Talk:Hope not Hate

No longer "anti-fascist", but instead "hard left"?

This user so "updated" a mention of Hope not Hate. This surprised me, and I reverted the edit until it could be discussed on the relevant talk page. (HNH is currently not mentioned there, or indeed in either of the two talk archive pages.) Hope I did the right thing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hoary: you did. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert Faurisson

Nothing on Robert Faurisson ? I just read on french Wikipedia that he died the day after a lecture he made in Shepperton on October 20th 2018, which was interrupted by members of "HNH".--Abolibibelot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Got a reliable source showing this is relevant to this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Funding

I made an edit on Hope Not Hate's Wikipedia page, wherein I wrote that in 2015, they had received a grant to the tune of $166,000 by the Open Society Foundation, and included a reference[1]. Why was my edit removed? There is nothing "POV" about what I just included - I wrote a statement of fact that was relevant and not untruthful. Please explain.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/open-society-initiative-for-europe-2015-20170424.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E5F:8200:D012:2871:495D:BDE0 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I reverted a stretch of five edits made by IP accounts, and my edit summary applied more to this kind of thing, which I think is pretty clearly unacceptable. Your edit, rather than particularly pushing a point of view, I don't think establishes due weight: the OSF document you linked is a primary source. Secondary source coverage in books or newspapers would establish that this fact is of particular value to include in an encyclopedia, and I think that'd be a better starting point for a discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, though I must say, with respect to your point about "due weight", there are many sources that draw attention to HNH's funding from the Open Society, however, they are rather populist in tone, and noticeably biased towards the right, to the extent that I am not sure if they would pass Wikipedia's credibility litmus test; Breitbart.com, Tommy Robinson's videos, and then there is this article from Leave.EU https://leave.eu/the-soros-web/

In particular, I believe this information is of value to the public, because I think Hope Not Hate are commonly viewed as a grassroots organisation, with no special funding from special interest groups. In any case, Hope Not Hate do not contain any reference on their website to this former patron of theirs. This fact however, counters that assumption. In any case, there appears to be very little curiosity and interesting regarding their funding from most mainstream papers. People seem reluctant to make a connection between this group and their donors, which I am not suggesting is a bad thing that only happens with left-wing NGOs.

Now I want to make clear that I am not alleging that they are ALWAYS on Soros' bankroll, when as far as I can see, 2015 appears to be the only year they received such a donation, and my intention is not to portray the entire group as cynical money-loving opportunists. But insofar as information is needed, this is reasonably important information that ought to be on the public record. I want you to know that while I value and respect your opinion as editor, while I can see you have a lot of work to do, which is purely voluntary and unpaid, and while I shall definitely not contest your edit a third time should you decide once again that it does not meet Wikipedia's Editorial standards, I spent quite a lot of time researching and looking before I stumbled upon this document and I believe that it should be in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E5F:8200:D012:2871:495D:BDE0 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Breitbart, Tommy Robinson and Leave.EU aren't reliable sources. WP:RS describes the standards expected for sources, and we follow what reliable sources write about subjects. You may think that it's of value to the public, but that doesn't mean it's something to include in an encyclopedia entry. Ralbegen (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

> You may think that it's of value to the public, but that doesn't mean it's something to include in an encyclopedia entry. It is certainly in the public interest if they're misrepresenting themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:D21:4080:40D7:7673:3F59:515F (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

How can Hopenothate be described as 'non-partisan'

In its own words

"Over the last fifteen years HOPE not hate has beaten the BNP, beaten the Brexit Party, thwarted the murderous plans of violent nazi gangs and exposed the far-right across the world."

by any definition of partisan, being politically engaged in defeating political parties must cause us to define the organisation as partisan. Similarly, it has a definite political/cultural agenda ; again this falls under the definition of being partisan.

I can't source anything on this because no one has had the occasion to point this out. It is very difficult to find anything descriptive of the organisation that doesn't lean on its own self-published definitions. This is a problem with this page that cannot be resolved unless a 'credible source' decides to point this out. This overreliance on sources and articles that refer to hopenothate uncritically is a serious issue I think exists with this page. CantingCrew (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)