Jews. Does it post addresses of Jews online? If not, I think that this page should be removed from the category. Epa101 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little of the content of Redwatch is directed against Jews, unless they are active anti-fascists. Bizarrely there are photographs of groups of unnamed anti-Zionist demonstrators even where the fascists have supported the demonstration. -Streona

This is realy an issue for the members of the wikiproject to decide, It they feel it relevant they should tag it.PiTalk - Contribs 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

According to Searchlight Magazine, a Leeds teacher who complained about a notorious far right activist from Leeds called Tony White leafleting his school took his details and listed them on Redwatch, allegedly after the jailing of Tony White other far right supporters decided to firebomb his car as a reprisal.

I would just like to point out this sentence, which makes absolutely no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.50.41 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]