Talk:UK Uncut

UK Uncut stage street protest party near home of Deputy PM Clegg

Should try to keep this page up to date:

Hundreds of anti-cuts campaigners have staged a "street party" protest outside Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's home in south-west London. Disabled activists from UK Uncut chained their wheelchairs at both ends of the street in Putney where he lives.The group said it targeted Mr Clegg as he was "one of the architects of austerity". His spokesman said people had a right to peaceful protest. Police said there were no arrests at the protest which ended peacefully(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18219101)

Richard Seymour

Is the Richard Seymour article a big enough thing to be included in the Wikipedia page??? It seems to me like it is just one blogger writting one article so it should be deleted. What do people think?? Are there any guidelines on this sort of thing?? --Allie Cabab (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Although we can use self published sources like blogs if the authors are an authority on the subject, as is the case here, if you read the posting it is actually not criticising UK Uncut per se e.g. "I think these protests have been wonderful." He's actually talking about a spokesman for the group and his views, which considering that UK Uncut has no central organisation, is obviously not a criticism of the group as a whole. Considering this, I think it should be removed and as you've already suggested it, I'll be bold and do it. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance?

This article seems rather unbalanced. I've seen countless criticism of this group in newspapers and the like. For example, they are very selective in terms of their targets - they'll pick on Boots and Barclays but not Premier League football or the Guardian. Or the fact that they focus their fire exclusively on businesses rather than on the politicians that created these tax loopholes in the first place. At the moment it reads like an SWP newsletter. MultipleTom (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources then add them! I can't say I've seen them though tbh, but maybe I don't read the right things. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Clear to most of us in the UK that "Uncut" is a ragtag bunch of activists. The same rent-a-mob that protest globalisation, road building etc. Not worth the precious bytes of Wikipedia storage IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.90.165 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

uh oh looks like the "get a job" brigade are coming to wikipedia. If you've got references for your acusations add them, I know some of what your saying is complete rubbish, for example the SWP have nothing to do with UK Uncut, in fact they have been quite critical of it. Allie Cabab (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay... so maybe you could write about the SWP's criticism in the article as well? Or do you prefer to present the case in a totally one-sided fashion? MultipleTom (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm mostly talking about people I know in the SWP, I dont know of any articles where they have really critisised UK Uncut. If you look at the above article you can see one that is sort of criticism but it was decided that it wasn't really a criticism of the whole group so it was removed. If you know of references for criticism then please add it as it would be great if we could make this article better, its a bit bare at the moment. Allie Cabab (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch "pie" incident

There have been two attempts so far to add today's "pie" incident to this article. The attacker, or rather prankster, is said to be a member of UK Uncut, but he apparently acted off his own bat, and his actions have not been endorsed by UK Uncut, so as far as I am concerned an account of this episode does not belong in the article, not to mention it was a trivial incident and likely nothing more than a publicity stunt by an individual trying to make a name for himself. Dubmill (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

This information has been removed from the article:
Rupert Murdoch was targeted by a UK Uncut member on the 19th of July 2011 during a parliamentary select committee on culture, enquiring into the News of the World phone hacking scandal. In a 'custard pie' style prank involving shaving foam, the assailant launched the pie at Murdoch whilst he was being interrogated by a conservative select committee member. The UK Uncut Twitter account announced that it was not an official action, but that it was "rather funny".

The original wording is not mine, I restored it to add in a reference and information about UK Uncut distancing themselves from the events. That being said, UK Uncut are being linked to this online already, it appears that the guy who threw the pie is a prominent member. When the papers come out tomorrow (which are all going to link this to UK Uncut) people will come to this page for information. 132.206.157.47 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you have a point and I was too hasty. I have put a description of what happened back into the article but I have made it shorter, omitting trivial information or unnecessary detail. Dubmill (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear - yes he is apparently an activist with UK Uncut, but that does not mean that Murdoch is a target of UK Uncut. As UK Uncut publicly states it was not a UK Uncut action. If this is mentioned elsewhere, then it might be appropriate to include a link to this article, mentioning he is an activist with UK Uncut, but I don't think it should be included here. Unless someone can come up with a more convincing reason to keep it in, I'll remove it soon. (I also merged the two sections that had been started on this above) SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And the perpetrator also said "For those of you in any doubt, yesterday had nothing to do with #UKUncut." SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So both the organization and the individual have stated that it's not an Uncut action. This fails both WP:RECENTISM and, most importantly, relevance. Re-removed. Rostz (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies and criticisms section for UK Uncut

Given some of the criticisms and controversies (arrests of some of its members at Fortnum & Mason), this editor wishes to ask whether it is appropriate for this article to have a "criticisms and controversies" section.Galafax (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs one, but please refer to WP:CRITS and WP:NOCRIT and describe why you think it does. Rostz (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms sections are not well-regarded or recommended on Wikipedia as they are often biased. I admit I despise UK Uncut but for purposes of neutrality a criticisms section should be left out. However my label of "far left" keeps getting removed which I feel is wrong. It is backed by a reliable source from the Daily Telegraph. I contribute to many Conservative/right leaning articles where many blog pieces from left-wing papers like The Guardian and Independent are used and deemed acceptable, but now the tables are turned, it is not deemed acceptable as a reliable source. I know certain people don't like what it says but the evidence is there. Christian1985 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As both the IP who removed the "far-left" part and myself noted in our edit summaries, it was referenced to an opinion piece in the Telegraph which has a strong bearing on whether or not the source is reliable to back up that statement. It appears as if that is the opinion of one author, rather than a widespread view of UK Uncut. It could perhaps be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but per WP:BEGINNING, the first sentence should just describe what the article is about. It is more important to note that they are a protest group, rather than being of a certain political orientation. We already say that sources describe them as left wing, and that piece in the Telegraph seems to be the only one calling them "far-left". If you can find sources then please link to them. Thanks for discussing rather than reverting though. SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but this is the problem I have with the argument "its only one editor's opinion". I have used that argument on other articles where editors use Guardian/Independent blog articles as "reliable sources". I have often argued this is only one editor's opinion but they refuse to accept it and state because its The Guardian it is reliable. That's all I am saying. Christian1985 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yep, there's certainly a lot of crap out there. Things need to be determined on a case by case basis though - op ed's can be RSs for some things, but not others. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, I do see where you are coming from. I mean from my personal POV, UK Uncut are a far-left group and I make no secret I despise them but WP is no place for personal opinions. I agree completely things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

History

The "History" section obviously needs serious work, it looks like mostly someone's own research and there are no citations for a great deal of what is said. The grammar is also bad. 87.112.157.253 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It has most likely been written by a UK Uncut supporter from behind the safety of a computer screen. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)