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)

Criticism

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/britains-powerful-enemies-of-freedom/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 July 2013

Thanks, but it does not meet criteria for inclusion. TFD (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller UK travel ban'

'The decision, which they cannot appeal, will stand for between three and five years': What are you talking about? Of course this decision can be fought, and this is what is being done, see fx

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-904062.html

Robert Spencer even published their lawyer's appeal on jihadwatch.org months ago, and Pamela Geller will have done the same on her website.

Another piece of evidence: Also Geert Wilders was banned by May's predecessor, he fought the ban, and it was overturned. Did you sleep through these events? Then maybe you shouldn't pose as a Wiki author. Or is it just wishful bias?

Anyway, would you kindly rectify your embarassing error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You will find you will receive a better response if you are polite in your postings. Geller was excluded from Great Britain for different reasons from Wilders and therefore has no right to appeal. As she posts on her website, "[The British government] have absolute authority to exclude those who words they think might "justify terrorist violence."" TFD (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't say. Apart from that, would you mind giving the URL? I mean to remember that the lawfirm's letter included both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: Are you ready to accept your defeat? Anyway, here's the proof:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/our-legal-response-to-the-british-ban-grounds-for-judicial-review-to-the-queen-on-the-application-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I already read it, it is on Geller's website. It is not an appeal, it is a presentation of the grounds for Judicial review in English law. Wilders appealed his case to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (now replaced by the Asylum and Immigration Chamber), but Geller was not allowed to appeal to them. In order to succeed in a review, Geller must prove not that the Home Secretary came to the wrong decision, but that she acted outside the powers provided to her by law. Here is a link to the Treasury Solicitor's letter.

TFD (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So why do you then think Pamela Geller continues to talk about 'our lawsuit against the Queen of England and the Home Secretary et al'? See http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/01/documents-reveal-british-banned-geller-and-spencer-because-of-their-pro-israeli-views/ . Do you really consider it possible that you know it better than they themselves do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A lawsuit against the Secretary of State is not an appeal, it is in this case a request for a writ of mandamus. The birther Orly Taitz for example applied for a writ of quo warranto (which is another type of prerogative writ) to remove Obama from office, but no one says she "appealed" his election.[4]

Incidentally, Geller is wrong about suing the Queen. Since prerogative writs can only be granted to the Crown, the Queen on the application of Geller and Spencer is suing the Secretary of State. See the copy of the "Grounds for Judicial Review" on jihadwatch.org.[5]

It is not whether I have a better understanding of English law than Geller, an American who never studied law, but what the documents she has presented say.

TFD (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, after the experience made it is safe to assume that you will have another 'smart' response to this one. Still my impression is that you are partisan (as I am, only on the opposite side), so here comes the latest news re this case which seems to underline the correctness of what I said earlier:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/victory-uk-court-of-appeal-gives-spencer-and-geller-permission-to-appeal-ban

Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with partisanship but with accurately reporting the facts of the judicial process. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has permitted the Queen on application of Geller and Spencer leave to appeal a decision of the High Court denying her request for a judical review of the secretary of state's decision. The wording in the article is correct. Geller and Spencer cannot appeal the secretary's decision. They can of course seek judicial review, which is made in the name of the Queen, and may appeal the courts' decisions. The leave to appeal has not been covered in any reliable sources and is not yet available on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. TFD (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thought so. Whatever you say, I'm cautiously optimistic, in the interest of the preservation of freedom of speech and the fight against a desastrous 'multiculturalism' that includes incompatible cultures which will destroy us from within. I'll keep you posted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my Edits

I would like to question the reversion of my edits. Firstly in the introduction I changed "it (Hope not Hate) is backed by various politicians" to "it ... politicians, on the left of the political spectrum". I made this change because the sources given only describe figures in the British labour party.

Out of the three citations that support this claim one leads to a 404 error on Hope Not Hate's website. It is entitled, "Malala's fight" and from the citation appears to have been written by Gordon Brown. Searching combinations of "Malala's flight", along with "Gordon Brown" and "Hope not Hate" on Google did not yield the original article. Furthermore I did not find any expressions of support for the Hope Not Hate group. The other two citations only tangentially mention Hope Not Hate. One of these citations "Organising for Labour. Organising to win" is primarily focussed on Labour party campaigning methods. The article only mentions the power of "community organisations", such as Hope not Hate in campaigning against the BNP. It would be quite easy to infer approval of Hope Not Hate from this source but it is clearly a source coming from the left and the labour party. The final citation links to an article about John Cruddas where it describes how he worked with the Hope not Hate group in 2005. He is a prominent labour party member but clearly a figure of the left.

Clearly these sources are weak, but they do show some evidence of support for Hope not Hate from politicians in the labour party. But this should be made explicit to inform the reader that their political support primarily comes form the left/labour.

The second part of my Edit was to describe criticism of Hope not Hate from right wing sources, these sources are much stronger than the ones discussed above. Perhaps the wording of my edit was clumsy but the sources did imply direct criticism rather than the tangential support that the sources above give. The first reference was from Douglas Murray who is a prominent figure on the right of British politics and has appeared on TV several times as well as writing several books. This source is more than a unread blog, it appears under the respected brand of The Spectator and is written by a prominent and respect figure on the right. The second source again gives direct criticism of Hope Not Hate and classifies it as a far left grouping. Spiked is a again no mere blog. I understand that a Wikipedia page in of itself does not confer notability but if you look at the references on Spiked's Wikipedia page you will see that it is a notable magazine. Finally the third citation is Farage's comments in the independent. As Farage is leader of Britain's third most popular party and has had hundreds of tv appearances, newspaper columns etc. his comments would seem notable to me.

I believe these sources to all be notable and much more valid than the sources detailing the labour party's support, indeed a quick look down the reference list shows them to be much more reputable then many of the other references.

I would be happy to debate on wording changes but I believe the thrust of my edits were in the right direction. Enlightened editor (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the above is a good illustration of original research. You are putting together your interpretation of different sources to form a conclusion. Farage is leader of a party with a minimal Commons presence. If that changes significantly after the election then noting his opinion (not a fact based on his opinion) might be relevant. To form any conclusion from primary sources you need a secondary source that makes those conclusions and even then we look to the quality and balance of what the sources say. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand this, however Farage is now a significant politician in his own right and leader of the third most popular party of the UK. His influence does not need to be confirmed by electoral gains for it to exist. I won't cite the sources for this in detail as they are so widely available, such as the book "Revolt on the Right". I suppose I wasn't very clear in my original post but I was primarily trying to point out the double standards in the application of the original research policy in this article. It is accepted that several politicians support Hope not Hate on very flimsy referencing. Yet, you will not accept much better sourcing for figures on the right. I am happy to go through lots of different wording possibilities. However, at the very least the introduction should be changed to note that Hope not Hate has political supporters as well as detractors, whether or not further claims are made about the grouping of these supporters and detractors. Enlightened editor (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Propose a wording based on reliable third party sources and not your interpretation of primary sources and I am sure we can look at it ----Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope not Hate and trade-union funding

Why would someone want to deliberately repeat the nonsense that Hope Not Hate are mainly funded by individual supporters?! They are not! They are mainly funded by the big trade unions! [6][7] -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)